From a working paper:
Schools often track students to classes based on ability. Proponents of tracking argue it is a low-cost tool to improve learning since instruction is more effective when students are more homogeneous, while opponents argue it exacerbates initial differences in opportunities without strong evidence of efficacy. In fact, little is known about the pervasiveness or determinants of ability tracking in the US. To fill this gap, we use detailed administrative data from Texas to estimate the extent of tracking within schools for grades 4 through 8 over the years 2011-2019. We find substantial tracking; tracking within schools overwhelms any sorting by ability that takes place across schools. The most important determinant of tracking is heterogeneity in student ability, and schools operationalize tracking through the classification of students into categories such as gifted and disabled and curricular differentiation. When we examine how tracking changes in response to educational policies, we see that schools decrease tracking in response to accountability pressures. Finally, when we explore how exposure to tracking correlates with student mobility in the achievement distribution, we find positive effects on high-achieving students with no negative effects on low-achieving students, suggesting that tracking may increase inequality by raising the ceiling.
So it could help high-achieving students but not hurt low-achieving students. Then what's the problem? That gap, that's the problem. Excellence isn't the standard in education anymore, mediocrity (or worse) is.
2 comments:
For years I've included the initials "ITG" in my email signature line. It stands for "Increase the Gap!"
Remember:
If your academic program is so outstanding that all students double their performance levels, then "the gap" has doubled, too, and that's a bad thing. Better to let them all remain ignorant.
Post a Comment