This article describes neotracking, a new form of tracking in North Carolina that is the outgrowth of the state's reformed curricular standards, the High School Courses of Study Framework (COS). Neotracking combines older versions of rigid, comprehensive tracking with the newer, more flexible within-subject area curricular differentiation to form an overarching, multilevel framework for high school curricula. The Course of Study Framework requires 8th graders to select one of three Courses of Study prior to entering high school: Career Preparation, College/Tech Preparation, or College/University Preparation. Exceptional children are enrolled in Occupations, a fourth COS. The COS reform was instituted, in part, to facilitate reaching North Carolina's twin goals of equity and excellence for all students.
Purpose
The purposes of this article are to investigate if neotracking facilitates or hinders reaching these goals; if there is a relationship between district and school demographics, students’ racial backgrounds and their COS assignments; and if between- and within-school variations in COS placements result in greater or less race and social class stratification in opportunities to learn.
Research Design
Using aggregate data on COS enrollments among Class of 2005 high school seniors in the entire state of North Carolina and the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools (CMS), we evaluate COS enrollment patterns by student, school, and school system characteristics.
Findings
Results indicate that although a majority of students across North Carolina enroll in the College/University Prep COS, the variations in enrollment reflect the race, ethnic, and social class stratification in North Carolina. Students in affluent NC school districts are significantly more likely to enroll in the top COS than those living in less affluent school districts. COS enrollments vary by students’ race and ethnicity, too. Likewise, COS enrollments are related to the racial composition of a high school's student body.
Conclusions
Neotracking tends to reproduce race and social class stratification of opportunities to learn, resulting in the worst of both worlds: the majority of North Carolina's high school graduates may not be prepared either for higher education or for the workplace—one of the very problems that the accountability movement and the NC Course of Study program was intended to address.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Belk. v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education. (1999). 233 F. 3d 232 (W.D.N.C.).
2.
Belk. v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education. (2002). U.S. 122 S.Ct. 1538, 152 L.Ed.2d 465.
3.
BormanGeoffrey D., and Maritza DowlingN.. (2006) “Schools and Inequality: A Multilevel Analysis of Coleman's Equality of Educational Opportunity Data.” Executive Summary. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, April 2006, San Francisco, CA.
4.
BowlesSamuel, and GintisHerbert. (1976). Schooling in capitalist America. New York: Basic Books.
5.
Capacchione et al. v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools. (1999). 57 F. Supp.2d 228 (W.D.N.C.).
6.
Capacchione et al. v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools. (2002), U.S. 122 S. Ct. 1537, 152 L.Ed.2d 465.
7.
CarnoyM., and LevinH. (1985). Schooling and work in the democratic state. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
8.
CenzipurDebbie. (17 December, 2001). “New Standards Hit Minorities Hard.” Charlotte Observer, A1+.
9.
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools. (1992, March 31). Minutes of the school board meeting. Author.
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools. (2005). Diploma plan. CMS/NC Course of Study Graduation Requirements-Class of 2010. Form # 5. November. Author.
13.
CicourelA., and KitsuseJ. (1963). The educational decision makers. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs–Merrill.
14.
ClotfelterC. T. (2004). After Brown. The rise and retreat of school desegregation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
15.
DarityW., CastellinoD., and TysonK. (2001). Increasing opportunity to learn via access to rigorous courses and programs: One strategy for closing the achievement gap for at-risk and ethnic minority students. Report submitted to the Evaluation Section, NCDPI. Raleigh, NC: NCDPI.
16.
GamoranA., and MareR. (1989). Secondary school tracking and educational equity: Compensation, reinforcement, or neutrality. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 1146—1183.
17.
HelmsA. D. (31 August, 2005). “Pass Rates on AP Exams Raise Questions for CMS.” Charlotte Observer, 4B.
18.
HoachlanderG. (2005). Does vocational education have a role to play in high school reform?Education Week, 24(33), 38.
19.
JonesJ. D., VanfossenB.E., and EnsmingerM.E.. (1995). “Individual and Organizational Predictors of High School Track Placement.” Sociology of Education, 68: 287—300.
20.
KantorH. (1986). Work, education, and vocational reform. The ideological origins of vocational education, 1890-1920. American Journal of Education. Aug: 401—426.
21.
KatznelsonI., and WeirM. (1987). School for all: Class, race, and the decline of the American ideal. Berkeley: University of California Press.
22.
KornhaberM. (1997). Seeking strengths. Equitable identification for gifted education and the theory of multiple intelligences. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Harvard University.
23.
LazersonM., and Norton GrubbW. (Eds). (1974.) American education and vocationalism. A documentary history 1870-1970. New York: Teachers College Press.
24.
Leandro v. State I. 346 N.C. 336, 347, 488 S.E.2d 249. 255 (1997).
25.
Leandro v. State II. 358 N.C. 605 (2004).
26.
LeeV. E., and BrykA. S.1988. “Curriculum tracking as mediating the social distribution of high school achievement.” Sociology of Education, 62, 78—94.
27.
LeeV. E., SmithJ. B., and CroningerR. G. (1997). How high school organization influences the equitable distribution of learning in mathematics and science. Sociology of Education, 70, 128—150.
28.
LucasS. R. (1999). Tracking inequality. New York: Teachers College Press.
29.
LucasS. R., and BerendsM.. (2003). Sociodemographic diversity, correlated achievement, and de facto tracking. Sociology of Education, 75(4), 234—251.
30.
ManningJudge H. (2005). NC: In the General Court of Justice. Superior Court Division 95 CVS 1158. May 24.
31.
MeierK., StewartJ., and EnglandR.E.. (1989). Race, Class, and Education. The Politics of Second-Generation Discimination. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin.
32.
MickelsonR. A. (2001). Subverting Swann: First- and second-generation segregation in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools. American Educational Research Journal, 38(2), 215—252.
33.
MickelsonR. A. (1997). “Creating bridges from school to work.” Advances in Educational Policy, 3, 135—157.
34.
MickelsonR. A., and RayC.A.. (1994). “Fear of Falling from Grace: The Middle Class, Downward Mobility, and School Desegregation”Research in Sociology of Education and Socialization, (10): 207—238.
35.
MickelsonR. A., and SmithS. S. (1999). Race, tracking, and achievement among African-Americans in a desegregated school system: Evidence from the Charlotte-Mecklenburg schools. Paper presented at the Stanford University Conference on Race. African Americans: Research and Policy Perspectives at the Turn of the Century.” Stanford University, November 11–13.
36.
MickelsonR. A., and SouthworthS. (2005). When opting out is not a choice. Implications for NCLB's transfer option from Charlotte, North Carolina. Excellence and Equity in Education. 38, 249—263.
37.
MickelsonR. A., CousinsL. H., WilliamsB., and VelascoA. E. (2008). Taking math and science to African American parents: Promises and challenges of a community-based intervention for educational change. In YeakeyC.C, and TateW. (Eds), Perspectives on urban education. New York: Teachers College Press.
38.
MickelsonR. A., and VelascoA.E.. (2006). Bring it on! Diverse responses to acting White among academically able Black adolescents. McNamara HorvatE., and O'ConnorC. (Eds.), Beyond acting White: Reassessments and new directions in research on Black students and school success, pp. 3—32. Bolder, CO: Rowman & Littlefield.
39.
MilesM., and HubermanM.. (1994). The analysis of qualitative data. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
40.
National Assessment of Vocational Education (NAVE). (2004). Final report to Congress. Executive summary. Washington, DC: US Department of Education.
41.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. (2002). Pub. L. No.107-110, 115 Stat.1425, 20 U.S.C. §§6301 et seq.
42.
NolandE. W., and BakkeE. (1949). Workers wanted: Study of employers’ hiring policies, preferences, and practices in New Haven and Charlotte. New York: Harper.
North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. (2005b). Executive summary. Assessment team visits to CMS Priority High Schools. October-November. Raleigh, NC: Division of Accountability Services.
45.
North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (NCDPI). (2004a). Evolution of the ABCs. Raleigh, NC: Division of Accountability Services.
OakesJ. (2005). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality (2nd ed). New Haven: Yale University Press.
48.
OakesJ., MuirK., and JosephR.. (2000). Course taking and achievement in math and science: Inequalities that endure.” Paper presented at the National Institute for Science Education Conference, Detroit, MI.
49.
OrfieldG., and PaulF. G. (1993). High hopes, long odds: A major report on Hoosier teens and the American dream in the 1990s. Indianapolis, IN: Indiana Youth Institute, Lily Endowment, Inc.
50.
RayC. A., and MickelsonR. A. (1990). Corporate leaders, resistant youth and school reform in Sunbelt City: The political economy of education. Social Problems, 37(2), 178—190.
51.
ReichR. (1992). Work of Nations. New York: Vintage.
52.
RiehlC., PallasA., and NatrielloG. (1999). Rites and wrongs: Institutional explanations for the student course-scheduling process in urban high schools. American Journal of Education, 107, 116—154.
53.
RosenbaumJ. E. (2001). Beyond college for all. Career paths for the forgotten half. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
54.
RosenbaumJ. E. (1978). The structure of opportunity in school. Social Forces, 57(1), 236—256.
55.
RumbergerR., and PalardyG. (2005). Does segregation still matter? The impact of student composition on academic achievement in high school. Teachers College Record, 107, 1999—2045.
56.
SchneiderB., and StevensonD. L. (1999). The ambitious generation. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
57.
SmithS. S. (2004). Boom for whom? Education, desegregation, and development in Charlotte. Albany: State University of New York Press.
58.
SmolowitzP. (26 January, 2006). CMS board backs new focus. Charlotte Observer, 1B.
59.
SouthworthS., and MickelsonR. A. (2007). The Interactive Effects of Race, Gender and School Composition on College Track Placement. Social Forces, 86, 497—524.
60.
Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg. (1971). 402 U.S. 1
61.
TermanL. (1923). Intelligence tests and school reorganization. New York: World Book.
62.
TyackD. (1974). One best system. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
63.
UNC Charlotte Urban Institute and Central Piedmont Community College. (2001). Survey of the Workforce Needs of Charlotte-Mecklenburg Employers. Final Report. January. Author.
64.
UseemE. (1992). Middle schools and math groups: Parents involvement in children's placement. Sociology of Education, 65, 263—279.
65.
WaitsT. L. (1999). Selectivity, inclusivity, and mobility: Three characteristics of tracking and their effects on students in eleven Charlotte-Mecklenburg schools. Unpublished thesis, Department of Sociology, University of North Carolina at Charlotte.
66.
Wells, Amy and Robert Crain. 1994. “Perpetuation Theory and the Long-Term Effects of School Desegregation.” Review of Educational Research, 64: 531—536.
67.
WelnerK. G. (2001). Legal rights, local wrongs. Albany: SUNY Press.
68.
WheelockA. (1992). Crossing the tracks: How “untracking” can save America's schools. New York: The New Press.
69.
YonezawaS. (1997). Making decisions about students’ lives: An interactive study of secondary school students’ academic program selection. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.
