Academic tracking is a common feature of school organization, but it produces inequalities in student outcomes. High-stakes testing policies offer new opportunities for assessing students’ progress, but the instruments raise concerns about relying on such narrow measures of learning. This study utilizes a longitudinal data set that follows one cohort of North Carolina school students from public high school through the state university system to examine the difference in outcomes associated with academic track. Results show that upper track students do better in college even when controlling for achievement on high-stakes tests and that such tests are a stronger predictor of college success for upper track students than they are for lower track students. Interviews suggest that these differences can be attributed to different methods of instruction in each track.
AmreinA.BerlinerD. (2002). High-stakes testing, and student learning. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(18). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/297
2.
AuW. (2013). Hiding behind high-stakes testing: Meritocracy, objectivity and inequality in U.S. education. International Education Journal: Comparative Perspectives, 12(2), 7-20.
3.
BerlinerD. (2011). Rational responses to high stakes testing: The case of curriculum narrowing and the harm that follows. Cambridge Journal of Education, 41, 287-302. doi:10.1080/0305764X.2011.607151
4.
BiddleB. (2014). Social class, poverty and education. New York, NY: Routledge.
5.
BlanchettW. J. (2006). Disproportionate representation of African American students in special education: Acknowledging the role of white privilege and racism. Educational Researcher, 35(6), 24-28.
6.
BraunH.ChapmanH.VezzuS. (2010). The Black-White achievement gap revisited. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 18(21). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/772
7.
CampbellD. T. (1979). Assessing the impact of planned social change. Evaluation and Program Planning, 2, 67-90. doi:10.1016/0149-7189(79)90048-X
8.
ChiuD.BeruY.WatelyE.WubuS.SimsonE.KessingerR.. . . WidfieldA. (2008). Seventh-grade students’ self-beliefs and social comparisons. Journal of Educational Research, 102, 125-135.
FiglioD. N.GetzlerL. S. (2006). Accountability, ability and disability: Gaming the system?Advances in Applied Microeconomics, 14, 35-49.
13.
GamoranA.BerendsM. (1987). The effects of stratification in secondary schools: Synthesis of survey and ethno-graphic research. Review of Educational Research, 57, 415-443.
14.
GentryM. (2016). Commentary on “Does sorting students improve scores? An analysis of class composition.”Journal of Advanced Academics, 27, 124-130.
15.
GierschJ.BottiaM. C.MickelsonR. A.StearnsE. (2016). Exposure to school and classroom racial segregation in Charlotte-Mecklenburg high schools and students’ college achievement. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 24(32). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/2123/1755
16.
GilbertA.YerrickR. (2001). Same school, separate worlds: A sociocultural study of identity, resistance, and negotiation in a rural, lower track science classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 574-598.
HallinanM. T. (1994). Tracking: From theory to practice. Sociology of Education, 67, 79-84.
19.
HallinanM. T. (2003). Ability grouping and student learning. Brookings Papers on Education Policy, 6, 95-124.
20.
HaneyW. (2000). The myth of the Texas miracle in education. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(41), 1-323. Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/432
21.
HanushekE. A.RaymondM. E. (2004). Does school accountability lead to improved student performance? (No. w10591). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
22.
HarrisD. M. (2011). Curriculum differentiation and comprehensive school reform: Challenges in providing educational opportunity. Educational Policy, 25, 844-884.
23.
HarrisD. M.AndersonC. R. (2012). Equity, mathematics reform and policy: The dilemma of “opportunity to learn.” In Herbel-EisenmannB.ChoppinJ.WagnerD.PimmD. (Eds.), Equity in discourse for mathematics education (Vol. 55, pp. 195-204). Springer Netherlands. Retrieved from http://www.springerlink.com/content/u251512038250260/abstract/
24.
HeiligJ. V.Darling-HammondL. (2008). Accountability Texas-style: The progress and learning of urban minority students in a high-stakes testing context. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30, 75-110.
HeubertJ. P.HauserR. M. (1999). High stakes: Testing for tracking, promotion, and graduation. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
27.
HolmeJ. J.RichardsM. P.JimersonJ. B.CohenR. W. (2010). Assessing the effects of high school exit examinations. Review of Educational Research, 80, 476-526.
JacobB. A. (2005). Accountability, incentives and behavior: The impact of high-stakes testing in the Chicago Public Schools. Journal of Public Economics, 89, 761-796.
30.
JenningsJ.SohnH. (2014). Measure for measure how proficiency-based accountability systems affect inequality in academic achievement. Sociology of Education, 87, 125-141.
31.
JonesM. G.JonesB. D.HargroveT. Y. (2003). The unintended consequences of high-stakes testing. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
32.
KalogridesD.LoebS. (2013). Different teachers, different peers the magnitude of student sorting within schools. Educational Researcher, 42, 304-316.
33.
KellyS. (2007). The contours of tracking in North Carolina. The High School Journal, 90(4), 15-31.
34.
KlugmanJ. (2012). How resource inequalities among high schools reproduce class advantages in college destinations. Research in Higher Education, 53, 803-830. doi:10.1007/s11162-012-9261-8
35.
KornhaberM. L. (1997). Seeking strengths: Equitable identification for gifted education and the theory of multiple intelligences. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Graduate School of Education.
36.
LairdN. M.WareJ. H. (1982). Random-effects models for longitudinal data. Biometrics, 38, 963-974.
37.
LauenD. L.GaddisS. M. (2016). Accountability pressure, academic standards, and educational triage. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 38, 127-147.
38.
LeeV. E. (1993). Educational choice: The stratifying effects of selecting schools and courses. Educational Policy, 7, 125-148.
39.
LinnR. L. (2000). Assessments and accountability. Educational Researcher, 29(2), 4-16. doi:10.3102/0013189X029002004
40.
LovelessT. (1999). The tracking wars: State reform meets school policy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
41.
LovelessT. (2009). Tracking and detracking: High achievers in Massachusetts middle schools. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED507543.pdf.
42.
LucasS. R. (1999). Sociology of Education Series. Tracking inequality: Stratification and mobility in American high schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=ED447225
43.
LucasS. R.BerendsM. (2002). Sociodemographic diversity, correlated achievement, and de facto tracking. Sociology of Education, 75, 328-348. doi:10.2307/3090282
44.
MarchantG. J.PaulsonS. E. (2005). The relationship of high school graduation exams to graduation rates and SAT scores. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13(6), 1-17. Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/111
45.
McGrathD. J.KuriloffP. J. (1999). “They’re going to tear the doors off this place”: Upper-middle-class parent school involvement and the educational opportunities of other people’s children. Educational Policy, 13, 603-629.
46.
McNeilL. (2005). Faking equity: High-stakes testing and the education of Latino youth. In ValenzuelaA. (Ed.), Leaving children behind: How “Texas-style” accountability fails Latino youth (pp. 57-111). New York: State University of New York Press.
47.
MickelsonR.GierschJ.StearnsE.MollerS. (2013). How (and why) NCLB failed to close the achievement gap: Evidence from North Carolina, 1998-2004. ECI Interdisciplinary Journal for Legal and Social Policy, 3(1), Article 1.
48.
MollerS.StearnsE. (2012). Tracking success high school curricula and labor market outcomes by race and gender. Urban Education, 47, 1025-1054.
49.
NicholsS. L.BerlinerD. C. (2007). Collateral damage: How high-stakes testing corrupts America’s schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
50.
NorrisF. (2014, April26). Fewer U.S. graduates opt for college after high school. New York Times, p. B3.
51.
OakesJ. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
52.
OakesJ. (2005). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
53.
OakesJ.LiptonM. (1994). Tracking and ability grouping: A structural barrier to access and achievement. In GoodladJ. I.KeatingP. (Eds.), Access to knowledge: The continuing agenda for our nation’s schools (pp.187-204). New York, NY: College Board Publications.
54.
OrrA. J. (2011). Gendered capital: Childhood socialization and the “boy crisis” in education. Sex Roles, 65, 271-284. doi:10.1007/s11199-011-0016-3
55.
PageR. N. (1989). The lower track curriculum at a “heavenly” high school: “Cycles of prejudice.”Journal of Curriculum Studies, 21, 197-221.
PernaL. W.ThomasS. L. (2009). Barriers to college opportunity the unintended consequences of state-mandated testing. Educational Policy, 23, 451-479. doi:10.1177/0895904807312470
RavitchD. (2011). The death and life of the great American school system: How testing and choice are undermining education. New York, NY: Basic Books.
60.
RebackR. (2008). Teaching to the rating: School accountability and the distribution of student achievement. Journal of Public Economics, 92, 1394-1415.
61.
RubinB. C. (2006). Tracking and detracking: Debates, evidence, and best practices for a heterogeneous world. Theory Into Practice, 45, 4-14.
62.
SchmeckR. R. (Ed.). (2013). Learning strategies and learning styles. New York, NY: Springer.
63.
SlavinR. E. (1990). Achievement effects of ability grouping in secondary schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 60, 471-499.
64.
SorensenA. (1970). Organizational differentiation of students and educational opportunity. Sociology of Education, 43, 355-376.
65.
Stata Corp. (2013). Stata multilevel mixed-effects reference manual. College Station, TX: Author.
StearnsE.MickelsonR. A.MollerS.BottiaM. C. (2016). Training tool and codebook ROOTS of STEM: A dataset on students who attended North Carolina public schools, grades 6 through 16. Unpublished document.
68.
StraussA.CorbinJ. M. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
69.
WatanabeM. (2008). Tracking in the era of high stakes state accountability reform: Case studies of classroom instruction in North Carolina. Teachers College Record, 110, 489-534.
70.
WelnerK. G. (2001). Legal rights, local wrongs: When community control collides with educational equity. New York: State University of New York Press.
71.
WerblowJ.UrickA.DuesberyL. (2013). On the wrong track: How tracking is associated with dropping out of high school. Equity & Excellence in Education, 46, 270-284.
