In this analysis, the authors explore the relationship between the social context of high schools and school-to-school variation in tracking policies. The authors consider three explanations for the implementation of highly elaborated tracking systems: opportunity hoarding, status competition, and a technical-functional explanation. Building on the research methodology developed by Kelly, they conducted a content analysis of curriculum guides in a sample of 128 high schools to identify school tracking policies. They find that compositional variables related to technical-functional concerns, and to a lesser extent, status competition, are associated with highly elaborated school tracking policies.
AlexanderK. L.CookM. A. (1982). Curricula and coursework: A surprise ending to a familiar story. American Sociological Review, 47, 626–640.
2.
AttewellP. (2001). The winner-take-all high school: Organizational adaptations to educational stratification. Sociology of Education, 74, 267–295.
3.
BakerD. P.StevensonD. L. (1986). Mother’s strategies for children’s school achievement: Managing the transition to high school. Sociology of Education, 59, 156–166.
4.
BoudonR. (1974). Education, opportunity and social inequality. New York, NY: Wiley.
5.
BroadedC. M. (1997). The limits and possibilities of tracking: Some evidence from Taiwan. Sociology of Education, 70, 36–53.
6.
ClotfelterC. (2004). After Brown: The rise and retreat of school desegregation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
7.
CollinsR. (1979). The credential society. New York, NY: Academic Press.
8.
DavisK.MooreW. (1945). Some principles of stratification. American Sociological Review, 10, 242–249.
9.
DeVellisR. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
10.
EhrenreichB. (1989). Fear of falling: The inner life of the middle class. New York, NY: Pantheon Books.
11.
FarkasG.WilkinsonL.SchillerK.FrankK. (2005, April). Teacher grading practices within school social contexts: Do they disadvantage lower SES and ethnic minority students. A presentation at the Examining Educational Inequalities Conference of the Center for Research on Educational Opportunity.
12.
GamoranA. (1987). The stratification of high school learning opportunities. Sociology of Education, 60, 135–155.
13.
GamoranA. (1992). The variable effects of high school tracking. American Sociological Review, 57, 812–828.
14.
GamoranA. (2004). Classroom organization and instructional quality. In WalbergH. J.ReynoldsA. J.WangM. C. (Eds.), Can unlike students learn together? Grade retention, tracking, and grouping (pp. 141–156). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
15.
GamoranA.MareR. D. (1989). Secondary school tracking and educational equality: Compensation, reinforcement, or neutrality. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 1146–1183.
16.
GaretM. S.DeLanyB. (1988). Students, courses, and stratification. Sociology of Education, 61, 61–77.
17.
GrahamP. A. (2005). Schooling America: How the public schools meet the nation’s changing needs. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
18.
JarvisC. B.MackenzieS. B.PodsakoffP. M. (2003). A critical review of construct indicators and measurement model misspecification in marketing and consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 199–217.
19.
KellyS. (2004a). Are teachers tracked? On what basis and with what consequences?Social Psychology of Education, 7, 55–72.
20.
KellyS. (2004b). Do increased levels of parental involvement account for the social class difference in track placement?Social Science Research, 33, 626–659.
21.
KellyS. (2007). The contours of tracking in North Carolina. High School Journal, 90, 15–31.
22.
KellyS. (2009). The Black-White gap in mathematics course taking. Sociology of Education, 82, 47–69.
23.
LabareeD. F. (1988). The making of an American high school. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
24.
LeTendreG.HoferB.ShimizuH. (2003). What is tracking? Cultural expectations in the United States, Germany, and Japan. American Educational Research Journal, 40, 43–89.
25.
LovelessT. (1999). The tracking wars: State reform meets school policy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute.
26.
LucasS. R. (1999). Tracking inequality: Stratification and mobility in American schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
27.
LucasS. R.BerendsM. (2002). Sociodemographic diversity, correlated achievement, and de facto tracking. Sociology of Education, 75, 328–348.
28.
MickelsonR. A. (2001). Subverting-Swann: First- and second-generation segregation in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg schools. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 215–52.
29.
National Center on Education Statistics. (2009). Characteristics of public, private, and Bureau of Indian Education elementary and secondary schools in the United States: Results from the 2007–08 SASS. First look (NCES 2009-321). Washington, DC: Author.
NystrandM.GamoranA. (1997). The big picture: Language and learning in hundreds of English lessons. In NystrandM. (Ed.), Opening dialogue (pp. 30–74). New York, NY: Teachers’ College Press.
32.
OakesJ. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
33.
OakesJ. (1992). Can tracking research inform practice? Technical, normative, and political considerations. Educational Researcher, 21, 12–21.
34.
OrfieldG.EatonS. E.Harvard Project on School Desegregation. (1996). Dismantling desegregation: The quiet reversal of Brown v. Board of Education. New York, NY: New Press.
35.
ReskinB. F. (2003). Including mechanisms in our models of ascriptive inequality. American Sociological Review, 68, 1–21.
36.
RosenbaumJ. E. (1976). Making inequality. New York, NY: Wiley.
37.
RosenbaumJ. E. (1999). If tracking is bad, is detracking better?American Educator, 23(4), 24–29, 47.
38.
SorensenA. B. (1970). Organizational differentiation of student and educational opportunity. Sociology of Education, 43, 355–376.
39.
SpadeJ. Z.ColumbaL.VanfossenB. E. (1997). Tracking in mathematics and science: Courses and course-selection procedures. Sociology of Education, 70, 108–127.
40.
StevensonD. L.SchillerK. S.SchneiderB. (1994). Sequences of opportunities for learning. Sociology of Education, 67, 184–198.
41.
TillyC. (1999). Durable inequality. Berkeley: University of California Press.
42.
UseemE. L. (1991). Student selection into course sequences in mathematics: The impact of parental involvement and school policies. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 1, 231–250.
43.
Van HoutteM. (2004). Tracking effects on school achievement: A quantitative explanation in terms of the academic culture of school staff. American Journal of Education, 110, 354–388.
44.
WeisbergH. F. (1992). Central tendency and variability. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
45.
WellsA. S.OakesJ. (1996). Potential pitfalls of systemic reform: Early lessons from detracking research. Sociology of Education, 69, 135–143.
