This meta-analysis examines the effects of sorting secondary students into different tracks (“between-school” tracking) or classrooms (“within-school” tracking) on the efficiency and inequality levels of an educational system. Efficiency is related to the overall learning achievement of students, whereas inequality can refer to “inequality of achievement” (i.e., the dispersion of outcomes) or “inequality of opportunity” (i.e., the strength of the influence of family background on student achievement). The selected publications are 53 analyses performed in the period from 2000 to 2021, yielding 213 estimates on efficiency and 230 estimates on inequality. The results show that the mean effect size (Hedge’s G) of tracking on efficiency is not statistically significant (G = −.063), whereas it is significantly positive (G = .117) on inequality. We further set out to explain variation in effect sizes by (a) policy characteristics, (b) the operationalization of main variables, (c) the research design, (d) the set of control variables included in the statistical analyses, and (e) the quality of the study, year of publication, and publication status (peer reviewed or not peer reviewed).
AyalonH. (2006). Nonhierarchical curriculum differentiation and inequality in achievement: A different story or more of the same?Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1186–1213. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00690.x
5.
AyalonH.GamoranA. (2000). Stratification in academic secondary programs and educational inequality in Israel and the United States. Comparative Education Review44(1), 54–80. doi:10.1086/447591
6.
BanerjeeN. (2017). Student–teacher ethno-racial matching and reading ability group placement in early grades. Education and Urban Society, 51(3), 395–422. doi:10.1177/0013124517721948
7.
BargK. (2013). The influence of students’ social background and parental involvement on teachers’ school track choices: Reasons and consequences. European Sociological Review, 29(3), 565–579. doi:10.1093/esr/jcr104
8.
BauerP. C.RiphahnR. T. (2013). Institutional determinants of intergenerational education transmission — Comparing alternative mechanisms for natives and immigrants. Labour Economics, 25, 110–122. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2013.04.005
9.
BeattieI. R. (2014). Tracking women’s transitions to adulthood: Race, curricular tracking, and young adult outcomes. Youth and Society. First published March 20, 2014. doi:10.1177/0044118X14527467
10.
BernardiF.ChakhaiaL.LeopoldL. (2017). ‘Sing me a song with social significance’: The (mis)use of statistical significance testing in European sociological research. European Sociological Review, 33(1), 1–15. doi:10.1093/esr/jcw047
11.
BettsJ. R. (2001). The economics of tracking in education. In HanushekE. A.MachinS.WoessmannL. (Eds.), Handbook of the economics of education, vol. 3 (pp. 341–381), North-Holland.
12.
BettsJ. R.GroggerJ. (2003). The impact of grading standards on student achievement, educational attainment, and entry-level earnings. Economics of Education Review, 22(4), 343–352. 10.1016/S0272-7757(02)00059-6
13.
BettsJ. R.ShkolnikJ. L. (2000). The effects of ability grouping on student achievement and resource allocation in secondary schools. Econ. Educ. Rev. 19(1), 1–15. 10.1016/S0272-7757(98)00044-2
14.
BlossfeldH. P.BucholzS.SkopekJ.TriventiM. (2016). Models of secondary education and social inequality: An international comparison. Edward Elgar Publishing. 10.4337/9781785367267
15.
BolT.Van de WerfhorstH. (2013). The measurement of tracking, vocational orientation, and standardization of educational systems. Comparative Education Review, 57(2), 285–308.
16.
BolT.WitschgeJ.Van de WerfhorstH. G.DronkersJ. (2014). Curricular tracking and central examinations: Counterbalancing the impact of social background on student achievement in 36 countries. Social Forces92(4), 1545–1573. 10.1093/sf/sou003
17.
BonesronningH.FalchT.StromB. (2005). Teacher sorting, teacher quality, and student composition. European Economic Review, 49(2), 457–483. 10.1016/S0014-2921(03)00052-7
18.
BorensteinM.HedgesL. V.HigginsJ. P. T.RothsteinH. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 10.1002/9780470743386
19.
BourdieuP.PasseronJ. C. (1970). La reproduction. Éditions de Minuit.
20.
BrantlingerA. (2013). Between politics and equations: Teaching critical mathematics in a remedial secondary classroom. American Educational Research Journal, 50(5), 1050–1080. Doi:10.3102/0002831213487195
21.
BreenR.GoldthorpeJ. H. (1997). Explaining educational differentials: Towards a formal rational action theory. Rationality and Society, 9(3), 275–305. 10.1177/104346397009003002
22.
BreenR.JohnsonJ. O. (2005). Inequality of opportunity in comparative perspective: Recent research on educational attainment and social mobility. Annual Review of Sociology, 31(1), 223–243. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.31.041304.122232
23.
BrunelloG.ChecchiD. (2007). Does school tracking affect equality of opportunity? New international evidence. Economic Policy, 22(52), 781–861. 10.1111/j.14680327.2007.00189.x
24.
BurgerK. (2016). Intergenerational transmission of education in Europe: Do more comprehensive education systems reduce social gradients in student achievement?Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 44, 54–67. 10.1016/j.rssm.2016.02.002
25.
BurksL. C. (1994). Ability group level and achievement. School Community Journal, 4(1), 11–24.
26.
CliffordP.HeathA. (1984). Selection does make a difference. Oxford Review of Education, 10(1), 85–97. 10.1080/0305498840100108
27.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
28.
CohnL. D. (1991). Sex differences in the course of personality development: A meta-analysis. Psychological bulletin, 109(2), 252–266. 10.1037/0033-2909.109.2.252
29.
ConnK. M. (2017). Identifying effective education interventions in Sub-Saharan Africa: A meta-analysis of impact evaluations. Review of Educational Research, 87(5), 863–898. 10.3102/0034654317712025
30.
ContiniD.ScagniA. (2011). Inequality of opportunity in secondary school enrolment in Italy, Germany and the Netherlands. Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, 45(2), 441–464. 10.1007/s11135-009-9307-y
31.
CookR. R. (1924). A study of the results of homogeneous grouping of abilities in high-school classes. In WhippleG. M. (Ed.), The education of gifted children (pp. 302–12). Public School Publishing.
32.
CooperH.NyeB.CharltonK.LindsayJ. (1996). The effects of summer vacation on achievement test scores: A narrative and meta-analytic review. Review of Educational Research, 66(3), 227–268. 10.2307/1170523
33.
DämmrichJ.TriventiM. (2018). The dynamics of social inequalities in cognitive-related competencies along the early life course – A comparative study. International Journal of Educational Research, 88, 73–84. doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2018.01.006
34.
DeciE. LKoestnerR.RyanR. M. (2001). Extrinsic rewards and intrinsic motivation in education: Reconsidered once again. Review of Educational Research, 71(1), 1–27. 10.3102/00346543071001001
35.
DronkersJ.Van der VeldenR.DunneA. (2012). Why are migrant students better off in certain types of educational systems or schools than in others?European Educational Research Journal, 11(1), 11–44. 10.2304/eerj.2012.11.1.11
36.
DufloE.DupasP.KremerM. (2011). Peer effects, teacher incentives, and the impact of tracking: Evidence from a randomized evaluation in Kenya. American Economic Review, 101(5), 1739–1774. 0.1257/aer.101.5.1739
37.
DunneA. (2010). Dividing lines: Examining the relative importance of between- and within-school differentiation during lower secondary education (Doctoral dissertation). European University Institute. https://cadmus.eui.eu/handle/1814/14497
38.
DupriezV.DumayX.VauseA.How do school systems manage pupils heterogeneity?Comparative Education Review52(2), 245–273. 10.1086/528764
39.
DustmannC. (2004). Parental background, secondary school track choice, and wages. Oxford Economic Papers, 56(2), 209–230. 10.1093/oep/gpf048
40.
EsserH. (2016). The model of ability tracking–Theoretical expectations and empirical findings on how educational systems impact on educational success and inequality. In BlossfeldH.-PBuchholzS.SkopekJ.TriventiM. (eds), Models of Secondary Education and Social Inequality: An International Comparison (pp. 25-42). Edward Elgar Publishing.
41.
FelouzisG.CharmillotS. (2013). School tracking and educational inequality: A comparison of 12 education systems in Switzerland. Comparative Education, 49(2), 181–205. 10.1080/03050068.2012.706032
42.
Galindo-RuedaF.VignolesA. F. (2005). The heterogeneous effect of selection in secondary schools: Understanding the changing role of ability (IZA Discussion Paper No. 1245). Ideas. https://ideas.repec.org/p/cep/ceedps/0052.html
43.
GambettaD. (1987). Studies in rationality and social change. Were they pushed or did they jump? Individual decision mechanisms in education. Cambridge University Press.
44.
GamoranA.BerendsM.The effects of stratification in secondary schools: Synthesis of survey and ethnographic. Research Review of Educational Research, 57(4), 415–435. 10.3102/00346543057004415
45.
GamoranA.MareR. D. (1989). Secondary school tracking and educational inequality: Compensation, reinforcement, or neutrality?American Journal of Sociology94(5), 1146–1183. 10.1086/229114
46.
GuyonN.MaurinE.McnallyS. (2012). The effect of tracking students by ability into different schools a natural experiment. StatLine. http://statline.cbs.nl/Statweb/publication
47.
HakT.Van RheeH. J.SuurmondR. (2016). How to interpret results of meta-analysis (Version 1.0). Erasmus Rotterdam Institute of Management. 10.2139/ssrn.3241367
48.
HallinanM. T. (1994). School differences in tracking effects on achievement. Social Forces, 72(3), 799–820. 10.1093/sf/72.3.799
49.
HattieJ. A. C. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge.
50.
HanushekE. A.WoessmannL. (2006). Does educational tracking affect performance and inequality? Differences-in-differences evidence across countries. Economic Journal, 116(510), C63–C76. 10.1111/j.1468-0297.2006.01076.x
51.
HofferT. B. (1992). Middle school ability grouping and student achievement in science and mathematics. Educational Evaluation Policy Analysis, 14(3), 205–227. 10.3102/01623737014003205
52.
HornD. (2013). Diverging performances: the detrimental effects of early educational selection on equality of opportunity in Hungary. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 32, 25–43. 10.1016/j.rssm.2013.01.002
53.
JacksonM. (2013). Determined to succeed? Performance versus choice in educational attainment. Stanford University Press. 10.1515/9780804784481
54.
JakubowskiM. (2010). Institutional tracking and achievement growth: Exploring difference-in-differences approach to PIRLS, TIMSS, and PISA data. In DronkersJ. (Ed.), Quality and Inequality of Education (pp. 41–81). Springer Science. 10.1007/978-90-481-3993-4
55.
KeliherA. V. (1931). A critical study of homogeneous grouping, with a critique of measurement as the basis for measurement. Teachers College Press.
56.
KendlerK. S.TurkheimerE.OhlssonH.SundquistJ.SundquistK. (2015). Family environment and the malleability of cognitive ability: A Swedish national home-reared and adopted-away co-sibling control study. PNAS, 112(15), 4612–4614. 10.1073/pnas.1417106112
57.
KerrS. P.PekkarinenT.UusitaloR. (2013). School tracking and development of cognitive skills. Journal of Labour Economics, 31(3), 577–602. 10.1086/669493
58.
KoerselmanK. (2013). Incentives from curriculum tracking. Economics of Education Review32(1), 140–150. 10.1016/j.econedurev.2012.08.003
59.
KorthalsR.SchilsT.BorghansL. (2021). Track placement and the development of cognitive and non-cognitive skills. Education Economics, 1–20. doi: 10.1080/09645292.2021.2010277
60.
KulikC.-L. C.KulikJ. A. (1982). Effects of ability grouping on secondary school students: A meta-analysis of evaluation findings. American Educational Research Journal, 19(3), 415–428. 10.3102/00028312019003415
61.
LareauA. (1987). Social class differences in family-school relationships: The importance of cultural capital. Sociology of Education, 60(2), 73–85. 10.2307/2112583
62.
LassibileG.GómezL. N. (2010). Organization and efficiency of education systems: Some empirical findings. Comparative Education, 36(1), 7–19. 10.1080/03050060027737
63.
Le DonnéN. (2014). European variations in socioeconomic inequalities in students’ cognitive achievement: The role of educational policies. European Sociological Review, 30(3), 1–15. 10.1093/esr/jcu040
64.
LipseyM. W.WilsonD. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Sage Publications, Inc.
65.
LucasS. R. (1999). Tracking inequality: stratification and mobility in American high schools. Teachers College Press.
66.
LucasS. R. (2001) Effectively maintained inequality: Education transitions, track mobility, and social background effects. American Journal of Sociology106(6), 1642–90. 10.1086/321300
67.
ManningA.PischkeJ.S. (2006). Comprehensive versus selective schooling in England in Wales: What do we know? (IZA Discussion Paper No. 2072). 10.3386/w12176
68.
Marín-MartínezF.Sánchez-MecaJ. (2010). Weighting by inverse variance or by sample size in random-effects meta-analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 70(1), 56–73. 10.1177/0013164409344534
69.
MertonR. (1968). The self-fulfilling prophecy. In Social Theory and Social Structure (pp. 473–487). The Free Press.
70.
MickelsonR. A.EverettB. J. (2008). Neotracking in North Carolina: How high school courses of study reproduce race and class-based stratification. Teachers College Record, 110(3), 535–570. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2009-00714-001
71.
OakesJ. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. Yale University Press.
72.
OECD. (2015). Skills for social progress: The power of social and emotional skills. OECD Publishing.
73.
ÖstermanM. (2021). Can we trust education for fostering trust? Quasi-experimental evidence on the effect of education and tracking on social trust. Social Indicators Research, 154(1), 211–233.
74.
PearlJ. (2009). Causality. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511803161
75.
PfefferF. T. (2008). Persistent inequality in educational attainment and its institutional context. European Sociological Review, 24(5), 543–565. 10.1093/esr/jcn026
76.
PillemerD. B. (1991). One-versus two-tailed hypothesis tests in contemporary educational research. Educational Researcher, 20(9), 13–17.
77.
Pop-ElechesC.UrquiolaM. (2013). Going to a better school: Effects and behavioral responses. American Economic Review, 103(4): 1289–1324. doi:10.1257/aer.103.4.1289
78.
PiopiunikM. (2014). The effects of early tracking on student performance: Evidence from a school reform in Bavaria. Economics of Education Review, 42, 12–33. 10.1016/j.econedurev.2014.06.002
79.
RoemerJ. (1998). Equality of opportunity. Harvard University Press.
80.
RoloffJ.KlusmannU.LüdtkeO.TrautweinU. (2020) The predictive validity of teachers’ personality, cognitive and academic abilities at the end of high school on instructional quality in Germany: A longitudinal study. AERA Open, 6(1), 1–17. 10.1177/2332858419897884
81.
RosenthalR. (1979). The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86(3), 638–641. 10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638
82.
RosenthalR.JacobsonL. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom. The Urban Review, 3(1), 16–20. 10.1007/BF02322211
83.
RuhoseJ.SchwerdtG. (2016). Does early educational tracking increase migrant-native achievement gaps? Differences-in-differences evidence across countries. Economics of Education Review, 52, 134–154. 10.1016/j.econedurev.2016.02.004
84.
SalkindN. J. (2010). Encyclopedia of research design (vols. 1-0). SAGE Publications, Inc. 10.4135/9781412961288
85.
SampermansD.ClaesE.JanmaatJ. G. (2021). Back on track? How civic learning opportunities widen the political knowledge gap in a tracked education system. School Effectiveness and School Improvement An International Journal of Research, Policy and Practice, 32(2), 241–259. 10.1080/09243453.2020.1830125
86.
SchlichtR.Stadelmann-SteffenI.FreitagM. (2010). Educational inequality in the EU: The effectiveness of the national education policy. European Union Politics, 11(1), 29–59. 10.1177/1465116509346387
87.
SchützG.UrsprungH.WoessmannL. (2008). Education policy and equality of opportunity. Kyklos, 61(2), 279–308. 10.1111/j.1467-6435.2008.00402.x
88.
ShavitY.MüllerW. (1998). From school to work: A comparative study of educational qualifications and occupational destinations. Oxford: University Press.
89.
SiddawayA.WoodA.HedgesL. (2019). How to do a systematic review: A best practice guide for conducting and reporting narrative reviews, meta-analyses, and meta-syntheses. Annual Review of Psychology, 70, 747–770. 10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-102803;70:747–770. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-102803
90.
SkopekJ.TriventiM.BuchholzS. (2019). How do educational systems affect social inequality of educational opportunities? The role of tracking in comparative perspective. In BeckerR. (Ed.), Research Handbook on the Sociology of Education (pp. 214–232). Edward Elgar Publishing. 10.4337/9781788110426.00022
91.
SlavinR. E. (1990) Achievement effects of ability grouping in secondary schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 60(3), 471–499. 10.3102/00346543060003471
92.
SnijderT.BoskerR. (1999). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. SAGE Publications.
93.
SterbinskyA.StevenM.RossS. M.RedfieldD. (2006). Effects of comprehensive school reform on student achievement and school change: A longitudinal multi-site study. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17(3), 367–397. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/09243450600797661
94.
TriventiM.SkopekJKulicN.BuchholzS.BlossfeldH. P. (2020). Advantage ‘finds its way’: How privileged families exploit opportunities in different systems of secondary education. Sociology, 54(2), 237–257. 10.1177/0038038519874984
95.
VandenbergeV. (2006). Achievement effectiveness and equity: the role of tracking, grade repetition and inter-school segregation. Applied Economics Letters,13(11), 685–693. 10.1080/13504850500404944
96.
Van de WerfhorstH. G. (2019). Early tracking and social inequality in educational attainment: Educational reforms in 21 European countries. American Journal of Education126(1), 65–99. 10.1086/705500
97.
Van de WerfhorstH. G.MijsJ. J. B. (2010). Achievement inequality and the institutional structure of educational systems: A comparative perspective. Annual Review of Sociology, 36(1), 407–428. 10.1146/annurev.soc.012809.102538
98.
Van HoutteM.DemanetJ.StevensP. A. J. (2013). Curriculum tracking and teacher evaluations of individual students: selection, adjustment or labeling?. Soc Psychol Educ16, 329–352. 10.1007/s11218-013-9216-8
99.
ViechtbauerW. (2010). Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. Journal of Statistical Software, 36(3), 1–48. doi:10.18637/jss.v036.i03
100.
WaldingerF. (2007). Does ability tracking exacerbate the role of family background for students’ test scores?London School of Economics.
101.
WhippleG. M. (1936). The Grouping of Pupils (35, pt. 1). Public School Publishing, National Society for the Study of Education Yearbook.
102.
WitschgeJ.van de WerfhorstH. G. (2020). Curricular tracking and civic and political engagement: Comparing adolescents and young adults across education systems. Acta Sociologica, 63(3), 284–302.
WoessmannL. (2016). The importance of school systems: Evidence from international differences in student achievement. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 30(3), 3–32. 10.1257/jep.30.3.3
105.
ZimmerR. (2003). A new twist in the educational tracking debate. Economics of Education Review, 22(3), 307–315. 10.1016/S0272-7757(02)00055-9
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
