- Students in some classes had markedly different access to knowledge and learning experiences from students in other classes
- The lower the track, the greater the limits of the education the students received
- High track English classes were more likely to emphasize critical thinking, independent work, active participation, self-direction, and creativity than were other teachers
- Low track English classrooms were more likely to emphasize student conformity: getting along with each other, working quietly, improving study habits, being punctual, and conforming to rules and expectations
- At the junior high level, math teachers did not systematically differ in their behavioral expectations of students, but lower track classes did emphasize conformity and passive compliance more
- At the senior high level, teacher expectation varied similarly to the findings of the high and low track English classes
- High track students express that they learned more comprehensive and educational lessons in their classrooms
- Lower track students expressed that they learned more about life skills, following rules and displaying good manners in their classrooms
- Senior high school tracking shapes the number and type of academic courses students take. Low track students are seldom required to take as many math and science classes as high track students, and they rarely do.
- Students in lower track classes typically get less than those in higher tracks and gifted programs. Lower track math and science courses offered less demanding topics and skills, while higher track classes included more complex material and more thinking/problem-solving tasks
- Teach quality differed among tracks; lower track teachers often had less experience and training for the classes they taught
- Minority and low-income students found themselves either in schools with less challenging high level classes or in schools where they did not have access to high track classes
- 2005 Update:
- The detracking movement itself has made tracking more equitable over the past two decades
- Continued research has shown that tracking continues to bring with it very different expectations for achievement, access to subject matter and critical learning opportunities, instructional strategies, and resources (including teachers)
- These disparate expectations, access, and resources have a predictable effect on student learning: low-track students fall further behind
- Similarly, there is a broad agreement that the differences among various tracks are typically not reasonable accommodations to student differences
- African Americans and Latinos bear a disproportionate burden of disadvantage because of their overrepresentation in lower classes
- The mechanisms for placing students into tracking include subjective assessments of ability, parental influence, irrelevant or narrow evaluations, counseling and advice, etc.
- Senior high school tracking shapes the number and type of academic classes students take
- In every aspect of what makes for a quality education, kids in lower-track classes typically get less than those in higher tracks and gifted programs
- Race in itself does indeed influence tracking placements: Latinos and African Americans being more likely than Whites and Asian students to be placed in low-track classrooms, signifying evidence of racial bias in tracking
- Despite its many changes, tracking maintains the deep structures of inequality that characterized it in the past.