1998 - The Tracking and Ability Grouping Debate

Attribution: Loveless, Tom
Researchers: Tom Loveless
University Affiliation: Stanford University
Email:
Research Question:
What have we actually learned about tracking and ability grouping?
Published: 1
Journal Name or Institutional Affiliation: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation
Journal Entry: N/A
Year: 1998
Findings:
  • Article addresses the debate about tracking and ability grouping. Loveless finds that the indictment against tracking is not supported by research.
  • Research comparing tracking and heterogeneous grouping cannot conclusively declare one method as better than the other.
  • Evidence does not support the charge that tracking is inherently harmful, and there is no clear evidence that abandoning tracking for heterogeneously grouped classes would provide a better education for any student.
  • Three conclusions: 1. Schools should decide policy 2. Improve tracked schools 3. Learn more about untracked schools and improve them
Keywords: Ability GroupsHeterogeneous GroupingSecond-generation SegregationTrackingRegions: NationalMethodologies: QualitativeResearch Designs: Literature ReviewAnalysis Methods: Policy Analysis Sampling Frame:National
Sampling Types: NonrandomAnalysis Units: DocumentData Types: Qualitative-Longitudinal
Data Description:
  • Reviews survey data about tracking practices in middle and high schools.
  • Reviews meta-analyses of tracking and ability grouping by Slavin and Kulik.
  • Draws on research of HSB (High School and Beyond) study of 10th graders in 1980 and NELS of 8th graders in 1989.
  • Studies followed thousands of students and recorded academic achievement, courses taken and attitudes toward school.
  • Transcripts were analyzed and teachers and parent interviews were conducted as part of these studies.
Theoretical Framework:
Relevance:
Archives: K-12 Integration, Desegregation, and Segregation Abstracts