Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Over the past 20 years, research has expanded educators’ knowledge of the impact of high school tracking on students’ curriculum opportunities and outcomes. Researchers also know that students are unevenly distributed among tracks, with low-income and minority students more likely to be in low ability classes for the non-college-bound. At the same time, they still understand little about how schools actually match particular students to tracked courses. Scholars and educators variously draw on technical/structural (e.g., a match between tracking and the differentiated structure of workforce), cultural (e.g., norms regarding race, social class, and educational prospects), and political or individualistic (e.g., choice, parent pressure) theories to explain students’ track assignments. To shed further light on the school dynamics that shape track-related course taking, we provide findings from a 2-year examination of tracking decisions at three comprehensive high schools. Setting these findings against prior theoretical and empirical work, we suggest an eclectic explanation that blends structural, cultural, and individualistic explanations for track assignments. High school tracking decisions, we conclude, result from the synergy of three powerful factors: differentiated, hierarchical curriculum structures; school cultures alternatively committed to common schooling and accommodating differences; and political actions by individuals within those structures and cultures aimed at influencing the distribution of advantage. Both research on tracking and efforts at school restructuring could benefit from this broader perspective.
Oakes et al. (Wed,) studied this question.