Tracking and the early sort

The sort begins in kindergarten and first grade, in reading groups. The teacher listens to each child read in the first weeks of school and groups them. The high group reads richer texts, gets more time, and is asked more open questions. The low group reads simpler texts, gets more drill, and is asked more closed questions. This pattern was documented decades ago and has been replicated steadily since. The children in the low group fall further behind not because their initial gap was destiny but because the instruction itself is different. A child who arrives at first grade with less exposure to print is given less exposure to print at school. The system calls this differentiation. It is more accurately described as compounding.

The premise underwriting early sorting is that we can detect ability at age six well enough to make placement decisions that will hold. The premise is not supported by the evidence. Early reading scores predict later reading scores reasonably well, but they predict prior exposure to print even better. What the kindergarten teacher is detecting, in many cases, is whether the child has been read to nightly since infancy, whether the child has heard the cadences of formal English at home, and whether the child has been to preschool. These are real differences and they affect what the child can do on day one, but they are not the same as the underlying ability the teacher believes she is measuring.

Tracking becomes formalized in middle school, often around algebra. The decision about who takes Algebra I in eighth grade versus ninth grade versus tenth grade is enormously consequential for high-school course-taking, AP enrollment, and college destination. Districts vary wildly in how they make this decision. Some use a test, some use teacher recommendation, some use prior grades, some use a combination. In nearly every district studied, the decision underrepresents Black and Latino students relative to their test scores — that is, students of color with equivalent or higher scores are placed into the slower sequence at higher rates. This is sometimes framed as protective placement. The students placed protectively lose access to the courses that gate college admission, and the loss is permanent.

By high school, tracking is naturalized — most students and parents do not even perceive it as tracking, they perceive it as a menu of courses. But the menu is gated. AP courses, dual-enrollment courses, honors sequences are gated by prerequisites that trace back to the middle-school decisions, which trace back to the elementary sorting. The result is that AP enrollment looks demographically very different from the school as a whole, even in schools that pride themselves on offering AP. Schools that have moved to open enrollment in AP — any student who wants to take the course can take it — have seen substantial increases in enrollment and only modest changes in pass rates. The gatekeeping was not protecting the rigor; it was protecting the demographic shape of the class.

Even in schools that have de-tracked at the course level, within-class tracking persists. The reading groups at the elementary level are within-class tracking. The lab partners, the project groups, the small-group instruction tiers — all of these can reproduce the sort inside a nominally heterogeneous classroom. Teachers who are committed to de-tracking sometimes re-create it inside their own rooms without intending to, because the differentiation moves they were trained to use are themselves sorting moves. De-tracking has to be taught at the level of pedagogy, not just policy, or the policy fails inside the classroom.

Tracking and discipline interact. A student tracked into the lower sequences is more likely to be bored, more likely to act out, more likely to be referred for discipline, more likely to lose instructional time to suspension, and therefore more likely to fall further behind academically. The track and the discipline pipeline reinforce each other. Skiba's work on discipline disparities and Oakes's work on tracking, read together, describe a single sorting system with two outputs: an academic output and a behavioral output. The same children are receiving both.

The strongest argument against de-tracking is that teachers cannot effectively teach a wide range of abilities in one room. This is true under certain conditions and false under others. With small classes, strong professional development, curriculum designed for heterogeneous groups, and time to plan, mixed-ability instruction works — and works particularly well for the students who would otherwise be in the lower tracks, with no significant loss for the students who would otherwise be in the upper tracks. Without those supports, de-tracking can degrade instruction for everyone. The conclusion is not that de-tracking is bad. The conclusion is that de-tracking without investment is bad.

Parents with social capital lobby for placement. They know which teacher to ask for, which course to insist on, which form to fill out, which deadline to meet. Parents without that capital often do not know the placements are negotiable. They accept the school's recommendation. The result is that the official sorting system is overlaid with an unofficial parent-advocacy system that further skews placements toward the children of advocating parents. Schools that respond to this by making advocacy unnecessary — automatic enrollment, opt-out rather than opt-in — see the demographic shape of upper tracks shift. The schools that frame advocacy as a virtue see the shape stay the same.

The content gap between tracks is often larger than acknowledged. Lower tracks get more worksheets, more rote, less discussion, less writing, fewer field trips, less laboratory time, fewer guest speakers. Higher tracks get more open-ended work, more autonomy, more contact with adults outside the school, more chances to fail and recover. Over twelve years this compounds into something that is not just a difference in difficulty but a difference in kind: students in the upper tracks are being prepared to do intellectual work, and students in the lower tracks are being prepared to comply. Oakes documented this in the 1980s. The pattern has been documented again every decade since.

Several countries that outperform the United States on international assessments — Finland, parts of Canada, Japan — track less aggressively or later. They postpone the sorting decision until age 14 or 16 and provide more uniformly strong instruction in the early years. This is not a clean natural experiment because many other variables differ, but the comparison is instructive. The American system sorts earlier and harder than peer systems and gets worse equity outcomes than they do. The relationship may be partly causal.

A policy lever that does not require eliminating tracking is mandatory reassessment. Every student is reassessed at the end of each year, and a meaningful percentage of students move up — not down, up — into the next track, based on performance and on teacher nomination. The few districts that have implemented this systematically report disruption, complaint from parents in the top track, and improved outcomes for the moved-up students. The disruption is the point. A sorting system that produces movement is a different system than one that produces stasis.

The hardest question is whether a parent advocating for her own child's placement in the upper track is doing something morally questionable. The honest answer is: somewhat. The child is real, her needs are real, the placement matters. But the advocacy participates in and strengthens a system that hurts other children. A parent who advocates for her child and simultaneously advocates for the dismantling of the gatekeeping mechanism is doing something coherent. A parent who advocates for her child and is silent on the system is doing something the system is built to reward and the larger collective to absorb. The collective scale of parenthood is the scale at which the second posture stops being available.

Oakes, Jeannie. Keeping Track: How Schools Structure Inequality. 2nd ed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2005.

Oakes, Jeannie. Multiplying Inequalities: The Effects of Race, Social Class, and Tracking on Opportunities to Learn Mathematics and Science. Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 1990.

Hallinan, Maureen T. "Tracking: From Theory to Practice." Sociology of Education 67, no. 2 (1994): 79–84.

Hallinan, Maureen T. "The Detracking Movement." Education Next 4, no. 4 (2004): 72–76.

Gamoran, Adam. "The Variable Effects of High School Tracking." American Sociological Review 57, no. 6 (1992): 812–828.

Gamoran, Adam. "American Schooling and Educational Inequality: A Forecast for the 21st Century." Sociology of Education 74 (2001): 135–153.

Gamoran, Adam, and Robert D. Mare. "Secondary School Tracking and Educational Inequality: Compensation, Reinforcement, or Neutrality?" American Journal of Sociology 94, no. 5 (1989): 1146–1183.

Ford, Donna Y. Recruiting and Retaining Culturally Different Students in Gifted Education. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press, 2013.

Plucker, Jonathan A., and Scott J. Peters. Excellence Gaps in Education: Expanding Opportunities for Talented Students. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press, 2016.

Skiba, Russell J., and Natasha T. Williams. "Are Black Kids Worse? Myths and Facts about Racial Differences in Behavior." Bloomington, IN: Equity Project at Indiana University, 2014.

Lucas, Samuel R. Tracking Inequality: Stratification and Mobility in American High Schools. New York: Teachers College Press, 1999.

Burris, Carol Corbett, and Kevin G. Welner. "Closing the Achievement Gap by Detracking." Phi Delta Kappan 86, no. 8 (2005): 594–598.