Search

Although tracking has been widely criticized for impeding the academic progress of low performing students, literature also suggests difficulty eliminating tracks, and suggests potential negative consequences of doing so, particularly among high achieving students. Some scholars have suggested that tracking while providing additional supports for low ability students and their teachers may benefit all students. This study examines the effects of a policy in Chicago which pursued this strategy; examining classroom conditions and students' outcomes pre- and post-policy to better understand the effects of tracking on both low-skill and high-skill students. Results show that peer ability levels are associated with higher academic press and lower concentration of behavioral problems, but not differences in teachers' pedagogy. However, there are costs as well as benefits to students in high-track classes—while test scores improve, grades are lower. For low-skill students, the supports and professional resources for teachers that accompanied the policy made up for the changes in peer composition that accompanied the policy--their test scores improved and course failure declined. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study analyzes math and reading score gaps of Asian and White children from the beginning of kindergarten throughout the end of first grade. It addresses three questions: 1) what are the magnitudes of Asian-White gaps at kindergarten entry and in their learning rates during kindergarten, summer, and first grade? 2) how do learning growth patterns differ between the two groups?, and 3) to what extent do family background characteristics explain the between-group and within-group differences in Asian-White gap at kindergarten entry and the learning growth gap? The results suggest that the Asian-White test score gap exists at kindergarten entry and is larger in reading than math. These initial differences explain differences in math scores through kindergarten and the K-1 summer, but the reading gap widens during the same periods. There are no significant differences between Asian and White students in first-grade math or reading achievement, after controlling for prior scores, although interaction effects suggest that the learning rates of Asian high achievers are particularly slower than their White counterparts. Although family SES factors do not explain the Asian advantages, they have differential effects on reading and math achievement between the two groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]