**5.4.2 Other effects of differentiation**

Since the proponents of differentiation mainly argue that this organizational design increases the effectiveness of the education process, researchers have focused on rather short-term educational effects, i.e. what students win and lose in terms of their academic ability and knowledge by enrolling in a certain group (see above). Apart from that, researchers have analyzed more long-term educational effects as well as those that are not directly related to education.

It has been demonstrated that students enrolled in academic programs have higher aspirations for further studies (e.g., Vanfossen et al., 1987), are more likely to enroll in tertiary education programs (e.g., Thomas et al., 1979) and have better odds of actually attaining tertiary education (e.g., Alexander et al., 1987). Students of academic programs are less likely to drop out of school (Gamoran & Mare, 1989). Of course, all those effects have

risk of fragmenting instruction and especially making learning much less enjoyable for students. Strong structuring of instructional methods may mitigate teachers' fears and insecurities, yet it deprives instruction of its meaning, making it boring and tiresome and

Teachers play a specific role as well. Beginners, less experienced and less motivated teachers are traditionally recruited for non-academic tracks (Kelly, 2008: 986). Thus, not only students but also teachers are differentiated in many schools (teacher tracking). Two less successful groups are paired here: "Teachers with less education, experience, and motivation are more likely to be assigned to low-track classrooms. Thus, teacher tracking pairs students who are the most difficult to teach with teachers who, in some ways, are least equipped to be successful" (ibid.). It is hardly surprising that teachers in non-academic

In general, teachers react negatively when assigned to a non-academic track. This is also because this group of students is more difficult to teach. For example, Caughlan & Kelly (2004) demonstrated that teachers who are very successful in academic tracks may be much less successful in non-academic tracks. They partially explain this finding by the fact that teachers in non-academic tracks tend to be recruited from different socioeconomic environments than their students, and thus have trouble identifying their needs, perspectives and interests. They are also prejudiced about their family background. This causes a "self-fulfilling prophecy" whereby children from disadvantaged families are considered *incapable* of success, teachers treat them as such and this, in turn, makes those children unsuccessful. Some teachers also take family background as an excuse and explanation for their students' weak educational achievement. Instead of designing instruction to compensate the disadvantages children bring from their homes, instruction is

It cannot be argued that education in non-academic tracks has always a low quality and effectiveness. Gamoran (1993) identified three factors of success in non-academic tracks: when (a) instruction in non-academic tracks is not assigned to inexperienced teachers, (b) teachers do not use worksheets as their basic method of instruction and instead, work based on oral speech and discussion, (c) teachers have high expectations of all students.

The second type of explanations of tracking effects are based on the idea that different education programs provide different social contexts and social climates for learning, thus socializing students of different tracks in line with different norms and values and giving them different identities, attitudes and expectations. Above all, one must realize that by taking a non-academic track that prepares directly for entering the labor market, students become discouraged from getting good grades from the very beginning. For them, as opposed to students in academic tracks, it does not matter if they have A's or C's. Little effort is basically a rational strategy (Attewell, 2001; Kelly, 2008). In contrast, students in academic tracks are not necessarily better-behaved or more accommodating but their actions

25 Schwartz (1981) exemplified this phenomenon neatly by describing the behavior of students in different programs. He found that students in high-track programs showed the same kind of misbehavior as low-track students, yet they did so outside classtime when their future educational

are much more ambitious and planned in subjects affecting their future careers25.

often diverting attention to unrelated issues (Page, 1991).

tracks score less in satisfaction and self-actualization.

adapted to those children's *limitations* (Kelly, 2008: 986).

been controlled statistically for family socioeconomic background and numerous other factors.

The effects of differentiation on factors like self-esteem, positive attachment to school and delinquency have been studied as well. Quantitative research has failed to provide a clear answer, which was to a great extent due to the above-mentioned methodological issues. Nevertheless, ethnographic research (see review by Gamoran & Berends, 1987) has demonstrated that differentiation does substantially influence students' identity and selfesteem. For example, Schwartz (1981) showed that differentiation caused students to start calling themselves "smart", "dumb", "slow" or "bright" (see also Riordan 2003: 189).

Other effects of differentiation have been proven as well. For example, differentiation may undermine social cohesion. It influences political attitudes and participation (Paulsen, 1991). It also widens the gaps between different social groups because students tend to make friends with other students of the same programs (Eckert, 1989). This is based on shared experience and values as well as shared attitudes to school.
