**5.6 Education policy and efforts to eliminate differentiation**

Arguably, differentiation does not serve its declared purpose (increasing overall educational achievement); in the optimistic case, and bears many negative consequences, in the skeptical case. From a purely rational perspective, there is thus no strong argument for keeping differentiation in place. Thus, why does it still exist? Oakes (1992) mentions three types of barriers: technical, normative and political. By technical barriers Oakes understands the fact that the methods of instruction teachers grew up with and work with today were tailored for differentiated education. In order to eliminate differentiation (detracking) one cannot merely abolish it while keeping today's curriculum and teaching methods (Kelly, 2008). According to existing experience, a one-sided focus on "average students" disadvantages students on both poles (Rosenbaum, 1999). Different teaching methods (e.g., cooperative learning) are necessary for heterogeneous classes, and some balance in the extent and depth of the curriculum should be struck.

The normative beliefs of parents, teachers and schools constitute another obstacle. In particular, two interrelated statements are used in defense of differentiation (Kelly, 2008). First, students vary in their inborn abilities, a fact schools cannot affect. Second, the labor

careers could not be affected. During classtime, high-track students adhered to teachers' behavioral standards sensitively, as opposed to low-track students.

<sup>26</sup> In this respect Rosenbaum (1976) used a metaphor of "tournament mobility": if you succeed and win then you can go on and if you lose then you lose forever. Nevertheless, Lucas (1999) calls for caution in using such metaphors because there is a certain level of mobility between tracks.

The above-mentioned fact is accompanied by peer pressure and peer group norms. According to the so-called differentiation-polarization theory (Hargreaves, 1967; Lacey, 1966), interactions within peer groups in non-academic tracks aggravate antischool attitudes. When the school labels students as "academically insufficient", they begin to seek another source of positive identity. If they are fortunate, they can find it in sports, cars etc. Peer groups have their own dynamic here. Members monitor each other's actions, guarding against and punishing for those actions and attitudes that are in conflict with the group's

Finally, the third type of explanations of differentiation effects is based on institutional theories. They define institutions as cognitive constructions and permanent models of human behavior people take for granted and undisputed (Pallas et al., 1994). They hold that when a student is assigned to a certain education track, it becomes part of his/her "education history" and this assigning seems to suggest information about his/her abilities (Sorensen, 1984). While the act of assigning to an education track may bear no effect on his/her abilities, skills or attitudes, it continues to be present throughout his/her life because the act is generally believed to be justified26. In other words, if a student takes a certain track then this symbolically and publicly labels and classifies the students' qualities and abilities, from a collective perspective, and this label in turn, influences the perceptions and expectations of other members of the society, including teachers and parents (Pallas et al., 1994). More specifically, in making decisions about assigning to a certain program, people consider what education program the candidate comes from, rather than his/her real

Arguably, differentiation does not serve its declared purpose (increasing overall educational achievement); in the optimistic case, and bears many negative consequences, in the skeptical case. From a purely rational perspective, there is thus no strong argument for keeping differentiation in place. Thus, why does it still exist? Oakes (1992) mentions three types of barriers: technical, normative and political. By technical barriers Oakes understands the fact that the methods of instruction teachers grew up with and work with today were tailored for differentiated education. In order to eliminate differentiation (detracking) one cannot merely abolish it while keeping today's curriculum and teaching methods (Kelly, 2008). According to existing experience, a one-sided focus on "average students" disadvantages students on both poles (Rosenbaum, 1999). Different teaching methods (e.g., cooperative learning) are necessary for heterogeneous classes, and some balance in the extent and depth

The normative beliefs of parents, teachers and schools constitute another obstacle. In particular, two interrelated statements are used in defense of differentiation (Kelly, 2008). First, students vary in their inborn abilities, a fact schools cannot affect. Second, the labor

careers could not be affected. During classtime, high-track students adhered to teachers' behavioral

26 In this respect Rosenbaum (1976) used a metaphor of "tournament mobility": if you succeed and win then you can go on and if you lose then you lose forever. Nevertheless, Lucas (1999) calls for caution in

using such metaphors because there is a certain level of mobility between tracks.

dominant norms, for instance, expressions of interest in schoolwork.

**5.6 Education policy and efforts to eliminate differentiation** 

academic achievement.

of the curriculum should be struck.

standards sensitively, as opposed to low-track students.

market is differentiated and thus, various occupations are needed and few people are fit for every occupation. Consequently, schools should prepare students for the different labor market sectors and provide them with the exact skills they are going to need in life. To people holding these seemingly rational opinions, school differentiation in line with labor market differentiation appears as a logical solution and an effective practice (Oakes, 1992).

Political barriers constitute the third and final problem of differentiation. Differentiation causes the school to distinguish between "winners and losers". The winners are recruited from students in academic tracks whose parents usually have a higher socioeconomic status and, in turn, a stronger political stance. Those parents often have a personal stake in differentiation and lobby against detracking (Loveless, 1999b: 29), often arguing that they are not obliged to sacrifice their children's education for some ideological agenda or unverified education theory (Rochester, 1998). Parents may threaten to take their children out of the schools that are contemplating detracking. Such an exodus of better achieving students may lower the school's academic average and thus jeopardize its reputation. Ethnographic research on detracking also shows that parents with a higher SES tend to oppose detracking until some advantages for their children are preserved (Wells & Serna, 1996). Nevertheless, if such advantages continue to exist then the entire idea of detracking is undermined.
