**5.1 History and current state of differentiation in the United States and other countries**<sup>18</sup>

The idea of sorting students based on their stabilities appeared in early 19th century (Loveless, 1999a). In the US, an actual realization of grouping based on purported abilities was gradually introduced from the 1860s (J.A. Kulik & C.-L.C. Kulik, 1982). The differentiation practice experienced different waves of popularity (Vergon, 2008). From the beginning, ability grouping was expected to benefit all students because education would be tailored to their needs. Creating large schools with homogenous classes was found better and more effective than creating many small schools to provide education to different populations (Kelly & Covay, 2008: 405). Thus, schools offered a diverse selection of courses, from college preparation to less demanding classes. Education content differed from student to student but all students obtained the same high school diploma, and this arrangement was found satisfactory (ibid.)19.

School-level student differentiation in the US peaked around the 1960s. Students were usually grouped for all courses. Students of academic tracks who aimed for college practically did not meet other students in class (ibid). Thus, students were in fact sorted into entirely different education programs at the higher secondary level, at the latest. Three education tracks were usually available: college preparatory, general, and vocational (Lucas, 2008: 406). The sorting of students into entirely different education tracks relied, *inter alia*, on the then predominant concept of human intelligence. People believed that only one type of general intelligence exists, and thus, students who are good in one field are likely to be good in other fields as well20.

The vast differentiation within schools came under increasing criticism since approximately the mid-1960s. Gradually, schools abandoned the sorting of students into different education programs and instead, began to provide key subjects (English and mathematics) as well as other subjects at different proficiency levels. Between 1965 and 1975, schools stopped practicing "classical" tracking (i.e., in almost all courses), nevertheless, courses at different proficiency levels for different students remained (Lucas, 2008: 406). In our terminology, external differentiation was transformed into internal differentiation.

Differentiation continued to be criticized. A growing number of voices opposed the sorting of students into homogenous groups based on purported abilities and instead called for

 18 For the purpose of simplification, we use the term "differentiation" in this section to refer to schooland class-level differentiation – tracking. Here we primarily study the causes and effects of external differentiation, rather than the forms of short-term internal differentiation (e.g., grouping students in different readers' clubs).

<sup>19</sup> The fact that student differentiation was primarily realized *within* schools in the US, as opposed to Central European countries, was also caused by legislative developments. The US Supreme Court ruling in *Brown v. Board of Education* became a particular breakthrough by declaring the segregation of students based on race, ethnicity or gender unconstitutional. Since the segregation of students into different types of schools became illegal, sorting *within* schools came to be practiced more frequently (Watt, 2006: 1027).

<sup>20</sup> This concept endured for a long time and was only substantially undermined by Howard Gardner's (1983) theory of multiple intelligences.

The idea of sorting students based on their stabilities appeared in early 19th century (Loveless, 1999a). In the US, an actual realization of grouping based on purported abilities was gradually introduced from the 1860s (J.A. Kulik & C.-L.C. Kulik, 1982). The differentiation practice experienced different waves of popularity (Vergon, 2008). From the beginning, ability grouping was expected to benefit all students because education would be tailored to their needs. Creating large schools with homogenous classes was found better and more effective than creating many small schools to provide education to different populations (Kelly & Covay, 2008: 405). Thus, schools offered a diverse selection of courses, from college preparation to less demanding classes. Education content differed from student to student but all students obtained the same high school diploma, and this arrangement

School-level student differentiation in the US peaked around the 1960s. Students were usually grouped for all courses. Students of academic tracks who aimed for college practically did not meet other students in class (ibid). Thus, students were in fact sorted into entirely different education programs at the higher secondary level, at the latest. Three education tracks were usually available: college preparatory, general, and vocational (Lucas, 2008: 406). The sorting of students into entirely different education tracks relied, *inter alia*, on the then predominant concept of human intelligence. People believed that only one type of general intelligence exists, and thus, students who are good in one field are likely to be good

The vast differentiation within schools came under increasing criticism since approximately the mid-1960s. Gradually, schools abandoned the sorting of students into different education programs and instead, began to provide key subjects (English and mathematics) as well as other subjects at different proficiency levels. Between 1965 and 1975, schools stopped practicing "classical" tracking (i.e., in almost all courses), nevertheless, courses at different proficiency levels for different students remained (Lucas, 2008: 406). In our

Differentiation continued to be criticized. A growing number of voices opposed the sorting of students into homogenous groups based on purported abilities and instead called for

18 For the purpose of simplification, we use the term "differentiation" in this section to refer to schooland class-level differentiation – tracking. Here we primarily study the causes and effects of external differentiation, rather than the forms of short-term internal differentiation (e.g., grouping students in

19 The fact that student differentiation was primarily realized *within* schools in the US, as opposed to Central European countries, was also caused by legislative developments. The US Supreme Court ruling in *Brown v. Board of Education* became a particular breakthrough by declaring the segregation of students based on race, ethnicity or gender unconstitutional. Since the segregation of students into different types of schools became illegal, sorting *within* schools came to be practiced more frequently

20 This concept endured for a long time and was only substantially undermined by Howard Gardner's

terminology, external differentiation was transformed into internal differentiation.

**5. Reproduction of inequalities at the school and class levels** 

**countries**<sup>18</sup>

was found satisfactory (ibid.)19.

in other fields as well20.

different readers' clubs).

(Watt, 2006: 1027).

(1983) theory of multiple intelligences.

**5.1 History and current state of differentiation in the United States and other** 

mixed classes. Due to this criticism, schools indeed have been eliminating and restricting differentiation. Manlove & Baker (1995) found that 85% of US schools have a policy of open school choice and try to facilitate transitions between different types of courses. Also, a detailed study of school practices in California and Massachusetts by Loveless (1999a) showed a decreasing level of differentiation.

Nevertheless, tracking is very difficult to reduce because its practices have deep roots, and thus, some data about eliminating differentiation are not as positive. For example, Kelly & Covay (2008: 406) state that in the US, there are few schools with no differentiated classes at all. Furthermore, while ability grouping begins at a very young age, often in kindergarten, anti-differentiation measures are not usually aimed at that level. In contrast to, for instance, Japan or most European countries, pupils in the United States are normally tested for "readiness" at the age of 5 and according to their test results they are placed in academically oriented kindergartens or less demanding kindergartens and classes (Oakes, 1997: 395).

This leads us to a hypothesis that tracking continues to be widespread in spite of its changed character. It may also have become less visible, with external differentiation shifting towards internal differentiation as well as lower education levels. Undoubtedly, it has not become a less important issue or a less important source of education inequalities than it used to be. Let us, therefore, review the arguments for and against it.

### **5.2 Arguments for and against tracking**

While almost all sociology of education experts share the view that differentiation is untenable in terms of equal access to education, many teachers, administrators and politicians continue to support it. Table 4 below outlines the principal arguments for and against differentiation21.

Slavin (1990) stated that the arguments of differentiation supporters mostly evolve around *effectiveness*, while opponents focus on *equity.* Supporters primarily argue that differentiation is a rational practice that can be observed in all complex organizations. By separating a highly heterogeneous body of students into homogeneous groups, the school can fulfill its goal (education) more effectively, just as large organizations set up different departments or other structures dealing with specific types of work (Gamoran et al., 1995: 688). Thus, it is assumed that a group of similar talents can be educated better and more effectively, compared to a highly heterogeneous group. The proponents of differentiation also mean that each group necessitates different teaching methods, and therefore, differentiation helps both high-track and low-track students.

In contrast, the opponents of differentiation build their argument primarily around equal access to education. They emphasize that such segregation violates democratic values and it is not equitable if different groups of students receive different quality of education. As Slavin (1990: 474) argues, differentiation proponents "carry the burden of proof" in any case. The equality of all persons is fundamental in a society which relies on the principles of democracy and social justice, and therefore, undifferentiated education should be considered the natural point of departure.

 21 Here we attempt to summarize the different arguments we have encountered in the discussions of differentiation, rather than review their coherence or empirical validity.

constitutes the best teaching methods, so it is difficult for educators to know precisely how

In a meritocratic education system, students should be assigned to differential programs based on their abilities and efforts, if at all. No role should be played by factors such as gender, race, ethnicity or social background. Research demonstrates that educational achievement is, in line with the main idea of differentiation, a fundamental factor of student enrolment in programs. However, research also clearly demonstrates that factors like gender, race and socioeconomic status play important roles in education tracking as well.

Studies on the role of gender in education tracking have usually found that girls are somewhat advantaged, compared to boys (Gamoran & Mare, 1989). This is because girls usually get better grades and their school behavior is perceived more positively. Nevertheless, the gender factor is quite small, compared to others. The roles of socioeconomic status and parents' education are especially important in education tracking, even for children with similar educational achievement (Hallinan, 1992) and when controlled for observed abilities (Jones et al., 1995; Lucas, 1999). Hallinan (1996) even demonstrated that the level of mobility between different education tracks is determined by parents' SES, race and gender. Alexander et al. (1978) demonstrated the effects of SES, race and gender as well, even when controlled for academic ability. However, they found that the effect of those factors was rather indirect, through schools' and parents' expectations from children. However, other studies demonstrated that parents of higher social strata take a more active part in and try to influence school decisions about assigning students to

Each individual school has an influence as well. For instance, it has been demonstrated that the number and extent of education programs is not always in line with the needs of a given school's students (Hallinan, 1992). Thus, different schools may assign students with the same abilities to different programs, thus launching them on different education tracks.

The above makes it clear that the idea and practice of differentiation depend critically on proving sorting students improves their educational achievement, compared to nondifferentiated education. Thus, the United States and other countries where differentiation exists have seen a large number of research studies on that question. Nevertheless, their results are somewhat ambiguous and do not allow a clear conclusion on the effects of differentiation. In general, it can be stated that few studies have concluded that differentiation has better overall effects than undifferentiated education. Metaanalyses of large numbers of studies have shown that differentiation either has no *overall* effects (Slavin,

The key empirical question we are facing here is: what achievement would students from differentiated (homogeneous) groups have if they were educated in undifferentiated

to vary their teaching for different groups" (Gamoran et al., 1995: 689).

**5.3 Factors affecting student enrolment in differential programs** 

different tracks (Useem, 1992).

**5.4 Empirical evidence on differentiation effects** 

1990) or its effects are negative (Hoffer, 1992).

**5.4.1 Short-term effects of differentiation on educational achievement** 


Table 4. Arguments for and against tracking (Oakes, 2005; Riordan, 2003; Slavin, 1990)

Thus, differentiation proponents should prove, above all, that grouping is *effective* and that it is advantageous to all groups of students. As Slavin (ibid.) infers, all other arguments in the above Table must be discounted if this is not proven. An empirical proof of differentiation effectiveness should demonstrate that students achieve better results *due to* differentiation, compared to results in undifferentiated school settings. Else, there is no reason for differentiation at all22.

While differentiation proponents have not succeeded in demonstrating the effectiveness of the practice, one might also argue that the effectiveness criterion does not override the equity criterion. Gamoran et al. (1995) explain that there are two main problems with differentiation. First, students are not a "raw material" and sorting them, as opposed to sorting goods or services in large organizations, is not a neutral act. Effectiveness can be in conflict with the goal of social integration. Second, it is rather speculative to argue that differentiation makes it possible to apply different educational methods that are tailored to a given group rationally and effectively. This is because "there is little consensus about what

 22 Even differentiation opponents (e.g., Oakes, 1997) admit one empirically grounded argument: the fact that teachers prefer working with homogenous groups.





discourages their students

assisted by them

groups

programs.

Table 4. Arguments for and against tracking (Oakes, 2005; Riordan, 2003; Slavin, 1990)

Thus, differentiation proponents should prove, above all, that grouping is *effective* and that it is advantageous to all groups of students. As Slavin (ibid.) infers, all other arguments in the above Table must be discounted if this is not proven. An empirical proof of differentiation effectiveness should demonstrate that students achieve better results *due to* differentiation, compared to results in undifferentiated school settings. Else, there is no reason for

While differentiation proponents have not succeeded in demonstrating the effectiveness of the practice, one might also argue that the effectiveness criterion does not override the equity criterion. Gamoran et al. (1995) explain that there are two main problems with differentiation. First, students are not a "raw material" and sorting them, as opposed to sorting goods or services in large organizations, is not a neutral act. Effectiveness can be in conflict with the goal of social integration. Second, it is rather speculative to argue that differentiation makes it possible to apply different educational methods that are tailored to a given group rationally and effectively. This is because "there is little consensus about what

22 Even differentiation opponents (e.g., Oakes, 1997) admit one empirically grounded argument: the fact

**Arguments for tracking Arguments against tracking** 









that teachers prefer working with homogenous groups.


talented students at school - Enrollment in certain programs is justified by reflecting educational achievement and inborn abilities

abilities

reduced

group needs

down by others

smarter ones

temporarily

differentiation at all22.

taught individually

easier

constitutes the best teaching methods, so it is difficult for educators to know precisely how to vary their teaching for different groups" (Gamoran et al., 1995: 689).
