Archived: The Educational System in the United States: Case Study Findings

Overview of Ability Grouping and
Tracking in the United States
American children begin formal schooling in the first grade at the age of five or
six. The early years of schooling are characterized by classrooms where students
with a wide range of abilities are taught together by a single teacher. Since ele-
mentary school teachers typically spend the entire day with the same children,
they gain great familiarity with the individual abilities and personalities of their
students.
In addition to the classroom teacher, federal law provides for resource teachers
and special education teachers when students with handicaps or students from
disadvantaged backgrounds are present. Many schools try to retain these students
in regular classrooms during the elementary school years. As a result, it was not
unusual for us to observe two or three adults in a single elementary school class-
room.
In general, the American system of education supports a process of tracking stu-
dents by ability, and most parents with whom we talked were supportive of pro-
viding instruction that parallels the academic level of students. However, a num-
ber of respondents expressed reservations about schools denying certain students
the opportunity to learn on the basis of what are perceived as narrow measures
of ability, such as test scores. These reservations were primarily explained in

---

62
terms of concerns about the over-representation of certain ethnic and racial
minorities in lower tracks.
In accordance with the desire to teach to the level of each student’s ability, many
elementary school teachers we talked with focused on individualized instruction
rather than attempting to teach to a whole group. Pullouts and cooperative learn-
ing groups were also reflective of a preference for individualized instruction, as
were the common practices of offering time for peer tutors and computerized
instruction. Most teachers reported using these practices as a way to deal with
individual differences in ability. In addition, elementary school teachers reported
grouping students together for reading and for math exercises. Groups were strati-
fied by ability level, allowing each group to receive instruction at its own level
and to progress at its own rate. These groups were commonly used in the elemen-
tary schools we visited, and previous research has indicated that even in the first
grade, more than 90 percent of elementary schools use within class ability group-
ing for reading and 25 percent use them for math instruction (Entwistle & Alexan-
der 1993).
The transition from elementary to junior high school is one that may have far-
reaching consequences. Beginning in junior high, students are no longer with a
single teacher the entire day. Instead, they generally move from classroom to
classroom to receive instruction in different subjects from different teachers. The
school experience becomes more complex: students in junior high school interact
with more teachers and more students than do students in elementary school.
According to the results of a survey of middle-level school principals, two thirds
or more of the nation’s middle-level schools use at least some between class abil-
ity grouping (Braddock 1990). As we observed, the use of ability groups is espe-
cially prevalent in math. According to results from the 1990 National Assessment
of Educational Progress (NAEP), school administrators reported 77 percent of
eighth-grade students were grouped by ability in math. One-third was grouped by
ability in science (National Science Foundation 1993).
In seventh and eighth grade, ability groups involve more than different levels of
learning in the same subject. By then, course material is strongly differentiated and
students at different levels take different courses. In general, instruction in low-
track classes tends to deal with simplified topics and focuses on rote skills. The
focus of high-track classes is on understanding of underlying concepts, problem
solving, and independent thinking (Oakes et al. 1992).
In mathematics, students are typically assigned to one of three or four groups dif-
fering by level of ability, ranging from remedial mathematics to accelerated mathe-
matics. Enrollment in the accelerated track is restricted by an array of school poli-

---

63
cies. Students in general mathematics are exposed to a curriculum that essentially
reviews the content of elementary school courses and provides little challenge for
average or above-average students. Because the general mathematics classes cover
different topics than the accelerated classes, it is very difficult for students to
catch up with the accelerated group and become eligible as 12th-graders to take
calculus or other 5th-year secondary mathematics courses (Useem 1991).
Most of the school systems we visited began offering various levels of instruction
in core academic subjects to students around the eighth or ninth grade, although
a couple began earlier. Scores from standardized tests, past academic perform-
ance, and parental wishes were factored into the assignment of students to what
were perceived as appropriate levels of instruction. Depending on the school, dif-
ferent weights were given to different factors: some schools emphasized test
scores, while others emphasized parental wishes. In other schools the rec-
ommendations of individual teachers also had some influence over the tracking
decisions.
High schools were organized similarly to junior high schools, with the level of
instruction in high school courses being more closely linked with educational and
occupational trajectories. To meet the widely differing needs of students, math
and science courses were usually offered at different levels of difficulty. This pat-
tern is supported by national data on the practice of tracking by level of ability.
According to the 1990 NAEP, school administrators reported that by 12th grade,
74 percent of students were placed in science classes by ability, and 80 percent
in mathematics classes (NSF 1993).
At the secondary level there usually are between three and six tracks (Vanfossen,
Jones, & Spade 1987). In all tracking systems, judgements about students’ aca-
demic performance are the basis for group placements. Classes and tracks are la-
beled in terms of performance levels of the students—such as advanced, average,
or remedial—or according to students’ expected postsecondary goals, such as col-
lege preparatory or vocational. The resulting groups or tracks are not merely a
collection of different but equally valued instructional groups; instead, they form
a hierarchy within schools with the most academic or the most advanced tracks
considered to be the ‘‘top’’ (Oakes 1987).
Course offerings in the high schools we visited were generally considered either
college preparatory, general, or vocational. A student’s enrollment or assignment
to a particular level course was often determined by their prior course selections,
their grades, and their goals for higher education. High school counselors also
played a central role in guiding students in making course selections.

---

64
In most cases students could take courses from all three of these levels, although
students aspiring to attend college generally took courses that were either consid-
ered college preparatory or general-level courses, and they often took some of
each. However, a national survey showed that 60–70 percent of 10th-graders in
honors mathematics were also enrolled in honors English; the degree of overlap
is similar in remedial mathematics and English (Oakes et al. 1992).
The proportions of students taking advanced-level courses varied from school to
school. For example, at one of the high schools we visited most students were
preparing for college by taking advanced-placement or honors-level courses, while
at another school the majority of students were enrolled in general- or vocational-
level courses. Most high school students were enrolled in general-level courses in
math and science. These courses were not at the level of advanced-placement or
college-preparatory courses, which would involve a year of calculus, nor were
they at the basic level generally found in a vocational curriculum. Since most col-
leges will admit students who have a general education background, many stu-
dents taking general-level courses aspired to attend college. Vocational courses
were taken by students who intended to go directly into the workforce, but a
number of students in vocational courses also had college aspirations.
Most selective colleges in the United States require for admission a minimum num-
ber of credits in core academic subjects and give extra points for advanced
courses. For students with aspiring to these selective colleges, college-preparatory
level courses were perceived as essential. Also available in some of the high
schools were advanced-placement courses that allowed students who completed
the requirements and passed the examinations to receive credit for college-level
work before high school graduation. Only a small proportion of the students at
the high schools we visited were taking advanced-placement courses.
These findings are in line with data published by the National Center for Edu-
cation Statistics based on a national survey of 912 secondary schools. According
to this survey of grades 10–12, 86 percent of these schools reported offering
courses in their core curriculum that are differentiated in terms of content, quan-
tity, or intensity of work, or expectations regarding independent work. In addi-
tion, these schools indicated that during the 1993 fall, term 14 percent of all 10th-
graders took math courses designed for students of widely differing abilities (28
percent did so for English courses). The remaining 10th-graders were in math or
English courses designed for more discrete levels of abilities. In math, 27 percent
of students were enrolled in courses designed for students of higher abilities, 47
percent took courses for students of average abilities, and 16 percent took courses
for students of lower abilities. In English, 23 percent of students were enrolled
in courses designed for students of higher abilities, 39 percent took courses for
students of average abilities, and 9 percent took courses for students of lower

---

65
abilities. A majority of these schools also indicated that there was some movement
of students between ability levels in math and English courses after 10th grade,
with students moving up as well as down (USDE 1994).
In sum, we found considerable flexibility and variation in the way schools met
the needs of students with differing levels of ability. Few restrictions were placed
on whether tracking or ability grouping could be practiced at any grade level; con-
sequently, most school districts that we visited were practicing some form of abil-
ity grouping and tracking, whether at the elementary, junior, or senior high level.
As the student moves up in grades, tracking and ability grouping practices of
schools become more numerous. However, these tracks were not widely per-
ceived as limiting students’ opportunities to attend college or to enter high status
occupations.