The correlates of tracking policy: Opportunity hoarding, status competition, or a technical-functional explanation?

American Educational Research Journal

Volumn 48, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 560-585

  Kelly, Sean ^a   Price, Heather ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME   (United States)

Author keywords

educational policy; high schools; social context; sociology; tracking

Indexed keywords

EID: 79955860868     PISSN: 00028312     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3102/0002831210395927     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Alexander K. L.,Cook M. A. Curricula and coursework: A surprise ending to a familiar story.American Sociological Review. 1982;47: 626-640.
2. Attewell P. The winner-take-all high school: Organizational adaptations to educational stratification.Sociology of Education. 2001;74: 267-295.
3. Baker D. P.,Stevenson D. L. Mother's strategies for children's school achievement: Managing the transition to high school.Sociology of Education. 1986;59: 156-166.
4. Boudon R. Education, opportunity and social inequality. New York, NY: Wiley; 1974:.
5. Broaded C. M. The limits and possibilities of tracking: Some evidence from Taiwan.Sociology of Education. 1997;70: 36-53.
6. Clotfelter C. After Brown: The rise and retreat of school desegregation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 2004:.
7. Collins R. The credential society. New York, NY: Academic Press; 1979:.
8. Davis K.,Moore W. Some principles of stratification.American Sociological Review. 1945;10: 242-249.
9. DeVellis R. F. Scale development: Theory and applications. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2003:.
10. Ehrenreich B. Fear of falling: The inner life of the middle class. New York, NY: Pantheon Books; 1989:.
11. Farkas G.,Wilkinson L.,Schiller K.,Frank K. (2005, April). Teacher grading practices within school social contexts: Do they disadvantage lower SES and ethnic minority students. A presentation at the Examining Educational Inequalities Conference of the Center for Research on Educational Opportunity.
12. Gamoran A. The stratification of high school learning opportunities.Sociology of Education. 1987;60: 135-155.
13. Gamoran A. The variable effects of high school tracking.American Sociological Review. 1992;57: 812-828.
14. Gamoran A. Can unlike students learn together? Grade retention, tracking, and grouping. Walberg H. J. Reynolds A. J. Wang M. C., ed. Greenwich, CT: Information Age; 2004:141-156.
15. Gamoran A.,Mare R. D. Secondary school tracking and educational equality: Compensation, reinforcement, or neutrality.American Journal of Sociology. 1989;94: 1146-1183.
16. Garet M. S.,DeLany B. Students, courses, and stratification.Sociology of Education. 1988;61: 61-77.
17. Graham P. A. Schooling America: How the public schools meet the nation's changing needs. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2005:.
18. Jarvis C. B.,Mackenzie S. B.,Podsakoff P. M. A critical review of construct indicators and measurement model misspecification in marketing and consumer research.Journal of Consumer Research. 2003;30: 199-217.
19. Kelly S. Are teachers tracked? On what basis and with what consequences?.Social Psychology of Education. 2004a;7: 55-72.
20. Kelly S. Do increased levels of parental involvement account for the social class difference in track placement?.Social Science Research. 2004b;33: 626-659.
21. Kelly S. The contours of tracking in North Carolina.High School Journal. 2007;90: 15-31.
22. Kelly S. The Black-White gap in mathematics course taking.Sociology of Education. 2009;82: 47-69.
23. Labaree D. F. The making of an American high school. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press; 1988:.
24. LeTendre G.,Hofer B.,Shimizu H. What is tracking? Cultural expectations in the United States, Germany, and Japan.American Educational Research Journal. 2003;40: 43-89.
25. Loveless T. The tracking wars: State reform meets school policy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute; 1999:.
26. Lucas S. R. Tracking inequality: Stratification and mobility in American schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press; 1999:.
27. Lucas S. R.,Berends M. Sociodemographic diversity, correlated achievement, and de facto tracking.Sociology of Education. 2002;75: 328-348.
28. Mickelson R. A. Subverting-Swann: First- and second-generation segregation in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg schools.American Educational Research Journal. 2001;38: 215-52.
29. Characteristics of public, private, and Bureau of Indian Education elementary and secondary schools in the United States: Results from the 2007-08 SASS. First look. Washington, DC: Author; 2009:.
30. North Carolina Department of Education. (2010). Office of Accountability EOC documentation.Retrieved from http://www.ncpublicschools.org/accountability/testing/eoc/
31. Nystrand M.,Gamoran A. Opening dialogue. Nystrand M., ed. New York, NY: Teachers' College Press; 1997:30-74.
32. Oakes J. Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press; 1985:.
33. Oakes J. Can tracking research inform practice? Technical, normative, and political considerations.Educational Researcher. 1992;21: 12-21.
34. Orfield G.,Eaton S. E. Dismantling desegregation: The quiet reversal of Brown v. Board of Education. New York, NY: New Press; 1996:.
35. Reskin B. F. Including mechanisms in our models of ascriptive inequality.American Sociological Review. 2003;68: 1-21.
36. Rosenbaum J. E. Making inequality. New York, NY: Wiley; 1976:.
37. Rosenbaum J. E. If tracking is bad, is detracking better?.American Educator. 1999;23 (4): 24 47-29.
38. Sorensen A. B. Organizational differentiation of student and educational opportunity.Sociology of Education. 1970;43: 355-376.
39. Spade J. Z.,Columba L.,Vanfossen B. E. Tracking in mathematics and science: Courses and course-selection procedures.Sociology of Education. 1997;70: 108-127.
40. Stevenson D. L.,Schiller K. S.,Schneider B. Sequences of opportunities for learning.Sociology of Education. 1994;67: 184-198.
41. Tilly C. Durable inequality. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1999:.
42. Useem E. L. Student selection into course sequences in mathematics: The impact of parental involvement and school policies.Journal of Research on Adolescence. 1991;1: 231-250.
43. Van Houtte M. Tracking effects on school achievement: A quantitative explanation in terms of the academic culture of school staff.American Journal of Education. 2004;110: 354-388.
44. Weisberg H. F. Central tendency and variability. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1992:.
45. Wells A. S.,Oakes J. Potential pitfalls of systemic reform: Early lessons from detracking research.Sociology of Education. 1996;69: 135-143.