schools has been on “ability grouping” and “tracking” systems. In
the case of ability grouping, which is used most often in the ele-
mentary grades, students are assigned to separate study groups
within the same classroom, based on evaluation of their capacities
to learn. Tracking, which is most often used in middle school and
high school, consists of separating students into different classes for
instruction. Entire programs of study can be distinguished, as when
students are assigned to “vocational,” “general,” or “academic”
tracks; furthermore, students can be tracked into ability levels
within specific subjects. English and mathematics classes are often
offered at “remedial” and “honors” levels, in addition to “general”
levels.
Educational outcomes clearly result from long-term trajectories
(Dauber, Alexander, & Entwisle, 1996; Alexander, Entwisle, &
Horsey, 1997), framed by organizational structures such as ability
grouping and tracking. A key characteristic of these arrangements
is what Kerckhoff (1993) calls institutional inertia, that is, the
tendency for track assignments to be self-perpetuating (Dauber,
Alexander, & Entwisle, 1996; Kubitschek & Hallinan, 1996). In
other words, placement in the system at one grade level has a
strong effect on placement in later grade levels, independent of
students’ level of academic performance.
A frequent rationale for grouping and tracking is to create rela-
tively homogeneous groups of students, thus enabling teachers to tai-
lor their lessons to students’ abilities. Such accommodation to
student needs, advocates argue, facilitates learning at all levels. Crit-
ics claim that ability grouping and tracking perpetuate inequalities
that originate outside the school, including racial and class inequal-
ities (Gamoran, Nystrad, Berends, & LePore, 1995; Kerckhoff,
1993). Because of institutional inertia, any inequity initially intro-
duced by group and track assignments is likely to be sustained over
time. Critics also point out that these internal structures widen dif-
ferences in achievement over time (Rosenbaum, 1976; Entwisle &
Alexander, 1992). As educational trajectories diverge, differences in
opportunities for higher education and occupational attainment
44 CAREER CHOICE AND DEVELOPMENT