impact of tracking on attrition, The

Attrition is a matter of prime concern to institutions of higher learning. Statistics from urban community colleges in the Northeastern United States reveal that student attrition rose to slightly over 45% in 1998.As statistics continue to climb, colleges across the notion mobilize to reverse the trend. Clearly, a number of academic and non-academic problems contribute to attrition and risk. Educational delivery systems, in particular, tracking where it is used, may play a central role. As an educational delivery system, tracking does not promote cognitive achievement helps to stimulate a negative self-concept in some students and fosters resentment and misconduct In so doing, it may be an important contributing factor in the problem of attrition.

Introduction

Student attrition in higher education represents a major concern for American colleges and universities. Statistics for public community colleges reveal that rates rose to a high of 45% in 1998, and current attrition has reached 47.9% (Act, 2000). While statistics are somewhat lower at private institutions, the fact remains that almost one-half of all students entering a college program do not complete that program. Attrition has a significant impact on institutions of higher learning and society as a whole. It affects budgeting, planning and academic decisionmaking as well as the future pool of available candidates for the.labor market. Since student tuition represents a prime source of institution income, the issue of retention becomes a matter of economic survival. The dropout rate presents a glaring reminder of lost students and lost revenue. On a personal basis, dropouts face an unstable future; they have difficulty competing for jobs and possess fewer essential skills for life. They often turn up on welfare rolls, become four times more likely to engage in deviant behavior, and disproportionately end up in correctional institutions (Ballantine, 1997).

Dropout profile

As colleges across the nation mobilize to reverse attrition rates, efforts have focused on the personal characteristics of the dropout. A growing body of research attempts to identify the characteristics of students who leave compared with those who remain. The "dropout" has been identified as a part-time student while those who complete a degree are more likely to be full-time students (Moore, 1995; Price, 1993; Windham, 1994). Some research suggests that age may be a significant pre-enrollment predictor of withdrawal. Mohammadi (1994) found that students in older age categories, 23-50, have higher attrition rates were than younger college students. Research also shows that Blacks or Hispanics and women are more likely to withdraw from their programs than other students (Jones & Watson, 1988). Furthermore, securing a college degree closely relates to socio-economic status. Low-income students more often than other students withdraw from college or abandon their college plans because of financial considerations. Finally, delayed college may link to early withdrawal. Students who delay college have a greater probability of taking early leave of their program than other students (Ballantine, 1997). Additional factors associated with early withdrawal include family obligations, financial emergencies and low grade point index (Bonham & Luckie, 1993: Lewallen, 1993).

Focusing on cause

Certainly, multiple causes influence attrition, and remedies are bound to be complex. Other research reveals that withdrawal is not simply a matter of race or personal condition and may grow out of the very culture of the educational institution (Tinto, 1987). The quantity and quality of faculty-student interaction or the organizational structure of the educational institution are factors which have a marked effect on student outcomes (Ansalone, 2000; Pallas, 1994). Such explanations refuse to place the entire blame for academic failure on dropouts and their personal characteristics. Rather, they shift the focus, at least in part, to the institution and its educational structures. Focusing on the personal characteristics of dropouts does little more than blame victims for their misfortune and shifts attention away from possible failings of educational delivery systems.

Coleman's Equality of Educational Opportunity study (1966) is one of the first and best-known studies to focus attention on educational structures operating within the schools and their impact on student outcomes. Following Coleman, a number of researchers have suggested that various structures operating within the schools limit academic achievement, affective development and opportunity to learn. In so doing, they may also influence student outcomes and career development (Ansalone, 2000; Oakes, 1985; Pallas, 1994). The present article focuses on one such educational structure-- tracking, or separation by ability and curriculum-and how it may impact the overall student attrition rate, especially in urban community colleges in the Northeastern United States.

History of tracking

Since the early 1900's, American schools have organized instruction by separating students into ability-- grouped classes with special curriculum tracks. The separation addressed a need to educate diverse student populations entering the schools at that time. Employing a "factory model," tracking was considered egalitarian and efficient in that it provided the best means of socializing students, the "raw material" of the schools, into appropriate educational tracks with corresponding career paths. While tracking enabled the schools to educate all students, people questioned the method by which some students were placed in vocational or academic tracks based on their race, class or ethnicity (Bowles & Gintis, 1976). In time, equality of educational opportunity was redefined as the opportunity for all children to become educated for some predetermined career.

The 1950's witnessed a surge in the number of college applications by immigrants and technical workers who had gained admission to secondary education and now desired a college degree. New fields, requiring more than a high school diploma fig. ured significantly in the growth, and the community college seemed the logical training ground for new specialized programs (Trow, 1966). As community colleges grew, many established their own forms of tracking in order to accommodate the number of students seeking admission. During the past 50 years, this well-intentioned practice has evolved into a common sense management strategy for organizing students in American schools.

Possible effects of tracking

What, if any, are the consequences of schooling in a higher or lower track? And is it possible for tracking to contribute to the problem of student attrition? Certainly, many wellintentioned practices within colleges may contribute to the dropout process by sending inappropriate signals to students, signals which deflate students' self-concepts and fail to promote cognitive achievement and affective development. In spite of the generally positive perceptions held by faculty, tracking may do little to foster or improve academic development. In fact, it may limit the learning trajectory of lower track students while providing only a modest benefit to students in an advantaged track. Additionally, the improved academic achievement of advantaged students may be the result of processes occurring within the track rather than the tracking structure itself. A tracking structure may also contribute to the genesis of positive teacher expectations for upper track students and lowered expectations for those in lower tracks. Teachers often communicate expectations to students in subtle ways, and negative teacher expectations for student per, formance may lead to the development of negative self-concept among students in the lower tracks. Finally, assignment to a lower track may contribute to a feeling of resentment and hostility, which can eventually lead to student withdrawal. The possibilities warrant examination.

Tracking does not promote cognitive achievement

One would normally assume that tracking remains a common educational strategy in our nation's schools because it promotes cognitive achievement in students. Contrary expectation, empirical evidence including legal decisions (Dillon vs. South Carolina Department of Education, 1986) suggests that tracking generally does not lead to desired goals. In fact, research suggests that most students are not well served by tracking, and students relegated to the lower tracks often experience limited academic gains and restricted opportunities to learn (Oakes, 1992; Slavin, 1990; Hallinan, 1991). Students in low ability tracks likely suffer from the loss of intellectual stimulation generally associated with advantaged students who possess more social and cultural capital. Although some research (Loveless,1998) suggests that gifted students achieve more when grouped with similar students, gains are relatively small. Moreover, gifted students make up less than three percent of school population. Tracking does not significantly benefit high achieving students and often does so at the expense of slow and average students (Ansalone, 2000; Borg, 1966; Persell, 1977). Very likely the modest gains in academic achievement of advantaged groups are more often a function of distinct processes occurring within the tracks, not the tracking structure itself.

Some of the processes in upper tracks may include more positive teacher expectations as well as a manipulation of the curricula to include more course content with greater social currency. Goodlad's research (1984) shows that students in the different tracks have access to considerably different course content and corresponding opportunities to develop different intellectual skills and career trajectories. On the other hand, upper track students do not experience an academic disadvantage when heterogeneously mixed with low ability students (Dar & Resh, 1986). In sum, current research reveals that heterogeneous groupings are more likely to promote academic achievement for all levels of students.

One major point of confusion in the tracking debate centers on early research, which reveals that tracking leads to improved academic development for all groups studied. One early researcher (Cook, 1924) found few academic problems in 9th and 10th grade students placed into high and low ability levels; he noted significant gains for slower students in math and superior students in history. Moyer (1924) also observed 9th grade students grouped by ability and revealed academic advantages for both upper and lower groups. Several other researchers found similar results in the same time period (Billett, 1928; Worlton, 1926; Wyndham, 1934). It is reasonable to suggest that the po. litical currents of the day in addition to the lack of methodological sophistication may have colored the findings of these researchers.

Opportunity to learn (OTL)

Today, research supports the belief that tracking contributes to different track level outcomes and unfairly impacts the academic trajectory of low-ability students. In order to demonstrate the differences, researchers have concentrated on uncovering the inequity in opportunity- to-learn that results when tracking applies. Opportunity-to-learn [OTL] refers to the amount of intended curricula, which is actually included in a course. As one might conclude, faculty members determine OTL, and they are influenced by their academic perception of the class. Some research reveals that tracking significantly influences teacher perception and that teachers often hold higher expectations for upper track classes (Delgado-Gaitan, 1990; Collins, 1986). Depending on the track level, students experience different kinds of course content and consequently have the opportunity to develop different kinds of skills.

Cross-cultural examination may help in understanding the signifi, cance of OTL in academic achievement. Japanese education, highly regulated by the Ministry of Education, focuses on effort rather than innate ability, that is, the belief that all students can achieve when enough effort is applied. Since the Japanese believe that intelligence is a function of effort, they rely less on ability to explain success in school. Consequently, the Japanese system prohibits educational structures which attempt to separate students or knowledge into different ability levels. All students receive a full and equal opportunity to learn. Students considered average in Japan often learn mathematics at the same level as the best students in the United States. The Second International Mathematics Study (SIMS) reveals that the performance of the top 5% of students in the US was equal to the performance of the top 50% of students in Japan. Additionally, the absence of tracking and the inclusion of 85% of the intended curriculum in the Japanese classes in contrast to 55% in low coverage classes in the US helps demonstrate how tracking impacts academic achievement (Stevenson, 1992).

Tracking may stimulate the development of negative self-concept

Qualitative research reveals the impact of tracking on a student's sense of self. In one early study of ability grouping, Mann (1960) asked over 100 fifth grade students to identify their fifth grade class and provide an explanation for their placement in that section. The brightest students replied that they were in the highest or the smartest group. In response to a second question, they stated they were smart or bright or gifted. Students in the low track responded that they were in the slow group and they were not smart. Few students identified their class by teacher's name. Clearly, student track placement in this study affected student self-concept. Most studies reveal negative consequences for the self-concept of average and low ability students. Tracks can create a self-fulfilling prophesy of belief and help define the type of person one becomes (Alexander and McDill, 1976; Rosenbaum, 1980). Some cross-cultural research arrives at similar conclusions. In a comprehensive analysis of the Japanese and American educational systems, White (1987) notes that the American practice of tracking can lead to social isolation and stigmatization. The process begins quite innocently when students react by assigning names to their peers such as "stupid" or "bright" based on track placement. White further notes that students in advanced tracks begin to feel superior to the other students and actually look down on them. Tracking also relates to the development of positive self-concept in upper tracks. Students in upper tracks generally develop positive self concepts, which in turn develop positive expectations for their performance (Oakes, 1985; Persell, 1977; Page, 1987).

Tracking fosters misconduct and resentment

Students, especially college students, are certainly affected by the learning environment and the social context in which their learning occurs. As an educational structure, tracking plays an important part in polarizing students' attitudes and feelings into pro and anti-school positions. The polarization may also result in the generation of specific track-related attitudes with upper track students displaying more enthusiasm for school and lower track students becoming more alienated (Gamoran & Berends, 1987; Oakes,1985; Schwartz, 1981; Kellam, 1994). The process of tracking can also perpetuate the feelings by fostering friendship patterns within the respective tracks thus bringing students with similar attitudes and feelings into close proximity (Hallinan & Sorensen, 1985).

As early as 1970, Schafer and Polk find that assignment to a lower track leads to student frustration, rebelliousness and eventual withdrawal from school. Their research shows that approximately 70% of students in the lower track admit to three or more school violations, reflecting their level of dissatisfaction with school. By comparison, only 19% of the upper track students report rule violations (Schafer & Polk, 1971). Teachers usually perceive low track students to be in greater need of discipline and control. Rosenbaum (1980) finds that tracking encourages misbehavior in low track students and eventually leads to withdrawal caused by their dissatisfaction with the system.

Goodlad (1984) reports that teachers in lower track classes report spending more time disciplining students while upper track faculty exert more effort teaching critical thinking skills. Research suggests that low track classes often experience greater student unrest, hostility and alienation (Oakes, 1985: Page, 1987). The unrest results in a redefinition of self which may lead to withdrawal. If lower track students redefine their self-concept based on their position in a track structure, they may experience a general dissatisfaction with the educational process and in time, with schooling itself. Emotionally, students in the upper tracks may feel academically superior to lower track students and begin to treat them in an inferior manner. Anger and hostility in lower track students surfaces when the label "slow" or "inferior" is applied by their peers.

Additionally, teachers may further complicate the situation by assigning value to students primarily based on track positions. A report by the English Committee of Enquiry on the status of schooling reports that misconduct may occur in lower streams because of pupils' recognition of their place in the total scheme of things-the bottom (DES, 1989). In sum, the available research suggests that tracking does nothing to enhance the self-concept of lower track students. In fact, tracking may contribute to a feeling of isolation, low self-esteem and frustration among lower track students, which eventually leads to greater misconduct and even eventual withdrawal of these students from school.

Policy implications

Overall, the educational structure of tracking, well intentioned or not, does not merit the time or the trouble. As a common organizational practice in schools, it contributes to student attrition by impeding academic achievement, fostering negative self-concept and often contributing to alienation and student resentment. The fault lies not with student characteristics but with a faulty educational delivery system. Though most of the research on tracking covers K-12, the effects of the system help explain high rates of attrition in community colleges that use tracking.

Tracking may penalize students for factors which lie beyond their control, including race, ethnicity and economic status. Schools should attempt to encourage heterogeneous groupings whenever possible. When special conditions necessitate tracking, it should be evaluated often and allow for easy reassignment of students.

Since tracking is not necessarily a fair way to deal with disparity in students' abilities, educational institutions must begin to focus on alternatives. Innovative delivery systems can provide advantaged students with stimulation and slower students with the academic support they need with greater reliance on academic learning centers and peer tutoring.

Cooperative learning offers an alternative teaching methodology. Students assist each other in the overall learning process, acting as partners with the professor. The approach encourages faculty to serve as guides in the learning process, while students begin to learn by themselves and from each other. Students work collaboratively in small groups on assignments and share responsibility for the overall success of the group. The small groups foster development of social and communication skills while active participation in the learning process promotes positive self-esteem (Beckman, 1990; Cooper, 1990).

In order to promote the use of heterogeneous classrooms, educational institutions must consider a change in curriculum and teaching styles. This change must focus on the development of student centered learning which encourage the active participation of all students. Interdisciplinary curricula, cooperative learning, experiential education and assessment of learning styles are all examples of this approach.

Assessment of learning styles offers another practical alternative to tracking. Dunn and Dunn (1992) define learning style in terms of individual student reactions to 21 elements of the instructional environment. The variables, grouped in five strands, measure components of the student's learning style.

Environmental: Learners state their preference for sound or quiet, bright or dim light, warm or cool temperature, formal or informal seating.

Emotional: Four emotional elements indicate whether learners are motivated, persistent, responsible (conforming or non-conforming), or internally versus externally directed.

Sociological: Learners state preference to learn alone, in a pair, with peers, in a team, with an authoritative versus a collegial adult, or in various configurations.

Physiological: The variables include perceptual preferences (aural, visual, tactile, and kinesthetic) which indicate how a learner best learns new and difficult material. Students also indicate whether they prefer to snack or chew while learning; what time of day is best for learning; and whether the learner must move about intermittently while learning.

Psychological: Students function as global or analytic learners.

Responses to a Productivity Environmental Preference Questionnaire (PEPS) assess the student's style. No learning style is superior to another. Students tend to learn and retain information when instructors address students' learning style preferences.

Reevaluation of all routines and more research on particular instructional delivery systems in community colleges can confirm the effects of routines that separate students, convey lowered expectations or restrict opportunity to learn. Today, students attending institutions of higher learning, especially community colleges, encounter a variety of risks. Certainly, the greatest of these is the possibility of not completing their college degree. While the possibility of withdrawal exists for all groups, the potential is significantly higher for community college students (47%). Recognizing the personal char, acteristics of the dropout helps, but colleges must also focus on alternative contributing factors, such as educational delivery systems and how one such structure-tracking-contributes to the problem of attrition in higher education

References

ACT, Inc. 2000. National College Dropout and Graduation Rates.

Ansalone, G. 2000. Keeping on track: A reassessment of tracking in the schools. Journal of Race, Gender and Class,7,3.pp.108-32.

Alexander, K., and E. McDill. 1976. Selection and allocation within schools. American Sociological Review, 41, pp. 96380.

Ballantine, J. 1997. Sociology of education. New Jersey: Simon and Schuster.

Beckman, M. 1990. Collaborative learning. College Teaching, 38, pp.128-33

Billett, R. 1932. Administration and supervision of homogeneous groupings. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University Press.

Bonham, L. and Adrianne, J. 1993. Taking a break in schooling: Why community college students stop out. Community College Journal of Research and Practice,17, 3,pp. 257-70.

Borg, W. 1966. Ability grouping. Madison, Wisconsin: Dembar Educational Research.

Bowles, S. & H. Gintis. 1976. Schooling in capitalist America. New York: Basic Books.

Coleman, J. 1966. Equality of educational opportunity. Washington DC. U.S. Depart, ment of Health, Education and Welfare.

Collins, J. 1986. Differential instruction in reading groups. In Cook-Gumperz, 1986 Social construction of literacy. Cambridge university Press.

Cook, R. 1924. A study of the results of homogeneous grouping. National Society for the Study of Education, 23.

Cooper, J. 1990. Cooperative learning and college instruction, California State University, Long Beach, Office of the Chancellor. Eric Document ED348920.

Dar, Y. and N. Resh. 1986. Classroom intellectual composition and achievement. American Educational Research journal, 23.pp.354-82.

Delgado-Gaiton, C. 1990. Literacy for empowerment. New York: Falmer press.

Department of Education and Science. 1989. Discipline in the schools. Report of the Committee of Enquiry. Lord Elton, Chair. London, HMSO.

Dillon vs. the South Carolina Department of Education, 1986. Dunn, R., Dunn, K. 1992. Teach

ing students through their learning styles. Boston: Allyn& Bacon Press.

Gamoran, A., Berends, M. 1987. The effects of stratification in secondary schools. Review of Educational Research, 57, pp.415-35.

Goodlad, J. 1984. A Place called school. New York: McGrawHill Co.

Hallinan, M & A. Sorensen. 1985. Ability grouping and student friendships. American Educational Research Journal, 22, pp. 485-98.

Hallinan, M. 1991. School differ, ences in tracking structure and track assignments. journal of Research on Adolescence, pp. 251-75.

Jones, D., and B. Watson. 1988. The increasing significance of race. In Poverty, race and public policy, ed. B. Tidwell Landham, Md: National Urban League Press.

Kellam, S. 1994. The social adaptation of children in classrooms in Exploring Family

relationships ed R. Parker and S. Kellam Hillsdale NJ. Erlbaum. Pp. 147-68.

Lewallen, W. 1993. Early alert. Lancaster, CA ED 369 452. Loveless, J.1998. The tracking and

ability grouping debate. The Thomas Fordham Foundation. Mann, M. 1960. What does ability

grouping do to self-concept. Childhood Education 36pp. 35660.

Moore, N. 1993. Persistence and attrition. Farmington NM: Office of Institutional research, San Juan College. ED 38 159.

Mohammadi, J. 1994. Exploring retention and attrition in a two year community college. Martinsville, Va: Patrick Henry Community College. ED 382 257.

Moyer, E. 1924. A study of the effects of classification by intelligence tests. National Society for the Study of Education, 23.

Oakes, J. 1985. Keeping on track. New Haven, CT- Yale University Press.

Oakes, J., Gammoran, A., and Page, R. 1992. Curriculum differentiation: Opportunities, outcomes, and meanings. In P. Jackson. ed. Handbook of research on curriculum: A project of the American Educational Research Association. New York: Macmillan.

Page, R. 1987. Teachers' perceptions of students. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 18, pp. 77-99.

Pallas, A. 1994. Ability group effects. Sociology of Education 67.pp. 27-46.

Persell, C. 1977. Education and inequality. New York: Free Press.

Price, L. 1993.Characteristics of early student dropouts at Allegany Community College. Cumberland Maryland ED 361 051.

Rosenbaum, J. 1980. Social Implications of educational grouping. Review of esearch in education e. Berliner ed. 8, 361401. Washington, D>C. : the American educational research association.

Schaefer, W., Olexa, C., Polk, K. 1970. Programmed for social class: Tracking in American

high schools. Transaction 7, pp. 39-63.

Schwarts, F. 1981. Supporting or subverting learning: Peer group patterns in four tracks. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 12, pp. 99-121.

Slavin, R. 1990. Achievement effects of ability grouping. Review of Educational Research, 60,pp.471-99.

Stevenson, H., J. Stigler. 1992. The learning gap. New York: Summit Books.

Trow, M. 1966. The secondary transformation of higher education in Reinhard, Bendi and Lipset. Eds. Class, Status and Power. New York: Free Press.

Tinto, V. 1975. Dropouts from higher education. Review of educational research 45,1: 89125.

White, M. 1987. The Japanese educational challenge. New York: Free Press.

Windham, P. 1994. The relative importance of selected factors to attrition at public community colleges. Paper presented at the 23 annual conference of the Southeastern Association for Community Colleges Savannah, Georgia. ED 373 833.

Worlton, J. 1926. The why of homogeneous classification. Elementary School Journal, 27.

Wyndham, H. 1934. Ability grouping: Recent developments. Melbourne.

George Ansalone Dr. Ansalone is a Professor of Sociology at St. John's University in Jamaica, New York.

Copyright Schoolcraft College Fall 2002
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved