"school commitment" in Valli's study of tracking in Catholic high schools

General Track students invariably reported spending less time on homework than did academic track students. One possible explanation for the discrepancy is that since General Track students take fewer courses, they have more study time during school hours to work on assignments. They might not be counting this worktime as "homework;' it is work they complete during school.

Though one might wonder about students saying they work as hard as they can when they apparently do so little homework, the urban context of their lives needs to be considered. As one teacher from St. Catherine's said

...I don't really get into making a point of finding out what their home environment is like because I'm afraid I'm going to feel so sorry for them that I'm not going to put the academic demands on them that I would for someone else.

The context of students' out-of-school lives in all probability made lengthy, concentrated homework time an impossibility.

At Murphy High School, students noted how committed teachers were to helping them learn. They mentioned teachers' availability for tutoring or individual help, and the benefit of small class sizes. Teachers noted the importance of "starting where the students are and going from there," of re-teaching material in different ways, and of making sure everyone understood the material before moving on. In some of the more basic classes in particular, teachers kept students accountable by giving quizzes almost daily. They also provided students with positive feedback on their papers, saying "negative comments don't work with our kids."


STUDENT ATTITUDES

There is considerable concern in the literature about the self-esteem effects of homogeneous grouping on the lowest achieving students. But the "low achievers" we interviewed spoke favorably about being in lower tracks and even remedial classes. A St. Catherine 9th grader was grateful for the opportunity to take remedial courses which would help her get better by giving her "a little bit of extra help." A senior concurred: "I like the fact that they place you, how can I say, with people on your own level so that you wouldn't feel bad that people would be better than you." Students did not think their five level curriculum caused divisions in the student body or stigmatized lower achieving students: "We don't put on any airs. You do your work."

All the students in the senior group at Central Catholic similarly agreed that their tracking system had worked well for them. There was no indication that Track 3 students felt deprived of a quality education or unfavorably labeled. As previously mentioned, students said they sometimes deliberately tried to keep their grades low to get placed down a track where they wouldn't have to work so hard. But the faculty, who knew their students quite well, were alert to these efforts. Faculty often told students they were being lazy and would have to suffer with their higher track placement.

Those Central Catholic students who were in Track 3 said they liked the idea of homogeneous grouping because they were in with students at their own level. They thought this made it possible for hem to do better, to understand the material more quickly, whereas they might be failing in a higher track. One third track sophomore said the system gave him incentive to try to get up to the second and then the first track.

[snip]

Measures of school efficacy and climate again reveal no significant differences by track. Students who identify themselves as general or academic track rate their schools equally high. These three schools are apparently very successful in helping students believe in their ability and in creating a pleasant learning atmosphere for all students.

In contrast to these homogeneously grouped classes, mixed ability classes were described as unfair. Students said such classes would inevitably make it harder for students to understand and that they might fail. They favorably contrasted their tracked high school classes to their mixed ability elementary school classes where they often felt left behind with few resources to catch up. In grade school, Track 3 students never had a chance to get A's. At Central Catholic they did. As one sophomore said, "In grade school...the only people that learn are those that are quick."

This preference of low-achieving students for homogeneously grouped classes supports Berliner's (1985) and others' contention that young people, especially lower social class children, need to be in academic settings which enable them to experience success. High success rate is an essential component of learning:

...the necessity for high success experiences for young students, where curriculum has been carefully matched to the student so that the student can suceed, seems to be the precursor for the development of a positive academic self-concept (Berliner 1985: 9).

From years of commitment to low-achieving students, the teachers at Murphy, St. Catherine, and Central Catholic were highly aware of this necessity. The teachers consciously strove to develop positive self-images. They regarded this deficiency rather than lac of academic ability to be th critical factor in students' learning problems. Students knew their teachers believed they could learn:

Murphy gives you an 'attitude' that helps you do well in school. If I had had the attitude for eight years at my elementary school that I do here it would have been different. My test scores would have been a little higher and I would have learned more. I think they try to give one self-confidence, that is in getting the student to believe that he can be successful if he prepares himself correctly (Bauch et al., 1985b: 5).

Nowhere did we hear teachers say, "I don't know how to reach this type of student." Teachers were perceived as caring, even as friends. Poor academic achievement performance was not held against students as long as they were trying. As one student said, "They really do care, you know. It's not that you do well, it's that you try....They won't fail a student if he's trying as hard as he can. That's not the job here to fail kids. They want them to learn."

Only mythical thinking can picture low-achieving students in non-ability grouped heterogeneous classrooms receiving the same instruction as their higher achieving peers. We know from years of research on teacher expectations that students for whom teachers have low expectations are given less time to answer teachers' questions, receive less praise for successful performance, have their work interrupted more, are smiled at less, and are seated further away from teachers (Berliner 1985; Proctor 1984).

Tracking: Can It Benefit Low Achieving Children?
Linda R. Valli
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association
(70th, San Francisco, CA, April 16-20, 1986)
p. 21-26

ability grouping & SAT score decline
ability grouping in Singapore
stagnation at the top - Fordham report
Tracking: Can It Benefit Low Achieving Children?
Linda Valli on tracking in 5 Catholic high schools, 1
Linda Valli on tracking in 5 Catholic high schools, 2
"school commitment" in Valli's study of tracking in Catholic high schools
7th grade depression starts in 1st grade