Tracking, Students' Effort, and Academic Achievement

Author(s): William Carbonaro

Source: Sociology of Education, Vol. 78, No. 1 (Jan., 2005), pp. 27-49
Published by: American Sociological Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4148909
Accessed: 08/07/2009 12:31

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=asa.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

American Sociological Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Sociology of Education.

http://www.jstor.org
 Tracking, Students' Effort, and
Academic Achievement
William Carbonaro
Universityof Notre Dame

Thisstudy examinedthe linksamong students'effort,tracking,and students'achievement.It

found that studentsin highertracksexert substantiallymore effortthan do students in lower
tracks.These differencesin effort are largely explained by differencesin prior effort and
achievement,as well as students'experiencesin theirclasses.Students'effortis stronglyrelat-
ed to students'learning,and trackdifferencesin students'effortaccountfor a modest portion
of trackdifferencesin students' learning.Finally,the effect of students' effort on students'
learningis roughlythe same, regardlessof the trackin which a student is placed.

ociologists of education have focused gains in learningthan do those in lower-abil-

heavilyon how structural factors-the ity groupsand tracks.
systemicorganizationaland institutional Although learningopportunitiesare cer-
characteristicsof schools-shape academic tainly importantin determining how much
outcomes. Curricular trackingis perhapsthe students learn in school, other factors that
most prominentstructuralaspect of schools influence learning have received less atten-
that researchershave studied. Researchhas tion. Sociologistsof education have focused
on the importanceof social structure
strongly suggested that students in higher heavily
"tracks"and ability groups tend to learn but have been less attentive to the impor-
more than do comparablestudents in lower tance of human agencyin shaping students'
tracksand abilitygroups (Barrand Dreeben outcomes. Forexample, curriculartrackingis
a social structurethat differentiallyprovides
1983; Gamoran1986, 1987; Gamoranand
Mare 1989; Hoffer 1992).1 Much research opportunitiesand imposes constraintsupon
has focused on differencesin learningoppor- what students have the potentialto learn.A
massivearrayof studies have describedcur-
tunitiesacross abilitygroups and tracksas a
riculartrackingas a practiceand have exam-
possible explanation (see, e.g., Gamoran ined its effects. In contrast, a much smaller
1986; Pallaset al. 1994). Typically,higher- number of studies have focused on human
ability groups and higher-trackclasses are agency-whether a student chooses to
characterizedby higher-qualityinstruction
engage himself or herself in the learning
(Gamoranand Carbonaro2002-03; Oakes process-even though it also plays a critical
1985; Page 1991), more time spent on role in explainingwhy some students learn
instruction(Barrand Dreeben 1983; Oakes more than do others.2
Serensenand Hallinan
1985), and greatercurricularcoverage (Barr (1977) argued that differencesin achieve-
and Dreeben1983; Brophyand Good 1986; ment among students can be explained by
Rowan and Miracle 1983). Since each of three factors: learning opportunities,effort,
these aspectsof students'learningopportuni- and ability.Byfocusing on learningopportu-
ties is related to students' learning (Wang nitiesand effort,they highlightedthe impor-
1998), it is not surprisingthat students in tance of both social structureand human
higher-abilitygroupsand tracksenjoygreater agencyin explainingdifferencesin learning.

Sociologyof Education2005, Vol.78 (January):27-49 27

28 Carbonaro

DespiteSorensenand Hallinan'simportant dent may exert more proceduraleffort by

conceptual contribution,few studies have turningin homeworkassignmentsmorecon-
successfullyaccountedfor the role that both sistentlythan the other student. Finally,stu-
structureand agency playin determiningstu- dents exert intellectual effortwhen they apply
dents' outcomes.The maingoal of this study theircognitivefacilitiestowardunderstanding
is to examine how curriculartracking and the intellectualchallengesposed by the cur-
effortare relatedto gain a betterunderstand- riculum.Twostudentsexertthe sameamount
ing of how structureand agency shape stu- of proceduraleffort if they both submitthe
dents' outcomes. In so doing, I hope to ren- same numberof homeworkassignments,but
der a more complete understandingof how if StudentA devotes more time and thought
unequal outcomes emerge from structural to answeringall the questionsin the assign-
factorswithinthe school that are imposedon ment correctly while StudentB is simplycon-
students and choices that students make on cerned with handing in the assignment
being placed in such structures. (regardlessof quality), Student A expends
more intellectualeffortthan does StudentB.
As these examplesillustrate,effortis a multi-
BACKGROUND dimensionalconcept, and a good indicatorof
effort should include measures of a broad
What Is Students' Effort? rangeof tasksand expectations.
This definitionof effortcan be contrasted
BeforeI discuss how effort is related to out- with three conceptsthat are often associated
comes and curricular tracking, it is necessary with it. First,Willis(1977) popularizedthe
to devise a workingdefinitionof effort. Effort concept of resistancein his studyof working-
is the amount of time and energy that stu- class youths in England. Resistanceclearly
dents expend in meeting the formalacadem- connotes students' withdrawal of effort.
ic requirementsestablishedby their teacher However,this concept is limited because it
and/or school. It is goal specific,and different failsto differentiateamong the differentlevels
students may exert the same levelof effortin of effort exerted by students who have not
meeting some goals but differentlevels of rejectedthe school culture.
effort in meeting others. Often these goals Second, psychologists focus heavily on
are hierarchical, and some require little more motivation and self-efficacy(see, e.g., Bong
than tacit compliance,while others demand and Clark1999). Motivationand self-efficacy
greater commitments of time and/or are clearly related to effort because they
thought. explainwhysome studentsexert more effort
It is possible to distinguishamong three than do others. However,neither is equiva-
differenttypes of effort:ruleoriented,proce- lent to effortbecausetwo studentsmayexert
dural, and intellectual. Rule-orientedeffort the same level of effort and have different
entails students' compliance with the most motivesand/or levelsof self-efficacy.
basicrulesand normsrequiredby the school, Finally,it is importantto emphasizehow
such as showing up for class regularly and the concept of effort differs from that of
refraining from misbehavior. Two students engagement. Engagementhas been defined
who attend class regularlyare exerting the and operationalizedin numerouswaysby dif-
same level of rule-orientedeffort. Procedural ferent researchers.Typically,researchershave
effortrequiresstudentsto tryto meet the spe- argued that effort,as representedby behav-
cific demandsset forth by a teacherin a par- iors like attending class and time spent on
ticular class, including completing required homework,is a key component of engage-
assignments, turning in assignments on time, ment (see Johnson, Crosnoe, and Elder2001;
and participating in class discussions. Smerdon 1999). However, some researchers
Procedural effort places higher demands on have also argued that engagement includes
students than does rule-oriented effort: Two an affective or psychological component that
students who attend class regularlyare equal focuses on students' enthusiasm about, inter-
in terms of rule-oriented effort, but one stu- est in, and attachment to their school and/or
Tracking,Effort,and Achievement 29

the schooling process (see, e.g., Newmann the relationshipsbetween effortand curricu-
1992). Iarguethat effortcan be studiedapart lar tracking will render a more complete
from this affectivecomponent and that it is account of how curriculartracking affects
beneficialto do so because effort can affect academicoutcomes.
outcomes, regardlessof whetherstudentsare
enthusiastic about, interested in, and/or
attachedto theirschool. RESEARCHAGENDA
Students' Effortand Learning The analyses presented here focus on four
main questions regardingeffortand curricu-
Numerousstudies have found that students'
lartracking:(1) Does effortvaryacrosstracks?
effort is related to academic achievement.
Studiesof "engagement"havetypicallyrelied (2) What explains variationin effort across
tracks?(3) Does variationin effortexplaindif-
heavily on measuresof effort, such as the ferences in learning across tracks?and (4)
completionof homework,attentiveness,and Does efforthave the same effect on learning
preparedness.Generally,the findingsof such across tracks,or does effort mattermore for
studies have indicatedthat studentswho are
more engaged learnmore in school (Johnson learningin some tracksthan in others?Each
researchquestionlinkseffort,curricular differ-
et al. 2001; Marks2000; Smerdon1999; Yair and in that will
entiation, learning ways
2000). Farkaset al. (1990) found that stu- enhance researchers' understanding of
dents' "workhabits,"as measuredby teach-
inequalityin students'outcomes.
ers' reportsof homework,class participation, First, does effort vary across curricular
effort,and organization,were positivelyrelat- tracks?Althoughnumerousstudieshave doc-
ed to students'masteryof coursesand grade umenteddifferencesin learningopportunities
point averages (GPAs).Rosenbaum(2001) across tracks (Gamoran and Carbonaro
alsofound that students'"preparedness" and 2002-03; Oakes 1985, 1990; Page 1991),
absenteeismwas relatedto their GPAs.Time
only a handful of studies have examined
spent on homeworkby students is a com- whether effort varies across tracks. Eder
monly used measure of effort (see, e.g., (1981) and Felmleeand Eder(1983) found
Natrielloand McDill1986), and numerous that firstgradersin lower-abilitygroupswere
studies have indicated that it is related to less attentivethan theirpeersin higher-ability
higher achievement (Alexanderand Cook groups. If "attentiveness"is considered a
1982; Carbonaro and Gamoran 2002; measure of effort, this research suggested
Natrielloand McDill1986; but see Bryk,Lee, that ability grouping is related to effort.
and Holland1993 for an exception).Inshort, Natrielloand McDill(1986) found that stu-
althoughthe labelsand measuresused have dents in the college trackspent moretime on
variedacrossstudies,efforthas been found to their homeworkthan did studentswho were
be positivelyrelatedto achievement. not in the college track.While Natrielloand
Althoughresearchon students'effort has McDillused "timespent on homework"as a
yielded interestinginsights,researchershave proxy for effort, this measure is flawed
paid little attention to the possible connec- because other researchon trackinghas indi-
tion between effort and curriculartracking. cated that teachersassignmore homeworkto
This omission is surprising,given the sheer students who are enrolled in higher-track
volume of research on curriculartracking. classes (Oakes 1985). Thus, it is not clear
Most studiesof trackinghave focused on the whether higher-trackstudents are actually
importance of learning opportunities in exertingmoreeffortor whether they are sim-
explaining differences in learning across abili- ply responding to the greater demands that
ty groups and tracks, and only a few have their teachers place on them. Finally,
examined the links between either ability Smerdon (1999) found that engagement, as
grouping or curricular tracking and effort measured by attendance, preparedness, and
(Eder 1981; Felmlee and Eder 1983; Natriello time spent on homework, was positively relat-
and McDill 1986). Hence, an examination of ed to track placement. Smerdon's measures
30 Carbonaro

of trackwere reportedby studentsand were the learningprocess,sap theirdesireto strive

not subject specific. Some scholars have for academic success, and ultimatelyunder-
raised questions regardingthe appropriate- mine their levels of academic achievement.
ness and qualityof such measures(e.g., Lucas The conclusionsfromresearchon black-white
1999; Lucas and Gamoran 2002). Clearly, differences in effort have been mixed.
additional research, using nationallyrepre- Qualitativestudies have suggested that anti-
sentativedata with better measuresof effort school normsand low effort by studentsare
and track,is needed to determinethe extent an importantsourceof underachievementby
to which students'trackplacementsare relat- minoritystudents(Fordhamand Ogbu 1986;
ed to the amount of effortthey exert in their Ogbu 1978, 2003; Suarez-Orozco1987).
classes. Quantitative research that has analyzed
The next researchquestionfocuseson why teachers' reports of students' effort
effort varies across curriculartracks. Prior (Ainsworth-Darnell and Downey 1998; Tach
research has suggested numerous possible and Farkas2003) hasfound that whitesexert
explanations.These explanations,along with moreeffortthan do blacks.3However,studies
the hypothesizedrelationshipsbetween effort that haveexaminedstudents'reportsof effort
and learning,are displayedin Figure1. havefound that blackstudentsand whitestu-
First,students' backgroundcharacteristics dents generallydo not differin the effortthey
may explain track differences in effort. exert in school (Cook and Ludwig 1998;
Numerousscholarshave arguedthat "oppo- Ferguson2001; Marks2000; Smerdon1999).
sitionalcultures"emerge from and are sus- The findings on class and gender differ-
tained by cultural differences across ences in effort have been more consistent:
racial/ethnic(Farkas,Lleras,and Maczuga Students of higher socioeconomic status
2002; Fordhamand Ogbu 1986; Mickelson (SES)and females are more likelyto exert
1990; Ogbu 1978, 2003; Suarez-Orozco more effortthan are lower-SESand malestu-
1987) and class boundaries (Cook and dents (Cook and Ludwig1998; Marks2000;
Ludwig 1998; MacLeod 1995; Weis 1990; Smerdon1999). SES,race/ethnicity,and gen-
Willis1977). The antischool norms fostered der are importantfactorsthat shape how stu-
by these subculturesdisengagestudentsfrom dents are sorted into different tracks

Beliefs about
Self and
Future

EffortFuue t

SStudent
Track Student
Placement - - - - - -
> Effort
Achievement

Prior
Achieve-
ment Intellectual
Engagement

OTL,

Background
Factors

Figure1. ConceptualModelfor Understandingthe RelationshipAmongEffort,Tracking,and

Achievement
Tracking,Effort,and Achievement 31

(Gamoranand Mare1989; Jones,Vanfossen, will exert more effortwhen there is a greater

and Ensminger1995). The overrepresenta- academic challenge and when they find
tion of racial/ethnicminority,lower-SES,and meaningin the dailytasksthat are requiredof
malestudentsin lower-trackclassesmay part- them. Marks(2000) found that "authentic
ly explaintrackdifferencesin students'effort. instructionalwork,"a looselyrelatedconcept
Second, it is possiblethat prioreffortis an that focuses on whether instructiontaps into
importantcriterionthat is used to sort stu- students'interestsand requiresthat they "dig
dents into curriculartracks. Students who deeply"in theirstudies,was positivelyrelated
exert more effort in the 8th grade may be to engagement. Yair(2000) also found that
more likelyto be placed in higher tracksin studentsdisplayedgreaterengagementwhen
the 10th grade and, consequently,may be they are exposed to instructionthat is charac-
predisposedto exertgreatereffortin the 10th terized by greater relevance,challenge, and
grade. Alternatively,it is well establishedthat academicdemand.Ifhigher-trackclassespro-
academicachievementis one of the strongest vide materialand requiretasksthat are more
predictorsof trackplacement(Gamoranand intellectuallystimulating,it is possible that
Mare1989; Hallinan1992; Joneset al. 1995; students in higher-trackclasses may respond
Lucas1999). If effort is relatedto academic with greatereffort.
achievementand students are largelysorted It is importantto note that dashed arrows
into trackson the basisof theirpriorachieve- point from track placement to effort and
ment, it is possiblethat differencesin effort achievement in Figure 1. These dashed
across tracksmay simply reflectthis sorting arrowsare meant to denote that these rela-
processof high-achievingand effort-exerting tionships are estimated in the analyses, but
studentsinto higher-trackclasses. the expectationis that these paths should be
Third,it is possible that higher-trackstu- insignificantif all the factors in Figure1 are
dents have beliefsabout themselvesand their fully accounted for in the model. In other
futurethat lead them to exert more effortin words, the effects of track placement on
their classes. Higher-trackstudents may feel effort and achievement should be indirect,
more efficaciousbecause of teachers'differ- working through the four main factors
ent expectations across tracks (see, e.g., described earlier.Any residualtrack differ-
Oakes 1985). If students internalizesuch ences in effort and achievement after these
expectations,studentsin differenttracksmay factorsare controlledfor may be due to poor
hold differentbeliefsabout theirown chances measurementof the mediating variablesor
of academic success. Studentswho believe some othervariablethat is unaccountedfor in
they can succeed and expect to succeed in the conceptualmodel.
school will try harderbecausethey anticipate The next two questions focus on how
that there will be a distinct"payoff"to their effortand trackingare relatedto achievement
efforts. In contrast, students who do not outcomes for students. Smerdon (1999)
believethat academicsuccessis likelyor even found that engagement and trackplacement
possible are unlikelyto try hard in school had independent effects on reading and
because they view such effortsas a waste of math achievement,but she did not examine
time. WhileI arguethat beliefsevokeeffort,it whether any of the track-achievementrela-
should be noted that effort may alter stu- tionshipwas explainedby engagement. The
dents' beliefs in responseto teachers'praise analyses presented here examine this issue
and/or highergrades. and revealwhetherdifferencesin effortacross
Finally,trackplacementmay be relatedto trackspartlyexplainwhy students in higher-
the cognitive demands of and stimulation trackclassestend to learnmorethan do those
from the curriculum, which may ultimately in lower-trackclasses.
shape how much effort students exert in a Second, I examine whether the relation-
given class. Oakes (1985) found that high- ship between effort and achievement varies
track students had greater opportunities for across curricular tracks. Since higher-track
critical thinking and were typically given classes typically have higher-quality instruc-
more challenging material to study. Students tion and more-experienced teachers (Oakes
32
1985, 1990), students in these classes may
have to expend less effortto learnthe mater-
ial than may students in lower-trackclasses
who are exposed to low-qualityinstructionby
less-experiencedteachers. Lecturesthat lack
clarityand excitement are likelyto require
students to ask more questionsin class, seek
help outside class, and do more work at
home to learnthe material.Inshort,students
in lower-trackclassesmay need to exert more
effortto do as well as studentsin higher-track
classes.4Thus,effortmay be a criticalpredic-
tor of students'success in lower-trackclasses
but may be less importantfor learning in
higher-trackclasses. Examiningthese ques-
tions will illuminate how the interplay
between structure (learning opportunities
provided by different track classes) and
agency (students'effortsto learn)shapesaca-
demic outcomesfor students.
DATA
The analyses reportedhere used data from
the 8th- to 10th-gradecohortof the National
Education Longitudinal Survey of 1988
(NELS:88).This data set is well suited for
studying the relationshipbetween tracking
and effortfor severalreasons.First,the longi-
tudinaldesign of the data makesit possibleto
controlfor 8th-gradedifferencesin students'
attitudes, behaviors, and achievements,
thereby reducing the likelihoodthat differ-
ences in effortand learningsimplyreflectpre-
existing differencespriorto the 10th-grade
track placement. Second, the NELS:88data
providea vast arrayof student-and teacher-
reported indicatorsthat serve as important
controlsin the models.
Finally,and most important,the NELS:88
data providetwo teacherreportsper student
in the 8th and 10th grades. In both the 8th
and 10th grades,two teacherswere surveyed
per student;one teachertaught either math
or science, and the other taught either
English or history. Subject-specific reports by
teachers have an important advantage over
data that are not subject specific: Both stu-
dents' effort and students' track placement
are allowed to vary across classes. To capital-
ize on this important feature of the NELS
Carbonaro
data, samples of students in four subjects-
math, English, history, and science-were
created. This design allows students to
appearin multiplesamples,therebyallowing
theirtrackstatusand effortto varyby subject.
Consequently,the design of this study is
superiorto the designs of other studies of
trackingand effortin which measuresof track
status and effort/engagementwere reported
without referenceto specific academicsub-
jects (e.g., Smerdon 1999). The results
reportedin this articlefocus on math, since
most of the research in the area of high
schooltrackinghasfocused on mathachieve-
ment (e.g., Gamoranand Mare1989; Hoffer
1992). However, the analyses were per-
formed in all four subjects, and the overall
findingswere consistentacrossacademicsub-
jects (resultsavailableon request).
Students' Effort Variables
The main variablesof interest measurestu-
dents' effort.It is importantto recognizethat
measuring effort is problematic in several
respects.First,it may be difficultfor students
to reportaccuratelythe effort they exert in
school for several reasons. One problem is
that "exertinghigh effort"may mean some-
thing differentfor differentstudents. Some
studentsmaythinkthey areexertinghigh lev-
els of effortif they do everythingthe teacher
asks; others may consider such effort only
adequate. Such differentdefinitionsof effort
decreasethe reliabilityof self-reportedeffort.
Social desirabilitybias is another problem
with self-reportsof effort. Brint,Contreras,
and Matthews(2001) found that elementary
schools transmittedmany messages to stu-
dents about the valueof hardworkas partof
the hidden curriculum.If studentsinternalize
such messages,it may be difficultforthem to
admit that they are not working hard.
Alternatively,some evidence has suggested
that high schoolstudentsmaydownplaytheir
effortin explainingeithertheiracademicsuc-
cess or failure (Bishop 1999).
Teachers serve as an alternative source of
information about students' effort. Just as
with students, there are advantages and dis-
advantages to using teachers' reports of
effort. On the one hand, teachers are limited
Tracking,Effort,and Achievement
in that they must indirectlyassess effort. For
example,a student maytry hardand spend a
great deal of time on a homeworkassign-
ment, but still do a poor job because he or
she does not havethe skillsor resourcesneed-
ed to succeed. A teacher may incorrectly
attributethe student'spoor performanceon
the assignmentto insufficienteffortand thus
providean unreliableestimate of effort. On
the otherhand,a teacheris not susceptibleto
social desirabilitybias in reportingstudents'
effortand hence may provideless-biasedesti-
mates of effort.
Despite their potential limitations, the
teachers' reports of students' effort in the
NELS:88data are preferableto the students'
reportsfor two reasons. First,the range of
items on effort reported by the teachers is
moreextensivethan that reportedby the stu-
dents. In addition, the teacher measuresof
students' effort relied on both subjective
assessmentsof students'effortand students'
behaviors that are more tangible, easily
observed, and reported.Again,when differ-
ent types of informationabout effort are
used, the limitationsof any given item will be
less important.Twoseparatemeasuresof 8th-
and 10th-gradeeffort were created for the
analysesthat follow.
First,the measureof 8th-grade(or "prior")
effort was created from teacher-reported
items of effortthat were collected in the 8th
grade. Bycontrollingfor 8th-gradeeffort,it is
possibleto determinewhether differencesin
10th-grade effort across tracks reflect the
placement of students who expended low
effort into lower-trackclasses, ratherthan a
responseby studentsto their placementin a
given track. The seven items used in the
"prioreffort" scale (displayed in Appendix
TableA) cover both subjectiveassessmentsof
effort(e.g., "thisstudent performsbelow his
or her ability") and reports of concrete,
observablestudent behaviors(e.g., "Thestu-
dent is frequentlyabsent").Thevariousitems
in the scale tap the differenttypes of effort
mentioned previously: rule oriented (student
is absent, tardy, and disruptive), procedural
(student rarely completes homework), and
intellectual (student performs below ability, is
withdrawn, and is inattentive).
Each student had teachers in two subjects
33
(math or science and historyor English)who
reportedthese items on the basisof theirpar-
ticularperceptionsof effortin a given subject.
It would have been preferable to match
reportsof 8th- and 10th-gradeeffortby aca-
demic subject(i.e., 8th- and 10th-gradeeffort
as reported by a student's 8th- and 10th-
grade math teachers). Unfortunately,it was
not possible to do so for many students
because their math teachers in the 8th and
10th gradeswere not sampled;instead,these
studentshad a scienceteachersampledin the
8th gradeand a math teachersampledin the
10th grade. To deal with this problem, I
included the reports from both 8th-grade
teachers for each student in a single scale,
which made it possibleto get an averagelevel
of effortexertedacrossthe two classes,which
servesas a proxyfor effortin a given subject.
The reliability for this scale was high
(Cronbach's alpha = .85).
A 10th-grademeasureof effortwas creat-
ed using three items from the 10th-grade
reportsfromteachers(see AppendixTableA).
Whilethe scale includesan item that is a sub-
jective reportof effort, it also uses two items
that are based on students'behaviors:atten-
tiveness and turning in homework.5Turning
in homework is an indicatorof procedural
effort,and attentivenessis a measureof intel-
lectual effort. Ideally,separate measuresfor
each of the three types of effort-rule orient-
ed, procedural,and intellectual-could be
includedin the analyses,but the three avail-
able measuresin NELSare best suited to be
combinedin a scale, to maximizethe reliabil-
ity and validityof the effortmeasure.
These measures are subject specific for
each student, and most students had sepa-
rate reportsfrom two of their teachers.The
major advantage of using subject-specific
samplesis that effortis allowedto varyacross
students' classes. Students' effort may vary
across their classes because of differencesin
either intrinsicor extrinsicmotivation(e.g.,
students preferringor valuingone academic
subject over another). In addition, if (as I
argue later) students' track placements vary
across subjects and effort is expected to vary
across tracks, then a subject-specific measure
of effort is crucial for the analyses.
In her study, Smerdon (1999) used stu-
34 Carbonaro

dent-reportedengagementmeasuresthat did derived from transcriptdata. Lucas(1999)

not vary across subjects,arguing that these discussed the strengths and limitationsof
generalreportsof engagementare preferable each method of operationalizingstudents'
because they provide a more complete track placements and concluded that
descriptionof students'engagement overthe researchersmay legitimatelyuse any of the
durationof a school day. However,since stu- three measures,depending on the particular
dents' track placements, academic experi- goals of a given analysis.I decided to use the
ences, and effortlikelyvaryacrossclasses,the teachers'reportsof trackfor four main rea-
class-specificreports of effort used in this sons: (1) Teachers'reportsare subjectspecific
study should more accurately reflect how and thereforeallow trackplacementto vary
effort is relatedto the instructionaland cur- across subjects, (2) teachers are at least as
ricularcontext of a given class.6 likely to identify important distinctions
Overall,the 10th-gradeeffortscales were betweenclassescorrectlyas are researchers in
reliable,with alphasrangingfrom .83 to .86 the
examining transcriptdata, (3) it is unclear
acrossacademicsubjects.It should be noted whether viable course-basedindicatorscan
that these reliabilitiesare much higher than be constructedin subjectsother than math
the .61 alpha reliabilityreportedby Smerdon fromthe NELS:88 transcriptdata, and (4) the
(1999). Consequently,the analysespresented results do not differ when the teachers'
here are an improvement on Smerdon's reportsof trackare replacedwith trackindi-
because they are less susceptibleto possible catorsthat were derivedfrom the transcript
problems associatedwith random measure- data.7
ment errorin the regressionanalyses. NELS:88 provides two subject-specific
It is importantto note that the 8th- and teachers' reports of trackfor each student.
10th-grademeasuresof effortare not identi- Teacherswere asked,"Whichof the following
cal. First,the wording of the questions and best describesthe 'track'this class is consid-
response categories are not identicalin the ered to be?" and were given five response
8th and 10th grades.Thedifferencesin word- categories: honors or advanced, academic,
ing are similarenough that they are only of general, vocational-technical-business,and
minor concern. The 10th-grade items have other.Dummyvariablesto representthe hon-
the advantageof five responsecategories,as ors/advanced, academic, and vocational-
opposed to two for the 8th-grade measure, technical-business/other categorieswere cre-
thereby makingit likelythat the 10th-grade ated for the analyses;the general-trackclass
estimates are somewhat more precise than served as the referencecategory.Hence,the
the 8th-grade estimates. Second, the 8th- coefficientsfor the track dummy variables
grade scale has four additionalitems that are indicatethe average differencein effortand
not includedin the 10th-grademeasure(see learningbetween students in a given track
AppendixTableA). Adding these additional and studentsin general-trackclasses.
items to the 8th-gradeeffortscale enhanced
the reliabilityof the scale(.81 versus.85), and Additional Variables
the validitywas probablyimprovedas well.
The "reduced"8th-grade measure without In addition to the measures of effort and
the additionalitems is highly correlated(r = track,numerousother variableswere used in
.925) with the measureused in the analyses. and createdfor the analyses.Descriptionsof
Given this high correlation,the regression all variablesused in the analysesare reported
resultswere virtuallyidentical,regardlessof in Table1. Whilethe measureof 10th-grade
which measure of 8th-grade effort was used. effort in math serves as the dependent vari-
able in the first set of analyses, 10th-grade
TrackIndicators math achievement serves as the dependent
variable in the second set. IRT(item-response
There are three sources of information about theory) scores were used because they are
a student's track in NELS:88:students' self- easily interpretable (one point equates with
reports, teachers' reports, and information one item correct on the examination) and are
Tracking,Effort,and Achievement 35

Table 1. Means and Standard Deviations for the Variables in the Analyses (n = 6,911)a

Variable Mean SD Low High

Background
Female .50 0 1
Race/ethnicity
White,non-Hispanic
(reference) .75 - 0 1
Black .09 - 0 1
Hispanic .10 - 0 1
Asian .06 - 0 1
SES -.013 0.775 -2.97 2.56

8th-GradeAchievement
Math 37.31 12.09 16.18 66.81
Reading 27.60 8.67 10.61 43.83
Science 19.21 4.87 9.46 32.88
History 29.96 4.54 19.23 41.30

10th-Grade
Achievement
Math 37.31 12.08 16.37 72.76

Track(Math)
Honors/advanced .13 - 0 1
Academic .53 - 0 1
General (reference) .29 - 0 1
Vocational/other .05 - 0 1

Students'Effort
Effortscale (G8) 12.45 2.69 0 14
Effortscale (G10) (math) 6.49 2.07 0 9
Effortscale (G10) (English)b 6.47 2.07 0 9
Effortscale (G10) (history)b 6.61 2.05 0 9
Effortscale (G10) (science)b 6.48 2.05 0 9

Students'Self-Efficacy
Locusof control(G8) 0.049 0.595 -2.89 1.52
Self-concept(G8) 0.028 0.649 -3.61 1.89
Educationalexpectations(G8) 4.62 1.27 1 6
Locusof control(G10) 0.0340 .619 -2.66 1.44
Self-concept(G10) -0.0060 .681 -2.95 1.66
Educationalexpectations(G10) 6.40 2.06 1 9

Students'Intellectual
Stimulation
Studentfeels challenged 12.62 7.74 0 20
Askedto show understanding 10.43 7.93 0 20
a The 8-10 panelweight (F1PNLWVVT)
was used to calculatethe meansand standarddeviationsin this
table.
b The mean and standarddeviationfor this variablewere based on a subject-specificsample.
36
scaledso that 8th- and 10th-gradetest scores
are in the same metric.
Fourcategoriesof variableswere used to
explaindifferencesin effortand achievement
acrosstracks.First,since backgroundfactors,
such as race/ethnicity,sex, and social class,
may be relatedto effort,trackplacement,and
achievement, controls for these variables
were includedin the analyses.Race/ethnicity
was basedon students'8th-gradereportsand
was representedby a series of dummy vari-
ables(black,Hispanic,and Asian),whichwere
contrastedwith non-Hispanicwhites (the ref-
erence category). SESwas a composite vari-
able that was composed of five differentfac-
tors takenfromthe base year:familyincome,
mother'sand father'seducation, and moth-
er's and father'soccupations.A dummyvari-
able ("female")was created to denote each
students'sex.
Second, measures of prior achievement
consistedof 8th-gradeIRTtest scoresin read-
ing, math, science, and history. Following
Jencks's(1985) suggestion,allfourtest scores
were includedseparatelyas independentvari-
ables in the regressionanalysesto controlfor
priorachievement.The use of fourtest scores
minimizedpossiblereliabilityproblemsin the
analysis.8
Third, multiple measures of students'
beliefs about themselves and their future
were used in the analysis:students' (1) 8th-
and 10th-grade locus of control,9 (2) 8th-
and 10th-gradeself-concept,10and (3) 8th-
and 10th-gradeexpectationsregardinghow
far studentsthinkthey will go in school.11By
includingthe 8th- and 10th-grademeasures
as separatepredictorsin the regressionmod-
els, I was able to establishwhethera change
in students'locus of control and/or self-con-
cept affected effort. Finally,two separate
measures of intellectual stimulation were
included:whetherstudentsfelt challengedin
a given subjectand whetherthey were asked
to show understandingin a given subject.
Althoughitems that measurewhether a stu-
dent was interested in or stimulated by a class
may be preferable, such measures are
unavailable in NELS.Regardless,the measures
used here are likely to be strongly correlated
with these more-direct measures.
It is important to note that although
Carbonaro
opportunitiesto learn (OTL)are present in
the conceptual model (see Figure1), direct
measuresof learningopportunitieswere not
includedin the analysis.Althoughit wouldbe
preferableto include such measuresin the
models,validOTLmeasuresareunavailablein
NELS.12 Consequently,after adjustmentsfor
the other mediating variables, the track
dummy variablesprobablyrepresentdiffer-
ences in exposure to learningopportunities,
as well as other unmeasuredfactors.
METHODS
Ordinaryleast-squares(OLS)regressiontech-
niqueswere used to analyzethe data.Thedis-
tributionfor the effort scale is clearlynega-
tively skewed. Consequently,when effort is
used as a dependentvariable,the estimatesof
the coefficientswill be less efficientthan they
would be if effortwere normallydistributed.
The models presentedherewere rerunwith a
normalizedversionof the effort scale as the
dependent variable.Comparisonsof the two
sets of analysesindicatedthat the magnitude
and levels of statisticalsignificancefor the
coefficientswere nearlyidentical.The results
for the analyses using the untransformed
effortscale are presentedin the tables,since
the interpretationof coefficients is more
straightforward in these analyses.
As with any quantitativestudy, missing
data also presented problemsfor the analy-
ses. Althoughthere was no specificvariable
that had a high degree of item nonresponse
(percentagesof missingcases rangedfrom0
to 20 percent),when includedtogetherin the
"full"regressionmodels, 35 percent to 42
percent of the cases were lost with listwise
deletion. If the data are "missingcompletely
at random,"listwisedeletion providesunbi-
ased estimates, but the smallersample size
decreasesthe statisticalpower of the models
(Alison2002).
To avoidthis limitationof listwisedeletion,
multiple imputation (using AMELIA software)
was used to deal with missing data that were
due to item nonresponse. Multiple imputa-
tion provides larger sample sizes than does
listwise deletion and requires only the weaker
"missing at random" assumption to produce
Tracking,Effort,and Achievement 37

unbiased estimates. Likeall imputation proce-
dures, King et al.'s (2001) multiple imputa-
tion technique uses information from other
variables in the data set to generate predicted
values for cases with missing data. In this
case, all the variables listed in Table 1 were
used to impute missing data in each academ-
ic subject. However, multiple imputation is
unique in that it generates multiple data
sets-in this case, five-with different imput-
ed values in each data set. By imputing miss-
ing values five different times, it is possible to
account for the uncertainty inherent in the
imputation process. The same models are
then run on each data set, and the final
results are then averaged across the five
analyses. Since the imputed data sets have no
missing data, the sample sizes remain the
same in each of the regression models (unlike
listwise deletion). The sample sizes in English,
math, science, and historywere 8,518, 6,911,
5,896, and 4,351, respectively.13
Since NELSis a multistage cluster sample,
the true standard errors are actually larger
than the standard errors reported by most
statistical software packages. The "survey"
command in Stata was used to calculate the
correct standard errors and account for the
design effects in NELS.By using information
about the sampling strata and primary sam-
pling unit, Stata is able to generate weighted
point estimates that are then used to create a
first-order matrix Taylorseries expansion that
generates the correct standard errors
(Statacorp 1999).
RESULTS
Does Effort VaryAcross Tracks?
Do students in different track classes exert dif-
ferent levels of effort? Table 2 displays the
means for 10th-grade effort by track. The
higher the track of the class, the more effort
students exerted. The differences in effort
across tracks are sizable and statistically sig-
nificant in all four subjects. For example, the
difference in effort between students in the
honors and academic tracks is roughly a third
of a standard deviation. Even more striking,
the difference in effort between students in
the honors and general track is between 60
percent and 85 percent of a standard devia-
tion. The teachers reported that the students
in vocational classes exerted the least effort in
all four subjects.
Explaining TrackDifferences in
Effort
The results presented in Table 2 suggest that
students in different tracks exert different lev-
els of effort. What explains these differences

Table2. Mean Differencesin 10th-GradeEffort,by Track,for English,Math, Science, and

History(standard deviations in parentheses)
Track English Math Science History

Honors 9.378b,c,d 9.400b,c,d 9.275b,c,d 9.358b,c,d

(1.693) (1.775) (1.756) (1.985)
Academic 8.636a,c,d 8.647a,c,d 8.701 a,c,d 8.796b,c,d
(1.946) (1.965) (1.960) (2.055)
General 7.986a,b,d 7.845a,b 8.020a,b,d 8.1 76a,b,d
(2.121) (2.157) (2.106) (2.087)
Vocational 7.481 b,c,d 8.007a,b 7.71 6a,b,c 7.41 3a,b,c
(2.191) (2.122) (2.167) (1.877)
Total 8.470 8.487 8.483 8.490
(2.065) (2.068) (2.052) (2.053)
a Significantlydifferentfrom the honors trackat the .05 level.
b Significantlydifferentfrom the academic trackat the .05 level.
c Significantlydifferentfrom the general trackat the .05 level.
d Significantlydifferentfrom the vocationaltrackat the .05 level.
38 Carbonaro

in effortacrosstracks?The next set of analy- trolfor 8th-gradeeffort,and Model4 addsthe

ses (displayed in Table 3) examine several four 8th-gradeachievementscoresas predic-
possible explanationsof these differencesin torsof 10th-gradeeffort.14Ifstudentswho are
math.As I pointedout earlier,the same analy- predisposedto exert greatereffortare sorted
ses were run in the other subjects, and the into highertracks,Models3 and4 shouldelim-
resultswere similar. inate most of the trackdifferencesin effort.
Model 1, the "base"model, indicatesthe Both 8th-gradeeffortand 8th-gradeachieve-
unadjusted differences in teacher-reported ment are significantpredictorsof 10th-grade
effort,therebysimplyrestatingthe mean dif- effort. In addition,these variablesexplaina
ferencesin effortby trackdisplayedin Table2 great deal of the trackdifferencesin effort.
in a regressionframework.(Note that the Controllingfor 8th-gradeeffort reducesthe
track coefficients are relative differences honors coefficientin Model 2 by 28 percent
between a given track and general-track and the academiccoefficientby about40 per-
classes, the reference category.) Model 2 cent.Theadditionof controlsfor priorachieve-
examineswhether differencesin background ment in Model 4 reduces the coefficients
characteristicsexplain track differences in observedin Model2 even more:The effectof
effort.Priorresearchhas suggested that effort honorstrackis reducedby 60 percent,andthe
is related to social class (Cook and Ludwig effect of academictrackis reducedby almost
1998; Willis 1977), gender (Marks 2000; 70 percentwhen both prioreffortandachieve-
Smerdon 1999), and possibly race/ethnicity ment arecontrolled.A surprising findingis that
(Fordham1996; Fordhamand Ogbu 1986; net of background,prioreffort,and achieve-
Ogbu 1978, 2003). Since SES,gender, and ment, vocational-trackstudents exert more
race/ethnicityare related to students' track (not less)effortthan do general-track students
placements (see Gamoran and Mare 1989, (see Model it is
4). Although temptingto con-
Oakes 1985), it is possible that trackdiffer- structa post hoc explanationforthisfinding,it
ences in effortreflectthese differencesin stu- shouldbe notedthat the findingis anomalous:
dents' characteristicsacrosstracks.Consistent Vocational-track studentsdid not differin the
with priorresearch,female students exerted effortthey exertedin Model4 (or any subse-
moreeffortthan did malestudents,and high- quentmodel)in anyof the threeothersubjects
er-SESstudentsexerted more effortthan did examined(resultsnot shown).
low-SESstudents.The resultsrevealedsignifi- Overall, Models 3 and 4 indicate that
cant racial/ethnicdifferencesin 10th-grade much, although not all, of the trackdiffer-
effort:black students exerted less effort (on ences in effortare due to the sortingof stu-
average)than did white students,whileAsian dents who are more predisposedto exert
students exerted more effort than did stu- greater effort-those who exert more effort
dents in any other racial/ethnicgroup. The and have higher achievement in the 8th
effort exerted by Hispanicstudents was not grade-into higher-trackclasses in the 10th
significantlydifferentfrom the effortexerted grade. By includingthese measuresof prior
by white students. effortand achievementin subsequentregres-
After controls for race/ethnicity,gender, sion models, I was able eliminatethese selec-
and SESwere added to the model, the track tion factorsas threatsto internalvalidity.
differencesin effortwere reduced.Forexam- When prior effort and achievement are
ple, the differences in effort for students in controlled, black-whitedifferencesin effort
the honors and academic tracks were are no longerstatisticallysignificant,and the
reduced by about 20 percentfrom Model 1 SES effect decreases dramatically(by two
to Model 2. Overall, background differences thirds).Thisfindingsuggeststhat black-white
explain some of the track differences in effort, and SES differences in effort are explained
but sizable, statisticallysignificant, differences mainly by differences in effort and achieve-
remain. ment that exist before entry into high school.
The next set of models examine whether the In contrast, the female and Asian coefficients
criteriaused to sort students into tracksexplains do not decrease much (about 15 percent)
trackdifferencesin effort. Model 3 adds a con- when prior effort and achievement are con-
Tracking,Effort,and Achievement 39

Table 3. Effects of Track Placement, Background, Prior Effort, Achievement, Students'

Beliefs, and Intellectual Stimulation on Students' Effort

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

Variable Base + Background + PriorEffort + Prior + Students' + Intellectual
Achievement Beliefs Stimulation

Track
Honors 1.556*** 1.273*** .917*** .496*** .370*** .330***
(.256) (.210) (.151) (.081) (.061) (.054)
Academic .803*** .642*** .394*** .207** .117 .098
(.193) (.155) (.095) (.050) (.028) (.023)
Vocational .168 .207 .242 .293* .368* .388**
(.013) (.017) (.020) (.024) (.030) (.032)
Background
Female .767*** .610*** .662*** .647*** .643***
(.185) (.147) (.160) (.156) (.155)
Black -.353** -.251* -.059 -.215* -.248**
(-.050) (-.035) (-.008) (-.030) (.034)
Hispanic -.129 -.055 .059 .003 .002
(-.019) (-.008) (.008) (.001) (.000)
Asian .532*** .494*** .454*** .412*** .411***
. 6nnn)(.4f6 (.051) .n40) (.046)
SES .300*** .244*** .099** .001 .006
(.1 12) (.091) (.037) (.000) (.002)
PriorEffort
8th-gradeeffort .184*** .184*** .168*** .166***
(.269) (.240) (.219) (.216)
PriorAchievement
Math .027*** .025*** .026***
(.I61) (.148) (.154)
Reading -.001 -.004 -.004
(-.006) (-.018) (-.017)
History .014 .007 .006
(.031) (.016) (.014)
Science .004 .002 .002
(.011) (.003) (.005)
Students' Beliefs
Educational
expectations .147*** .140***
(.147) (.140)
Locusof control(Gi10) .232*** .213***
(.070) (.063)
Self-concept(G10) .051 .045
(.016) (.015)
IntellectualStimulation
Challenge .011**
(.040)
Show understanding .013***
(.050)
AdjustedR2 .060 .114 .179 .201 .221 .226
and numbersin parenthesesare standardizedcoefficients.
Note: Coefficientsare unstandardized,
*
p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 (two-tailed tests).
trolled. Thus, female and Asian students factors related to students' different experi-
appear to increase their levels of effort in high ences within different track classes explain the
school, regardless of their previous history of remaining track differences in effort. In Model
working hard and academic achievement. 5, 8th- and 10th-grade measures of students'
The next two models examine whether beliefs about themselves and their future
40 Carbonaro

were added as controlsin the regression.The portion of the differences in effort across
inclusionof 8th-grademeasuresaccountsfor tracks:Whenthe coefficientsin Models4 and
any prior differences in students' beliefs 6 are compared,the honors-trackeffect on
before their placement in their 10th-grade effortis reducedby 33 percent,and the aca-
track. Hence, Model 5 examines whether demic coefficient becomes statistically
changesin beliefsthat are due to trackplace- insignificant.Thus, the results suggest that
ment are related to students' effort. Tenth- differencesin effortacrosstracksreflectmore
grade expectationsand locus of control are than simply the types of students who are
both positively related to students' effort, sorted into differenttracks;rather,students'
while students' self-concept is not.15 experiencesin their classesalso partlyexplain
Controllingfor beliefsdecreasesthe trackdif- why higher-track studentstend to exertmore
ferences in effort. The honors-trackeffect is effortthan do lower-trackstudents.
reducedby 30 percentfrom Model4. Forthe It should be noted that the effects of the
academictrack,the coefficientbecomes sta- honorsand vocationaltracks,althoughsmall,
tisticallyinsignificant.Whilethe trackdiffer- remainsignificantin Model6.16The concep-
ences in effort decrease when students' tual modeldisplayedin Figure1 suggeststhat
beliefs about themselvesand the future are after mediatingvariablesare added as con-
controlled,it should be noted that causality trols in the model, no track differencesin
remainsambiguous:It is possiblethat greater effort should remain significant.There are
effort leads to highergrades,which, in turn, several possible explanations for why the
raisestudents'self-concept,locus of control, honors- and vocational-track coefficients
and expectations, so these results must be remainsignificantin the finalmodel. First,the
interpretedwith caution. mediatingvariablesmay be poorlymeasured
Model
Finally, 6 adds controlsfor intellectu- in the modelsand hence do not serveas ade-
al stimulationto the model.One way in which quate controlsfor the concepts in the analy-
track placement may be relatedto effort is ses. Second, there may have been unob-
through greater intellectual stimulation in served variablesthat were omitted from the
responseto the more-demandingcurriculum model that created track "effects"that are
and stimulating instructionin higher-track spurious.Finally,it is possible that teachers
classes. Both the level of challenge and the are susceptibleto a "halo effect," whereby
degree to which students are requiredto students' track placements affect teachers'
"show understanding" in math are positively judgmentsabout theireffort,independentof
relatedto effort,althoughthe magnitudeof the the actual levels of effortthe studentsexert.
associationis fairlymodest.The resultsindicate Since the effort measurerelieson some stu-
that intellectualstimulationexplainsa modest dent behaviorsthat are observableby teach-
portion(11 percent)of the honorseffect on ers (i.e., completionof homeworkand paying
effort, but the coefficientremainsstatistically attention), this effect is probably minor.
significant.If better measuresof intellectual However,it is stillpossiblethat missedhome-
stimulation,such as indicatorsof a student's work assignmentsand incidencesof inatten-
interestin or stimulationby a given class,were tion by lower-trackstudents are perceived
includedin the model,moreof the trackdiffer- more readily and negatively by teachers,
ences in effortmaybe explained. thereby artificiallystrengthening the track-
Thus, the overallconclusion drawn from effortrelationship.
Table3 is that trackdifferencesin effortin the
10th grade are explained mostly by the Effort and TrackEffects on
process by which students are sorted into Achievement
tracks: Students who were predisposed to
exert more effort in the 10th grade (as evi- The first two sets of analyses suggest that
denced by their 8th-grade effort and achieve- there are important differences in effort
ment) were more likely to be placed in high- across tracks and that although these differ-
er tracks. However, when combined, beliefs ences are largely the result of the different
and intellectual stimulation explain a sizable types of students who are placed in different
Tracking,Effort,and Achievement
tracks,they are also partlydue to students'
experienceswithin these tracks.The next set
of questionslinkeffortwith trackdifferences
in achievement.In particular,are trackdiffer-
ences in learning partly explained by the
greater effort exerted by students in higher
tracks?The resultsof the analysesexamining
this questionare displayedin Table4.
The first model (Model 1) estimates the
trackdifferencesin gains in math after back-
ground characteristics and 8th-grade
achievementare controlled.These "adjusted
trackeffects"indicatethat regardlessof stu-
dents' priormathachievement,studentsgain
morewhen they are placed in a highermath
track. Controls for 10th-grade effort were
added to the next model (Model2) to estab-
lish whether differences in effort partly
explainsome of the trackdifferencesin math
gains. Efforthas a significant,positiveeffect
on math gains. These effects are relatively
largecomparedwith the differencesin math
gains across tracks: A standard deviation
increasein effortproducesan averagegain in
math achievementthat is two fifthsand one
quarterof the academic and honors effects
(respectively).17
Does the positive relationshipbetween
effort and math gains partly explain the
effects of trackon learning?When the track
coefficientsin Model 1 are compared with
those in Model2, a fairlymodest reductionin
the trackeffects on learningis observed:The
effect of honors trackis reduced by roughly
10 percent,and the effect of academictrack
is reduced by 7 percent. In the other three
subjects,effort explainsslightlymore of the
trackeffects(generallyfrom 10 percentto 20
percent),but most of the trackeffects remain
unexplained (results not shown). Hence,
althougheffortplaysan importantrolein pre-
dicting learning,it explainslittle of the track
effects on learning.If effortdoes not explain
much of the trackdifferencesin achievement,
what does? As Figure1 (and priorresearch)
suggests, differences in learning opportuni-
ties across tracks likely account for track dif-
ferences in achievement. Unfortunately, this
interpretation of the results cannot be con-
firmed through further analysis because of
the absence of adequate direct measures of
learning opportunities in the NELSdata.
41
How does controllingfor students' effort
and track placement affect the relationship
between background characteristics and
achievement?Controllingfor effortdoes not
change the racial/ethniccoefficientsand only
slightly reduces the SESeffect on achieve-
ment. It is interestingthat althoughthe base-
line model (Model 1) did not revealgender
differencesin achievement, the addition of
the effortmeasurerevealedan advantagefor
male students. Hence, female students are
closing the achievement gap in math with
male studentsby exertingmore effortin their
math classes(see Table3).
While10th-gradeefforthas a strongeffect
on learning,this effect could be due largelyto
the fact that students who exert more effort
are morelikelyto be sortedinto highertracks.
To eliminatethis possibility,Model 3 adds the
controlfor 8th-gradeeffortas a predictorof
10th-grade learning gains. The addition of
this variableto the model slightly reduces
changes in the trackdifferencesin learningor
the effects of effort on students' learning
gains, but both remain sizable and signifi-
cant. When 10th-gradeeffortis removedas a
predictor of achievement in Model 3, the
resultsindicatethat 8th-gradeeffortexplains
some of the trackdifferencesin achievement,
but only about half as much as 10th-grade
effortdoes in Model2.18Thus,it appearsthat
the effectsof 10th-gradeeffortdo not simply
reflectthe fact that studentswho try hardare
more likely to be sorted into higher-track
classes. Rather,students who exert greater
effort in the 10th grade learn more, regard-
less of how much effort they exerted in the
8th grade.
Effects of Effort on LearningAcross
Tracks
The last question of interest focuses on
whetherthe effect of efforton learningvaries
across tracks. Model 4 in Table4 examines
this issue by adding interaction terms
between effort and track placement to the
model. None of the interaction terms is sta-
tistically significant at the .05 level. Hence,
the results suggest that the effects of effort on
learning are the same for all students, regard-
less of their track.
42 Carbonaro

Table 4. Effects of Track Placement, Effort, and the Track-EffortInteraction on Scores on

the 10th-Grade Math Test

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Adjusted + Effort + Prior Effort + Effort x
Variable TrackEffects TrackInteractions

Track
Honors 4.866*** 4.451 *** 4.275*** 3.960**
(.119) (.109) (.104) (.097)
Academic 3.474*** 3.252*** 3.090*** 3.515"***
(.124) (.117) (.110) (.126)
Vocational -.670 -.836 -.796 .499
(-.008) (-.010) (-.010) (.006)
Effort
10th-grade effort .602*** .534*** .563***
(.089) (.079) (.083)
8th-grade effort .213*** .212***
(.041) (.041)
Trackx Effort
Honorsx Effort -.030
(.006)
Academicx Effort -.051
(-.017)
Vocationalx Effort -.162
(-.016)
Background
Female -.129 -.732*** -.733*** -.730***
(-.005) (-.026) (-.026) (-.026)
Black -1.573*** -1.513*** -1.479*** -1.477***
(-.033) (-.031) (-.031) (-.031)
Hispanic -.577* -.592* -.555* -.558*
(-.012) (-.013) (-.122) (-.012)
Asian .425 .136 .139 .130
(.007) (.002) (.002) (.002)
SES .920*** .858*** .859*** .859***
(.051) (.047) (.047) (.047)
PriorAchievement
Math .727*** .707*** .702*** .702***
(.632) (.615) (.611) (.611)
Reading .114*** .115** .113*** .113***
(.071) (.071) (.070) (.070)
History .209*** .194*** .186*** .185***
(.068) (.063) (.060) (.060)
Science .1 75*** .1 74*** .1 76*** .1 76***
(.061) (.061) (.061) (.061)
AdjustedR2 .788 .794 .796 .796
Note: Coefficientsare unstandardized,and numbersin parenthesesare standardizedcoefficients.
* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 (two-tailed tests).
Tracking,Effort,and Achievement
DISCUSSION
The maingoal of thisstudywas to explorethe
complex and multifaceted ways in which
effort, curriculartracking,and learning are
related.The majorsubstantiveconclusionsof
the analysesare as follows:(1) The higher a
student's track, the more effort she or he
exerts; (2) most of the differencesin effort
acrosstracksare explainedby differencesin
prior effort and achievement across tracks,
but factors related to students' experiences
withintracksalso explaintrackdifferencesin
effort;(3) effort is an importantpredictorof
achievement,but effortdoes not accountfor
a largeproportionof the trackeffecton gains
in achievement;and (4) the effectof efforton
achievement gains does not vary across
tracks.
Althoughthe findingswere mixed overall,
they stillsuggest that examiningeffortin the
context of curriculartracking is a fruitful
directionto pursue.Bettermeasuresof effort
that capturea wider range of behaviorsmay
indicate that effort plays a greater role in
explainingtrack differencesin achievement
and may revealtrack-by-effort interactions.In
particular,future studies should distinguish
between the three types of effort identified
here (ruleoriented, procedural,and intellec-
tual) and measure them separately.
Researchers must recognizethat each type of
effort may be relatedto differentoutcomes.
Rule-orientedeffort (e.g., showing up for
class regularly)is likelyto be relatedto out-
comes likehigh school graduation,but in the
absence of greaterproceduraland intellectu-
al effort, academic outcomes may not be
drasticallyimproved.Proceduraleffort (e.g.,
handing in homework regularly)may be
importantfor grades, but increasedlearning
and achievementare most likelyto be related
to students' level of intellectualeffort (e.g.,
students'attemptsto use theircognitiveskills
to comprehendthe material).These different
types of effort may also be emphasizedand
rewarded differentially across tracks. For
example, teachers in low-track classes may
emphasize and reward rule-oriented effort,
whereas teachers in high-track classes may
expect and encourage greater intellectual
effort from students. Hence, track differences
43
in effortmay be more pronouncedif separate
measuresof the three types of effort identi-
fied here are analyzed.By extension, if high-
er-track classes produce more intellectual
effort than do lower-trackclasses, higher-
trackstudents may experiencegreater gains
in learningbecause intellectualeffortis most
likelyto improvethat specificoutcome. While
the measureof effort that was used in this
article tries to capture rule-oriented,proce-
dural,and intellectualeffort, it is admittedly
limited in scope. Futureresearchthat uses
more-expansive measures of rule-oriented,
procedural, and intellectual effort could
greatlyimproveour knowledgeof how effort,
tracking,and learningare related.
Although the findings reveal some inter-
esting insights regarding the relationships
among tracking,effort,and achievement,it is
necessaryto considersome possible alterna-
tive explanationsfor the findings.One possi-
ble problem with the teachers' reports of
effort is that they are formed in reactionto
students' performance, not vice versa. In
other words, teachersmay believe that high-
achievingstudents are diligent and attentive
and complete homeworkassignmentswhile
low-achievingstudents are and do not; if
teachers assess effort accordingly,then the
relationshipbetween effortand achievement
may be biasedbecauseof measurementerror.
While it is certainly possible that the
observed relationship between effort and
achievement is biased owing to errors in
teachers' reports, there are two reasons to
believe that this is not the case. First,the
itemsfocusingon attentivenessand the com-
pletion of homework are based, to some
extent, on behaviorsthat teacherscan recall,
rather than simply subjective impressions
(such as whether the student "trieshard").
Second, it is not clear that teachers could
accurately predict students' learning gains
from the 8th to the 10th grade. Since teach-
ers themselvesassigngrades,they, of course,
knowthem, but the same is not truefor gains
in test scores. Hence, while gains in test
scores and grades are correlated, it is unlikely
that teachers' reports of effort simply reflect
students' gains in test scores.
What conclusion can be drawn regarding
the importance of agency versus structure for
44
learning?If agency is of paramountimpor-
tance, track effects should disappearwhen
effort is controlled. If structureis the most
crucial, differences across tracks should
remainwhen effortis controlled.Ultimately,it
appearsthat both agency and structureare
importantfactorsthat contributeto learning:
Efforthas importanteffects on learningeven
aftertrackplacementis controlled,but track
placementsare still relatedto gains in learn-
ing when effortis takeninto account. Inother
words, when comparablestudents in lower-
trackclassestry as hardas studentsin higher-
track classes, they still learn less than they
would in the higher track; however, when
comparablestudents in the same trackexert
differentlevels of effort, students who exert
more effort learnmore.Thus, it appearsthat
higher-trackplacements and greater effort
are not mutuallyexclusive paths to higher
achievement; academic rewards inhere to
both the structuralpositions that students
occupy in the curricular hierarchyand to their
actionswithinthese positions.
I hope that this study will stimulatefuture
researchby sociologistsof educationon effort
and its rolein creatingunequaloutcomes.This
line of researchwill provide an important
means for understandinghow structureis
relatedto agencyand, ultimately,to academic
outcomes.Curricular is justone
differentiation
example of an aspect of socialstructure within
schools that may influence effort; others
include status hierarchiesbetween students,
academicand normativeschoolclimates,ped-
agogical practiceswithin the classroom,and
rulegoverningstudents'abilityto choose their
own courses.By linkingschool attributeswith
effort,it is possibleto understandhow struc-
ture shapes agency and, ultimately,how it
shapes outcomes. In addition, researchon
these topics could deepen our insights into
how "oppositionalcultures" function. For
example,do oppositionalculturesoverwhelm
the school culture?Can school cultureseffec-
tivelyoffsetnormsand beliefsthat are created
by groups of peers inside and outside the
school? Questions such as these can help link
different aspects of students' experiences into
a larger gestalt that will deepen our under-
Carbonaro
standingof class, racial,and gender inequali-
ties in academicoutcomes.
Finally,some important implicationsfor
policyand futureresearchemergedfromthe
findings. Generally,both policy makersand
researcherspay greater attention to differ-
ences in learningopportunitiesamong stu-
dents than to differencesin effort.Forsociol-
ogists of education, this impulseto empha-
size structuremore heavilythan agency may
partly reflect a tendency for sociologiststo
resist explanations that may appear to
"blamethe victim"and discountthe impor-
tance of social structure.This is a healthy
responseto the societalimpulseto reduceall
problemsto the levelof the individualand to
overlookthe influenceof social structureon
humanaction.
However, by de-emphasizing effort,
researchersand policy makers overlookan
importantpotentialresourcethat all students
have and can use to improvetheiracademic
outcomes. Researchersand policy makers
need to consider how to create classroom
environmentsthat encourage all studentsto
try hard in school. In exploringhow school
and classroom conditions are linked with
effort,greateremphasisis actuallyplacedon
social structure and its relationshipwith
human agency. Those who argue for
increasedeffortby way of moralexhortation,
couched in the language of "students'
responsibility,"ignore such importantlink-
ages and fail to recognize that some peda-
gogical practicesare more likelythanareoth-
ers to motivate students to work hard. For
example, the findingsindicatedthat intellec-
tual stimulation was positively related to
effort, regardlessof the track in which stu-
dents were placed.Fortunately, thereis a rich
literatureon motivationthat can point both
practitionersand policy makersin promising
directions(forexamples,see Corbett,Wilson,
and Williams2002; GinsbergandWlodkowski
2000). I hope that this research will stimulate
new policy-relevant ideas about how to use
effort as a means of redressing inequalities in
students' outcomes.
Tracking,Effort,and Achievement 45

Appendix Table A
Items Included in the 8th- and 10th-Grade Effort Scales

SurveyItems ResponseCategories
8th-GradeEffort
Student performsbelow his or her ability[BYTI_2,BYT42] 0 = no, 1 = yes
Student rarelycompletes homework[BYT1_3,BYT4_3]
Student is frequentlyabsent [BYTI_4,BYT4_4]
Student is frequentlytardy [BYT1_5,BYT4_5]
Student is inattentivein class [BYT1_6,BYT4_6]
Student is exceptionallypassive/withdrawn[BYT1_7,BYT4_7]
Student is frequentlydisruptive[BYT1_8,BYT4_8]

10th-GradeEffort
Does this student usuallywork hard in your class? [F1T1_2,F1T5_2] 0 = no, 1 = yes
How often is this student attentive in class? [F1T1_18,F1T5_18] 0 = never, 1 = rarely,
2 = some of the time,
3 = most of the time,
4 = all of the time
How often does this student complete homework assignments in
your class? [F1T1_15,F1T5_15] Same as above

Note: The bracketscontain variablenames in the NELS:88codebook.

NOTES "structural limitations and selection criteria"

1. In this article, ability grouping refers to
the practice of placing elementary school stu-
dents in the same class into different groups
for the purposes of instruction. In contrast,
curriculartracking(or trackingfor short) refers
to the practice in high school by which stu-
dents are placed in different classes for
instruction in a given subject. For the sake of
clarity,the two terms are meant to be mutu-
ally exclusive, although the term abilitygroup-
ing is sometimes used more broadly to refer
to practices like tracking. It should be noted
that tracking is a somewhat outdated term
because it suggests that a student's track is
the same across academic subjects. However,
research has suggested that this is no longer
the case in American high schools, and stu-
dents occupy different track positions in dif-
ferent academic subjects (Lucas 1999).
2. It should be noted that the field has not
always focused so heavily on structure at the
expense of agency. For example, Kerckhoff
(1976) argued that research on the status
attainment process was limited by its focus on
socialization processes. He contended that
researchers should pay more attention to
in accounting for differences in attainment
outcomes (p. 369).
3. One exception is Farkaset al. (1990),
who used teachers' reports of "work habits"
and found that differences between the work
habits of black students and white students
were not statistically significant.
4. Other interactions are plausible as well.
For example, it is possible that the effects of
effort vary by ability. Also, a three-way inter-
action among effort, ability, and learning
opportunities may exist as well. Sorensen and
Hallinan (1977) developed a sophisticated
model for examining such interactions, but
their approach and the questions it addresses
are beyond the scope of this study.
5. It should be noted that Ainsworth-
Darnell and Downey (1998) used the same
scale in their study, but they used both teach-
ers' reports in the same scale. The measure
used in this study keeps the teachers' reports
separate, so that effort is subject specific.
6. In a related paper, Carbonaro (2003)
analyzed the NELS:88data to examine how
the characteristics of parents, peers, and
teachers affect effort and achievement. In con-
trast to the analyses presented here, the analy-
46 Carbonaro

ses in that paperreliedon combinedteachers' respondents were asked, "how they felt
reportsof effortand global measuresof track about"the foregoingitemsand couldchoose
that were derivedfrom students'transcripts. froma scalethat rangedfrom"stronglyagree
Althoughnot the mainfocus of the paper,the to stronglydisagree."
findings regardingthe relationshipsamong 10. The 8th- and 10th-gradescales were
tracking,effort,and achievementreportedin created using students'8th- and 10th-grade
that study were consistentwith those report- reportson the same items. The items are as
ed here. However,since this articlefocuses follows:(1) "Ifeel good about myself";(2) "1
specificallyon tracking,effort, and achieve- am a person of worth, the equal of others";
ment, subject-specificmeasuresof effortand (3) "1am able to do things as well as most
trackare the most appropriate,both concep- other people";(4) "Onthe whole, I am satis-
tuallyand empirically. fied with myself";(5) "Icertainlyfeel useless
7. Points2 and 3 requiresome elaboration. at times";and (6) "Attimes, I thinkI am no
First,teachershave a betterunderstandingof good at all." The respondentswere asked
the local context and the meaning attached "how they felt about" the foregoing items
to course labelsthan the transcriptdata can and could choose from a scale that ranged
convey. Second, the transcriptdata provide from "stronglyagree to stronglydisagree."
course labels, but in subjects other than 11. The responsecategoriesfor this vari-
math, it is not possibleto createcourse-based able were as follows:for 8th-gradeexpecta-
indicatorsof trackbecause (1) the labelsare tions, (1) "won'tfinishhigh school,"(2) "will
not specific enough to distinguishbetween finishhigh school,"(3) "willattendvocation-
tracklevels(high versuslow), and (2) no clear al/trade/businessschool after high school,"
course-takingsequence is apparent. Further (4) "willattend college," (5) "willfinishhigh
explanationand detailsof the analysesusing school,"and (6) "willattend a higherschool
the transcriptdata are availableon request. after college"; for 10th-grade expectations,
8. Jencks(1985) argued that when con- (1) "less than high school graduation,"(2)
trollingfor priorachievement,it is preferable "highschool graduationonly,"(3) "lessthan
to add controlsfortest scoresin differentaca- two years of trade school," (4) "morethan
demic subjects (e.g., including 8th-grade two yearsof tradeschool,"(5) "lessthantwo
math, reading,history,and science scores as years of college," (6) "two or more years of
predictorsof 10th-grademath scores), rather college," (7) "finishcollege," (8) "master's
than simplycontrollingfor a single test score degree,"and (9) "Ph.D.or M.D."
in one academic subject (e.g., 8th-grade 12. Ideally,adequatemeasuresof learning
math scores as a control predicting 10th- opportunitieswould includevariables,suchas
grade math scores). He contended that prior instructional time, curricular coverage,
achievementwill be measuredmore reliably instructional quality, and teacher quality.
when multipletest scores are added to the AlthoughNELSincludessome informationon
regressionbecause the additionalscores will these aspects of students' schooling experi-
help correct any measurementerror in one ences, the measures are generally crude.
particulartest score. However,it should be noted that Carbonaro
9. The 8th- and 10th-grade scales were and Gamoran(2002) had some success in
created using students'8th- and 10th-grade using these measuresin theirexaminationof
reportson the same items. The items are as achievementin English.It is unclearwhether
follows:(1) "Idon't haveenough controlover similarmeasurescould be createdin math or
my life";(2) "Good luck is more important other subjects.
than hardwork";(3) "Everytime I try to get 13. The samplesizes differacrossacadem-
ahead, something or somebody stops me"; ic subjects because some students did not
(4) "My plans hardly ever work out, so plan- take courses in each of the four subjects in
ning only makes me unhappy"; (5) "When I their junior year.
make plans, I can almost always make them 14. The bivariate correlation between 8th-
work"; and (6) "Chance and luck are very and 10th-grade effort is .346. Eighth-grade
important in what happens in my life." The achievement is also positively correlated with
Tracking,Effort,and Achievement 47

10th-grade effort, with correlations ranging Matthews.2001. "SocializationMessages in

from a high of .306 (effort and math) to a low PrimarySchools:An Organizational Analysis."
of .224 (effort and science). Sociologyof Education74:157-80.
15. Neither the 8th-grade measure of Brophy,jere, and ThomasGood. 1986. "Teacher
locus of control nor students' self-concept Behavior and Student Achievement." Pp.
328-75 in Handbook of Researchon Teaching,
was statistically significant at the .05 level in
edited by Merlin Wittrock. New York:
Model 5 or 6. Eighth-grade expectations had Macmillan.
a small, negative, statistically significant rela-
Bryk,Anthony, ValerieLee, and Peter Holland.
tionship with effort (p = .01). 1993. CatholicSchoolsand the CommonGood.
16. The honors coefficient is statisticallysig- Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.
nificant in Model 6 for Englishand science as Carbonaro,William.2003. "Teacher,Peer, and
well. ParentSocial Capital:Influenceson Student
17. In the other three subjects, the effect Effortand AcademicOutcomes."Paperpre-
of effort on achievement is larger relative to sented at the "Creationand Returnsto Social
the track effects than is the case in math. For Capital" Colloquium, Royal Netherlands
Academy of Arts and Sciences, Amsterdam,
example, in English, a standard-deviation the Netherlands.
increase in effort produces an increase in
Carbonaro,William,and Adam Gamoran.2002.
reading gains that is larger than the effect of "TheProductionof AchievementInequalityin
academic track and two thirds that of the
High School English."AmericanEducational
effect of the honors track. Research Journal39:801-27.
18. in the other three subjects, the results Cook,Philip,and
jens Ludwig.1998. "TheBurden
indicate that 8th-grade effort (apart from of 'Acting White': Do Black Adolescents
10th-grade effort) explains almost none of Disparage Academic Achievement?" Pp.
the track differences in achievement. Hence, 375-400 in The Black-White TestScoreGap,
math is unique because it is the only subject edited by ChristopherJencksand Meredith
in which 8th-grade effort seems to contribute Phillips. Washington, DC: Brookings
to track differences in achievement. InstitutionPress.
Corbett,Dick,BruceWilson,and BelindaWilliams.
2002. Effort and Excellence in Urban
Classrooms:Expecting--andGetting--Success
REFERENCES withAllStudents.New York:TeachersCollege
Press.
Ainsworth-Darnell, James,and Douglas Downey. Eder,Donna. 1981. "AbilityGroupingas a Self-
1998. "AssessingRacial/Ethnic Differencesin Fulfilling Prophecy: A Micro Analysis of
School Performance."AmericanSociological Teacher-StudentInteraction." Sociology of
Review63:536-53. Education 54:151-62.
Alexander, Karl, and Martha Cook. 1982. Farkas,George, RobertGrobe, Daniel Sheehan,
"Curriculaand Coursework: A SurpriseEnding and Yuan Shuan. 1990. "CulturalResources
to a FamiliarStory." AmericanSociological and School Success: Gender, Ethnicity,and
Review47:626-40. Poverty Groups Within an Urban School
Allison,Paul.2002. MissingData.ThousandOaks, District." American Sociological Review
CA:Sage. 55:127-42.
Barr,Rebecca,and RobertDreeben. 1983. How Farkas,George,ChristyLleras,and SteveMaczuga.
SchoolsWork.Chicago:Universityof Chicago 2002. "Does OppositionalCulture Exist in
Press. Minorityand PovertyPeerGroups?Comment
Bishop,John.1999. "NerdHarassment,Incentives, on Ainsworth-Darnell and Downey."American
School Priorities,and Learning."Pp. 231-80 SociologicalReview67:148-55.
in Learningand Earning:HowSchoolsMatter, Felmlee, Diane, and Donna Eder. 1983.
edited by Susan Mayerand Paul Peterson. "ContextualEffects in the Classroom:The
Washington,DC:BrookingsInstitutionPress. Impact of Ability Groups on Student
Bong, Mimi, and Richard Clark. 1999. Attention."Sociologyof Education56:77-87.
"ComparisonBetweenSelf-Conceptand Self- Ferguson,Ronald.2001. "ADiagnosticAnalysisof
Efficacyin Academic MotivationResearch." Black-White GPADisparitiesin ShakerHeights,
EducationalPsychologist34:139-53. Ohio." Pp. 347-414 in BrookingsPaperson
Brint, Steven, Mary Contreras, and Michael EducationPolicy: 2001, edited by Diane
48 Carbonaro

Ravitch. Washington, DC: Brookings Lucas, Samuel, and Adam Gamoran. 2002.
InstitutionPress. "Trackingand the AchievementGap." Pp.
Fordham,Signithia.1996. Blacked Out:Dilemmas of 171-98 in Bridging theAchievement Gap,edit-
Race, Identity,and Successat CapitalHigh. ed by John Chubb and Tom Loveless.
Chicago:Universityof ChicagoPress. Washington,DC:BrookingsInstitutionPress.
Fordham,Signithia,and JohnOgbu. 1986. "Black MacLeod,Jay.1995. Ain'tNo Makin'It:Aspirations
Students' School Success: Coping with the andAttainment in a Low-Income Neighborhood
'Burdenof "ActingWhite."'"UrbanReview (2nd ed.). Boulder,CO:WestviewPress.
18:176-206. Marks, Helen. 2000. "Student Engagementin
Gamoran, Adam. 1986. "Institutional and Instructional Activity: Patterns in the
InstructionalEffects of Ability Grouping." Elementary, Middle,and HighSchoolsYears."
Sociologyof Education 59:85-98. American Educational Research Journal
1987. "The Stratificationof High School 37:153-84.
Learning Opportunities." Sociology of Mickelson, Roslyn. 1990. "The Attitude-
Education 60:135-55. Achievement Paradox Among Black
Gamoran, Adam, and William Carbonaro. Adolescents."Sociologyof Education63:44-61.
2002-03. "High School English:A National Natriello, Gary, and Edward McDill. 1986.
Portrait."HighSchoolJournal86:1-13. "PerformanceStandards,Student Efforton
Gamoran, Adam, and Robert Mare. 1989. Homework, and Academic Achievement."
"SecondarySchool Trackingand Educational Sociologyof Education59:18-31.
Inequality: Compensation, Reinforcement,or Newmann, Fred, ed. 1992. StudentEngagement
Neutrality?"Americanjournal of Sociology and Achievementin American Secondary
94:1146-83. Schools.New York:TeachersCollegePress.
Ginsberg, Margery,and RaymondWlodkowski. Oakes,Jeannie.1985. KeepingTrack:HowSchools
2000. CreatingHighlyMotivatingClassrooms StructureInequality.New Haven, CT: Yale
forAllStudents.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. UniversityPress.
Hallinan,Maureen.1992. "The Organizationof -. 1990. Multiplying SantaMonica,
Inequalities.
Students for Instruction in the Middle CA:RAND.
School."Sociologyof Education 65:114-27. Ogbu, John.1978. Minority, and Caste.
Education,
Hoffer, Thomas. 1992. "Middle School Ability New York:AcademicPress.
Grouping and Student Achievement in -. 2003. BlackAmericanStudentsin an Affluent
Science and Mathematics." Education Suburb:A Studyof AcademicDisengagement.
Evaluation and PolicyAnalysis14:205-27. Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaum.
Jencks,Christopher.1985. "HowMuch Do High Page, Reba. 1991. Lower TrackClassrooms:A
SchoolStudentsLearn?" Sociologyof Education and CulturalPerspective.
Curricular New York:
58:128-35. TeachersCollegePress.
Johnson,MonicaKirkpatrick, RobertCrosnoe,and Pallas,Aaron,DorisEntwisle,KarlAlexander,and
Glenn Elder,Jr.2001. "Students'Attachment Maria Stluka. 1994. "Ability-Group Effects:
and AcademicEngagement:The Roleof Race Instructional, Social, or Institutional?"
and Ethnicity." Sociology of Education Sociologyof Education 67:27-46.
74:318-40. Rosenbaum,James.2001. BeyondCollegefor All:
Jones, James, Beth Vanfossen, and Margaret CareerPathsforthe ForgottenHalf.New York:
Ensminger. 1995. "Individual and RussellSage Foundation.
Organizational Predictorsof HighSchoolTrack Rowan, Brian, and Andrew Miracle,Jr. 1983.
Placement." Sociologyof Education68:287-300. "Systems of Ability Grouping and the
Kerckhoff,Alan. 1976. "The Status Attainment Stratificationof Achievementin Elementary
Process:Socializationor Allocation?"Social Schools."Sociologyof Education 56:133-44.
Forces55:368-81. Smerdon, Becky. 1999. "Engagement and
King, Gary, James Honaker,Anne Joseph, and Achievement:DifferencesBetween African-
Kenneth Scheve. 2001. "Analyzing Americanand White High School Students."
Incomplete Political Science Data: An Research in Sociology of Educationand
Alternative Algorithm for Multiple Socialization12:103-34.
Imputation."AmericanPoliticalScienceReview Serensen,Aage, and MaureenHallinan.1977. "A
95:49-69. Reconceptualization of School Effects."
Lucas, Samuel. 1999. Tracking Inequality: Sociologyof Education 50:273-89.
and Mobilityin AmericanHigh Statacorp.1999. StataStatisticalSoftware:Release
Stratification
Schools.New York:TeachersCollegePress. 6.0. CollegeStation,TX:StataCorporation.
Tracking,Effort,and Achievement 49

Suarez-Orozco, Marcelo. 1987. "Towards a Educational

Impactsand PolicyImplications."
Psychosocial Understanding of Hispanic EvaluationandPolicy 20:1
Analysis 37-56.
Adaptation to American Schooling." Pp. Weis,Lois.1990. Working
ClassWithoutWork: High
156-68 in Learning A Multicultural
to Learn: School Students in a De-industrializing
Perspective, edited by Henry Trueba. Economy.New York:Routledge.
Newberry,MA:NewberryPress. Willis,Paul. 1977. Learningto Labor.New York:
Tach, Laura,and George Farkas.2003. "Ability
Groupingand Educational in the
Stratification Columbia UniversityPress.
School Years." at the Yair, Gad. 2000. "EducationalBattlefields in
Early Paperpresented
annualmeeting of the AmericanSociological America: The Tug-of-Warover Students'
Association,Atlanta,GA. Engagement with Instruction."Sociologyof
Wang, Jia. 1998. "Opportunityto Learn: The Education 73:247-69.

WilliamCarbonaro,Ph.D.,is an assistantprofessorof sociologyat the University of NotreDame.

Heis currently
Hisresearchinterestsare in the areasof educationand socialstratification. working
on severalprojectsthat focuson how students'highschoolexperiencesaffectracial/ethnicdiffer-
encesin collegegraduation.

TheauthorthanksAdamGamoran,MichaelOlneck,WarrenKubitschek, MaureenHallinan,Sean
of Wisconsin-Madison
Kelly,and attendeesof the University sociologyof educationbrownbagseries
fortheirvaluablefeedbackon an earlierversionof thisarticleand BridgetNicholsonforher valu-
able researchassistanceon this project.Addressall correspondencesto WilliamCarbonaro,
Departmentof Sociology,University of NotreDame, 1016 FlannerHall,NotreDame,IN, 46556;
e-mail:wcarbona@nd.edu.