Lucas, Samuel R. (1999). Tracking inequality: Stratification and mobility in American high schools. Reviewed by Richard W. Race

Lucas, Samuel R. (1999). Tracking inequality: Stratification and mobility in American high schools. New York: Teachers College Press 227 pp. + xii $24.95 (Paper) ISBN: 0-8077-3798-4 $53.00 (Cloth) ISBN: 0-8077-3799-2 Reviewed by Richard W. Race Keele University March 26, 1999         I read this fascinating and well written book with Sir William Macpherson's report in mind. The February 1999 report concerns the racist murder of 19-year-old Stephen Lawrence and the subsequent police investigation of the murder. The report alleges institutional racism on the part of the Metropolitan Police and makes sweeping recommendations for what British Prime Minister Tony Blair called, "the most comprehensive agenda on improving race relations which this country has seen for many decades."         But how does the Lawrence inquiry concern education policy, and how does it relate to Samuel Lucas's book? I will review the book firstly and return to these questions in the conclusion. In Tracking Inequality: Stratification and Mobility in American High Schools, Samuel Lucas examines patterns of stratification and inequality in American high schools. He begins the analysis with the assertion that urban schools modified or even eliminated tracking procedures during the period, 1965-75. By the 1980s, the majority of high schools had no formal procedures for curriculum assignment and, therefore, no formal means of tracking. For the author, the practice of tracking constitutes a means of differentially socializing students. In 1965, 93 percent of high schools employed tracking as a system for controlling curriculum mobility. By 1991, only 15 percent of a representative sample of public secondary schools used this method. The author asks, "... what happened during the period 1965-1991 and what does it mean?" (p. 6) Lucas attributes the demise of the tracking system to the civil rights movement. He then goes on to examine two key questions: (1) How significant was tracking for ethnic minorities in the US? and (2) how were paths through the curriculum constructed for all Americans? To answer these questions, Lucas first introduces a Marxist influenced theoretical framework, which focuses on the structural dimension of tracking. It is interesting to speculate how Bourdieu's theories of intellectual and cultural capital might fit into Lucas's analysis.         Instead of providing an analysis of cultural reproduction, however, the author concentrates only on schools' role in social reproduction. Lucas discusses this idea by introducing the concept of the "unremarked revolution," the period from 1975 onward, which he claims witnessed the subtle preservation of selection in American high schools despite changes in the dynamics of the selection process. Before the "unremarked revolution," tracking positioned students not just in schools but also in relation to further educational and job opportunities. Whereas tracking was thought to have been eliminated from the majority of schools within the US education system, Lucas argues that, in the main, it was the terminology and the mechanics of tracking, not its outcomes, that changed. As a result, there came to be new forms of stratification in schools.         Lucas' study is based on the assumption that there are, indeed, new structures of tracking, which are reflected in patterns of course-taking and student performance in math and English. These patterns relate to what Lucas calls "scope," defined as the extent to which placements in one subject limit students' options in other subjects (p. 72). They also relate to "mobility," which refers to students' exposure to different types of socialization over time (p. 73) and "association," which refers to the relationships between students' placements from year to year and across the subjects of math and English. From Chapter Two onwards Lucas uses quantitative methods to analyse student scope, mobility, and association. The author ought to be commended for this approach. There seems to be a reluctance amongst many qualitative researchers to make use of quantitative methods. Indeed, the Economic and Social Research Council has encouraged a greater use of both qualitative and quantitative methods in the UK within research training. Lucas uses methods that many educationists will find at first difficult and confusing, but he explains these techniques well in the text and especially in extensive appendices. The appendices, in fact, take up almost a quarter of the book.         Chapter Two examines the question: "How has scope (i.e., the effect of students" prior patterns of course taking on their future options for course taking) changed since 1965?" Although existing literature in the US suggests that there has been change, the actual findings may be too complex to yield a simple answer to the question. Lucas, therefore, looks for the patterns that describe students' course taking, claiming that this analysis will "... allow cleavages of in-school stratification to be identified" (p. 24). Based on log-linear models of students' patterns of course taking in English and math, Lucas' analyses support some interesting conclusions: [During] ... the last three years of high school, students occupying discrepant course locations are important for understanding national curriculum structure; students' courses are associated; students are more likely to take courses of similar levels; 75 out of every 100 students are allocated discrepant courses in math and English. (pp. 33-34)         According to Lucas, these discrepancies represent an important social change that has occurred within American high schools. School practice, it appears, has transformed tracking, allowing students " across subjects and across years in school " to be placed in courses of varying (rather than similar) difficulty levels. For Lucas, this change has potentially significant implications.         But even though students are now choosing the courses they take, their choices"rather than administrative decisions about course placement"prepare them differentially for various post-secondary opportunities. Knowledge about how to get into college and about which colleges are better than other colleges still resides with the upper-middle and upper classes. Affluent parents help their children choose the courses that are most likely to secure desired post-secondary opportunities; less affluent and less powerful parents are unable to transmit this form of cultural and intellectual capital to their children.         Chapter 3 broadens the analysis to consider correlates of student placement that are based on race, class, gender, and ethnicity. The situation, according to Lucas, is far from clear- cut. Whereas, in the past, tracking decisions visibly disadvantaged African-American students and students from certain ethnic backgrounds, more recent placement decisions are not so obviously discriminatory. Lucas found, for example, that "black students were more likely to be enrolled in math courses than white students, once achievement was controlled, and [they were] more likely to be enrolled in advanced math than white students (p. 41). In order to delve further into the dynamics and consequences of current placement practices, Lucas expands the analyses to consider more than just domain-specific achievement.         In addition, he examines the effects of racial and ethnic characteristics on patterns of placement in both math and English. His findings suggest that Black and Hispanic students are less likely than white students to be placed in both college preparation math and English classes in grade 11, but that Blacks and whites have a similar chance of being placed in college preparation math and English in grade 12. Lucas attributes this finding to the fact that educational opportunities for African- American students in US schools have indeed improved. Lucas does, however, note the "pivotal role" of social class in determining students' actual school placements (p. 59). Deploying cultural and intellectual capital, middle-class parents often insist upon their children's placement in classes that will improve those students' chances of being accepted into college.         Chapter 4 elaborates the influence of social class on individual students' placement and also on the structure of tracking in the American high school. Tracking was originally designed, amongst other things, to force immigrant children into state-run institutions so they could be appropriately socialized as American citizens and workers. A considerable literature on tracking demonstrates its role in reinforcing differential outcomes (e.g., salary, status) based on social class. Differences between access to public and private education also are based on social class. The author argues that changes in the structure of tracking have to some degree closed the performance gap that appears between public and private as well as between urban and suburban high schools. Lucas notes that, though uneven, the "unremarked revolution" nevertheless decreases the precision with which schools can sort and differentially socialize students from different class backgrounds.         In chapter 5 Lucas further examines (1) "scope," the extent to which placements in one subject limit students' options in other subjects and (2) "mobility," the degree to which past performance influences future placements. As one would suspect, formal systems of tracking greatly diminish scope. The "unremarked revolution," then, had a considerable, though certainly not a ubiquitous, effect on increasing students' curricular scope. Elimination of tracking is less likely to have an influence on mobility, however, since, in the absence of tracking, on-going performance criteria rather than entry-level ability criteria determine placement. To analyze mobility, Lucas evaluates the association between students' levels of curricular placement in grades 10, 11, and 12. His findings suggest that mobility in English is greater than in math, although downward mobility exceeds upward mobility in both subjects. Twelve students in 100 are upwardly mobile in math, whereas 21 in 100 are upwardly mobile in English. Forty- four students in 100 are downwardly mobile in math, and 37 in 100 are downwardly mobile in English. In English downward mobility is more likely to occur between grades 10 and 11, whereas upward mobility is more likely to occur between grades 11 and 12. Lucas assumes that when students are more mobile, they have the opportunity (or misfortune) to be exposed to different types of socialization. Based on his findings, Lucas, concludes that socialization for different life paths must now be less thoroughgoing than it was under formal systems of tracking. His conclusion to this chapter, I believe, is the most significant of the book. Noting that downward mobility is still common, Lucas sees optimism in the fact that, as a result of the "unremarked revolution," today's students more often see peers moving upward through the curricular levels. This was my experience in secondary school, and I share Lucas' belief that it is a positive sign.         Chapter 6 takes a closer look at individual attributes. Lucas claims it is possible to identify factors that enable some students to negotiate the educational system more deftly than others. His analyses focus on conditions influencing the likelihood that students in various curricular levels will move upward, remain at the same level, or move downward. Despite the small mediating influence of gender and race, Lucas nevertheless finds that students' origins still have a marked effect on their destinations, with those starting at the top tending to remain there, those starting at the bottom tending to remain there, and those in the middle tending to move downward. Lucas concludes the chapter with the following observations: Despite the "unremarked revolution" in school practice, wider social inequality continues to advantage those of more means; the post tracking era has not ushered in a new era of equality; those of modest means are disadvantaged in high school placement and; track structures appear more rigid in schools with greater socio-economic diversity. (pp. 112-114 passim)         In chapter 7, Lucas considers the extent to which students' location in the complex stratified structure of schooling is associated with three important outcomes: interest in school, cognitive achievement, and college entry. Earlier studies showed that low-track classes tended to have unsupportive climates, whereas the opposite was true for high-track classes. As a consequence of different climates, track location tended to influence students' attitudes toward school. Lucas' analyses, however, show that students' level of interest in school is not related to their placement. These findings lead Lucas to speculate that the association between placement level and interest in school has been diminished by increases in the frequency with which students now experience discrepant placements both across grade level and across subject areas. Because they experience discrepant placements and less clearly differentiated socialization, students are no longer exposed systematically to conditions that predispose them to like or dislike school. Consequently, their attitudes toward school are now more likely than in the past to be influenced by factors other than curricular placement. Although it has less of an influence on students' attitudes, curricular placement still strongly influences academic achievement. And as a result, it still tends to exert an important influence on students' ability to gain access to a college education.         The concluding chapter of the book examines the educational and political consequences of the "unremarked revolution." Lucas argues that, overall, the "unremarked revolution" appears to have failed. With the elimination of formal systems of tracking, students now encounter a subtler, more covert system of in-school stratification. Lucas interprets this conclusion in light of the Marxist framework presented at the beginning of the book. He argues that the socializing experiences that students have in school tend to maintain inequality. In the end, Lucas concludes that the new American high school is little better than the older version.         Subtle and complicated as Lucas' analyses are, the book nonetheless elicits reflection on the part of the reader. I found myself reflecting on my own experiences as a student in inner-London primary and secondary schools. Lucas' work made me realize that division, inequality, and contradiction still exist in the education systems of both the US and the UK. But, like Lucas, I am able to remain optimistic. Though limited, upward mobility is still possible. Social changes that permit African- Americans to gain access to a better education are, for example, an encouraging sign.         And this is where I believe the Stephen Lawrence inquiry fits into the education debate about tracking. As Lucas suggests, tracking contributes to differential socialization of students, which tends to reinforce institutional racism. Elimination of formal systems of tracking has, according to Lucas' analyses, increased African-American students' opportunities to learn, giving these students a greater chance for upward mobility. But does upward mobility of African-Americans necessarily curb institutional racism? What else is needed?         Silent on the matter of tracking (or "streaming" as it is called in Britain), the MacPherson Report (1999) recommends modifications to the National Curriculum "aimed at valuing diversity and preventing racism." Moreover, it recommends much more stringent monitoring of racist incidents in schools. Will such changes be adequate? As Lucas' book suggests, educational changes can have some, if limited, effect. Analysis of tracking in UK schools might be a productive next step toward identifying and then eliminating an educational practice that contributes to institutionalized racism. But as the US example shows, institutional practices " however odious " are difficult to uproot. Furthermore, even as opportunities for some groups improve, opportunities for other groups (e.g., low SES students in the US) continue to remain dismal. References Macpherson, W. (1999). The Stephen Lawrence inquiry: Report of an inquiry. [On-line]. Available: http://www.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm42/4262/4262.htm (February 24, 1999). About the Reviewer Richard W. Race is currently finishing his Ph.D. His dissertation concerns whether the state executive relationship between education politicians and civil servants changed during the period 1970-74. He also lectures and tutors part-time in Applied Social Studies at Keele University. He may be contacted by e-mail at: edd45@keele.ac.uk.