Educational Considerations - Vol 45 - Issue 2 - Intersectionality and the History of Article 4 - A Critical Historical Examination of Tracking as a Method for Maintaining Racial Segregation

Oct 15, 2026

A critical historical examination traces tracking as a curricular structure that sorts students into different academic paths and persists in segregating learners along racial and curricular lines in American public schools. Drawing on educational and sociological scholarship, it distinguishes tracking from ability grouping by scale and permanence. Using Critical Race Theory and interest convergence, the analysis explains how curriculum, instruction, assessment, funding, and desegregation efforts help sustain racial inequality, including through magnet-school practices.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages15

Reading Time38 min

AccessFree to download

Introduction

Theoretical Considerations

Educational Considerations Volume 45 Number 2 Intersectionality and the History of Article 4 Education March 2020 A Critical Historical Examination of Tracking as a Method for Maintaining Racial Segregation Todd McCardle Eastern Kentucky University, [todd.mccardle@eku.edu](todd.mccardle@eku.edu) Follow this and additional works at: [https://newprairiepress.org/edconsiderations](https://newprairiepress.org/edconsiderations) Part of the Curriculum and Instruction Commons, Curriculum and Social Inquiry Commons, and the Secondary Education Commons This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 4.0 License. Recommended Citation McCardle, Todd (2020) "A Critical Historical Examination of Tracking as a Method for Maintaining Racial Segregation," Educational Considerations: Vol. 45: No. 2. [https://doi.org/10.4148/0146-9282.2186](https://doi.org/10.4148/0146-9282.2186) [This Article is brought to you for free and open access by New Prairie Press. It has been accepted for inclusion in](This Article is brought to you for free and open access by New Prairie Press. It has been accepted for inclusion in)[ ](This Article is brought to you for free and open access by New Prairie Press. It has been accepted for inclusion in)[Educational Considerations by an authorized administrator of New Prairie Press. For more information](Educational Considerations by an authorized administrator of New Prairie Press. For more information), please [contact](contact cads@k-state.edu)[ cads@k-state.edu](contact cads@k-state.edu). A Critical Historical Examination of Tracking as a Method for Maintaining Racial Segregation Todd McCardle Introduction The past and present are in constant dialogue with each other. In order to understand fully contemporary structures, it can prove valuable to trace the historical roots of how such institutions were implemented and how they have evolved over time. Tracking, or the organization of students for instruction into different academic paths, is one such structure with a troubled history that continues to segregate students along curricular and racial lines in American public schools. Through written and oral accounts (Anderson 1988; Baker 2001; Burkholder 2011; Loveless 1998; Rury 2012), historians have illustrated how educational tracks have harmed students of color, altering their career aspirations and academic achievement since Spanish and British colonists created formal schools in the New World. Addressing tough questions about America’s past is important, especially when attempting to understand fairness in educational access. This article examines tracking as a form of educational inequity and its historical intersectional influences. I define tracking as a form of curricular differentiation where schools organize students for instruction by their abilities into one of several academic paths. There are different measures individual schools and school districts use to sort students. Historically, the first tests used to track students were IQ tests. The most common evaluation instruments today include results from standardized achievement examinations, such as the Stanford Achievement Test. Many sources conflate the terms tracking and ability grouping. The two are not synonymous. Tracking differs from ability grouping in both scale and permanence (Gamoran 1992). Ability groups are typically small, short-term clusters teachers create at the classroom level. For instance, teachers may assign students to groups based on their speed in mastering subject-specific standards or using any other set of classroom data. Tracking, in contrast, refers to curricular assignments of an entire school population based on measures decided upon by individual schools and school systems. Historically, tracking policies allow students minimal flexibility with course selection and exhibit rare student mobility from one track

FAQs

What is tracking, and how is it different from ability grouping?

Tracking is curricular differentiation that assigns an entire school population to academic paths based on school-determined measures. Ability grouping is usually small, short-term clusters created at the classroom level, differing in scale and permanence.

Why does the article treat tracking as a form of educational inequity?

The article argues that tracking harms students of color, affecting career aspirations and academic achievement while maintaining racial and ethnic segregation through ongoing curricular and racial sorting.

Which theoretical framework does the article use to analyze tracking’s role in segregation?

It uses Critical Race Theory and the interest convergence principle to examine tracking as an institutional strategy that sustains racial segregation in American public schools.

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by CatatanPagi