How should we measure the effect of ability grouping on student performance?

D. I. Rees, D. J. Brewer, L. M. Argys

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

In this volume, Betts and Shkolnik [Betts, J. R., & Shkolnik, J. L. (1999) The effects of ability grouping on student math achievement and resource allocation in secondary schools. Economics of Education Review, 19, 1-15] argue that studies that compare students in tracked versus untracked classes overestimate the impact of tracking on student achievement by not adequately controlling for student ability and motivation. In this paper we discuss the shortcomings of their analysis and reinterpret their results. The data used by Betts and Shkolnik do not allow one to accurately classify tracked and untracked classroom, since identification of heterogeneous classes is impossible. They compare ability-grouped students in schools that report formally engaging in tracking to ability-grouped students in schools that track only informally. Our interpretation of their results suggests that there is little difference in student performance and resource allocation between schools that formally and informally group students by ability.[JEL I20].

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)17-20
Number of pages4
JournalEconomics of Education Review
Volume19
Issue number1
StatePublished - 1999

Fingerprint

grouping
ability
performance
student
economics of education
school
Student performance
Grouping
resources
secondary school
classroom
interpretation
Resource allocation
Group

Keywords

  • Educational economics
  • Efficiency
  • Resource allocation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Economics and Econometrics
  • Education

Cite this

How should we measure the effect of ability grouping on student performance? / Rees, D. I.; Brewer, D. J.; Argys, L. M.

In: Economics of Education Review, Vol. 19, No. 1, 1999, p. 17-20.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{09cce2e7348b4275b36e49c5d4d008ee,
title = "How should we measure the effect of ability grouping on student performance?",
abstract = "In this volume, Betts and Shkolnik [Betts, J. R., & Shkolnik, J. L. (1999) The effects of ability grouping on student math achievement and resource allocation in secondary schools. Economics of Education Review, 19, 1-15] argue that studies that compare students in tracked versus untracked classes overestimate the impact of tracking on student achievement by not adequately controlling for student ability and motivation. In this paper we discuss the shortcomings of their analysis and reinterpret their results. The data used by Betts and Shkolnik do not allow one to accurately classify tracked and untracked classroom, since identification of heterogeneous classes is impossible. They compare ability-grouped students in schools that report formally engaging in tracking to ability-grouped students in schools that track only informally. Our interpretation of their results suggests that there is little difference in student performance and resource allocation between schools that formally and informally group students by ability.[JEL I20].",
keywords = "Educational economics, Efficiency, Resource allocation",
author = "Rees, {D. I.} and Brewer, {D. J.} and Argys, {L. M.}",
year = "1999",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "19",
pages = "17--20",
journal = "Economics of Education Review",
issn = "0272-7757",
publisher = "Elsevier Limited",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - How should we measure the effect of ability grouping on student performance?

AU - Rees, D. I.

AU - Brewer, D. J.

AU - Argys, L. M.

PY - 1999

Y1 - 1999

N2 - In this volume, Betts and Shkolnik [Betts, J. R., & Shkolnik, J. L. (1999) The effects of ability grouping on student math achievement and resource allocation in secondary schools. Economics of Education Review, 19, 1-15] argue that studies that compare students in tracked versus untracked classes overestimate the impact of tracking on student achievement by not adequately controlling for student ability and motivation. In this paper we discuss the shortcomings of their analysis and reinterpret their results. The data used by Betts and Shkolnik do not allow one to accurately classify tracked and untracked classroom, since identification of heterogeneous classes is impossible. They compare ability-grouped students in schools that report formally engaging in tracking to ability-grouped students in schools that track only informally. Our interpretation of their results suggests that there is little difference in student performance and resource allocation between schools that formally and informally group students by ability.[JEL I20].

AB - In this volume, Betts and Shkolnik [Betts, J. R., & Shkolnik, J. L. (1999) The effects of ability grouping on student math achievement and resource allocation in secondary schools. Economics of Education Review, 19, 1-15] argue that studies that compare students in tracked versus untracked classes overestimate the impact of tracking on student achievement by not adequately controlling for student ability and motivation. In this paper we discuss the shortcomings of their analysis and reinterpret their results. The data used by Betts and Shkolnik do not allow one to accurately classify tracked and untracked classroom, since identification of heterogeneous classes is impossible. They compare ability-grouped students in schools that report formally engaging in tracking to ability-grouped students in schools that track only informally. Our interpretation of their results suggests that there is little difference in student performance and resource allocation between schools that formally and informally group students by ability.[JEL I20].

KW - Educational economics

KW - Efficiency

KW - Resource allocation

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0039330869&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0039330869&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:0039330869

VL - 19

SP - 17

EP - 20

JO - Economics of Education Review

JF - Economics of Education Review

SN - 0272-7757

IS - 1

ER -