Hierarchical Academic Culture

ystem uses to brand a school as success or failure.
This reliance on test scores as a measure of achievement gives rise to hierarchical academic culture. This hierarchical culture is birthed by the public display and celebration of test scores. Those growing up in age of No Child Left Behind can attest to the incessant accolades and celebrations that come along once test results are released. In primary school I remember having to sit through countless long-winded assemblies where a select group of students received paper certificate for their achievement in math, science, language arts, or social science. As a student that was usually recognized for scoring high on the state test, I found this praise extremely validating. I had cultivated

In addition to having to cope with the self-esteem issues that arise from this separation, students also have to work against the adverse academic consequences of this division. This division of students on the basis of academic ability is known as tracking. Tracking differs from focus groups, where students are given personalized instruction, because this grouping includes all students, not just ones with a specific need and this separation is permanent, following students throughout their academic career. Although proponents of tracking assert this grouping by ability is beneficial to all students, allowing teachers to cater to a specific ability group, data from the research projects of multiple scholars suggests otherwise. In a study of over 20,000 eighth grade students from over 100 schools, NYU Professor of Education and Economic Dr. Dominic Brewer, along with two colleagues in the field of economics, found evidence suggesting, “that, while public high school students in low-track math classes do worse on standardized tests than they would have done had they been in an untracked class, students in high-track classes actually perform better academically” (Brewer). Brewer’s research reveals that students in the low-ability math group perform significantly worse than those in a heterogeneous class mixture, while those in the high-ability math group actually benefit from this separation. Brewer’s findings indicate that, contrary to popular opinion, the results of tracking are only positive for those tracked into the high ability group. Those already deemed as “gifted” are surpassing their “low-ability” peers in even larger amounts, because they have the opportunity to use their bright peers as a resource for their own intellectual development. Their insight is especially valuable in collaborative efforts, as these students can bounce off of each other