The Blackwell Companion to Sociology (84 page)

disperse time to teachers who, in turn, make decisions about the use of time

for pedagogical purposes. Teachers allocate time in various ways, such as

distributing it across instructional groups, and ultimately dispense it to the

individual student. Several empirical studies utilized the nested layers perspective as researchers focused on how resource allocation affected curriculum coverage

and student learning (Bidwell and Kasarda, 1980; Alexander and Cook, 1982;

Barr and Dreeben, 1983; Rowan and Miracle, 1983; Gamoran, 1987).

Once educational researchers conceptualized learning as a process that links

student achievement to the allocation of resources within a school, they quickly expanded the nested layers model to include a number of other factors that

channel learning opportunities to students. They focused on such factors as

school climate, teacher characteristics, pedagogical practices, classroom interactions, and the content and organization of the curriculum. Many of these factors are interrelated; hence the model of schools as loosely structured organizations sheds light on these school processes.

Expanding Bidwell's notion of thè`structural looseness'' of school organiza-

tion, Meyer and Rowan (1988) argued that schools are tightly coupled with

respect to the assignment of teachers to students, but loosely coupled with respect to the content of instruction and pedagogical practices. Further, they characterized organizations not as open or closed systems that are internally independent of their social context, but as derived from and dependent upon their wider

institutional environment.

Building on both the nested layers and the loosely coupled models of school

organization, Gamoran et al. (2000) formulated a model of school organization

that depicts organizational resources as the context for teaching and learning.

Research in the Sociology of Education

363

Assuming that teaching is the primary determinant of learning, they focus on the interactive relationship between the organizational context of the school and

teaching. This conceptualization can encompass different views of teaching and

various connections between the teacher and other members of the school

organization. It informs the analysis of various aspects of instruction, including the professional role of teachers, curriculum standards, performance assessment, staff mobility, teacher morale, and student behavior.

Empirical Analyses of Organizational Effects of Schools

Using one or more of these models of school organization as a conceptual

framework, researchers have conducted numerous empirical studies focusing

on student outcomes. One organizational feature of schools that has attracted

considerable attention over the past two decades is the organization of students for instruction. Aware that opportunities to learn are related to exposure to the curriculum and that the content of the curriculum can vary across groups of

students, researchers have investigated how students are assigned to instruc-

tional groups and the consequences of these assignments. A large, systematic

body of empirical research and literature has emerged on this topic.

Since most middle and secondary schools and a large number of elementary

schools assign students to instructional groups on the basis of cognitive ability, much of the empirical research on the organization of students for instruction

has focused on the determinants and consequences of ability grouping. Research

has also focused on the process of assigning students to classes or groups on the basis of gender, age, and substantive interest.

In elementary schools, students typically are assigned to small, homogeneous

ability groups for instruction in reading and often also in mathematics. In middle and high school, ability grouping may take the form of tracking in which

students are assigned to an academic, general, or vocational curriculum.

Recently, tracking has been replaced in most schools by course-based ability

grouping, with students being assigned to advanced, honors, regular, or basic

courses in English and mathematics, and often in other subjects as well. The

courses differ somewhat in content and significantly in pace of instruction and

depth of coverage.

Research on the determinants of ability group formation identify school and

class size as factors largely determining the size and number of ability groups in a school. Examining within-class ability groups in elementary schools, researchers (Barr and Dreeban, 1983; Hallinan and Sorensen, 1983) found that regardless of

the size or ability distribution of the class, teachers tended to form three ability groups of fairly equal size. Moreover, membership in these groups tended to

remain stable over the school year. A reason for this identifiable pattern may be found in constraints on the availability of resources, including textbooks and

other materials and space.

A number of studies identify factors that govern the assignment of students to

ability groups at the elementary, middle, and secondary school levels. Some

schools adhere to a policy of assignment based strictly on academic rank, as

364

Maureen T. Hallinan

determined by grades or standardized test scores (Hallinan, 1994a). Other

schools also rely on teacher evaluations of students' attitudes, motivation,

aspirations, and behaviors (Cicourel and Kitsuse, 1963; Rosenbaum, 1976;

Oakes, 1985). Rist's (1970) study of elementary students found that teachers

placed students into ability groups based on their command of Standard Amer-

ican English, their appearance, and their ease of interaction with adults, in

addition to their ability. Other studies have found that characteristics such as gender, socioeconomic status, age, and race play a role in determining a student's ability group level (Oakes, 1985; Hallinan, 1992, 1994a). Finally, some schools

create more heterogeneous groups for various reasons, including efforts to insure demographic diversity in each group (Hallinan and Sorensen, 1983).

Many researchers have been concerned with possible discrimination in the

assignment of students to ability groups. Most of the studies examining the

effects of race, ethnicity, and gender, or ability group assignments, show a

weak effect of ascribed characteristics on level of assignment (Patchen, 1982;

Sorensen and Hallinan, 1984; Vanfossen et al., 1987; Oakes, 1990; Hoffer and

Kamens, 1992; Kubitschek and Hallinan, 1996). For example, controlling for

ability and performance (Kubitschek and Hallinan, 1996), non-whites are

slightly more likely than whites to be assigned to lower level ability groups

and females are more likely than males to be assigned to higher English groups.

Other studies have examined whether ability group assignments are fixed for a

semester or year or whether students can change group level if desired (Rosen-

baum, 1976; Eder, 1981; Hallinan and Sorensen, 1985; Oakes, 1985; Gamoran,

1989, 1992; Hallinan, 1990, 1996). These studies indicate that ability group

mobility is a fairly frequent occurrence, at least at the secondary level. Moreover, change in ability group assignment varies by student background characteristics.

Hallinan (1996) showed that males are more likely to be reassigned to a higher

mathematics track than females, but less likely to be moved to a higher English

track.

The main finding of this body of research is that ability grouping has signifi-

cant effects on student achievement. Comparing the achievement of students in

schools that group students homogeneously by ability to that of students in the

few schools with heterogeneous grouping shows no direct effect of ability group-

ing on student achievement at the elementary (Slavin, 1987) or secondary

(Slavin, 1990) levels. However, when student achievement is compared across

ability groups, the results show that students assigned to higher ability groups have higher achievement than those assigned to lower groups, controlling for

ability and past achievement (Rosenbaum, 1967; Alexander and McDill, 1976;

Oakes, 1985; Kerckhoff, 1986; Gamoran, 1987; Vanfossen et al., 1987).

Further, Hallinan (2000) found that assigning a student to a higher ability

group than indicated by standardized test scores ± that is, ``mis-assigning'' a

student ± results in greater growth in achievement than assignment to thè`correct'' group. The effects of ability group level on student achievement are robust across age, grade, school sector, subject area, and school characteristics.

These findings have led to considerable debate over the educational value of

ability grouping. Proponents claim that ability grouping benefits higher

Research in the Sociology of Education

365

achieving students. Moreover, while ability grouping may be detrimental to low

ability students, improved instruction and a more interesting curriculum in

low ability classes should rectify this inequity. Proponents also argue that the association of race, ethnicity, and gender with ability group placement can be

eliminated by careful assignment practices (for a review of these arguments, see Hallinan, 1994b). Opponents of ability grouping claim that since ability grouping disadvantages the low achiever, it should be replaced by heterogeneous

grouping to insure that all students have an equal opportunity to learn (Oakes,

1985, 1994). They argue that all students benefit from heterogeneous grouping

because diversity stimulates learning (Good and Marshall, 1984; Mason and

Good, 1993). Finally, critics of ability grouping state that the practice is

embedded in a normative, cultural, and political context which makes eradicat-

ing the inequities of ability grouping impossible without eliminating the practice (Oakes, 1985, 1994). This debate continues to be played out in school districts

across the country as educators evaluate the effects of ability grouping on

student performance.

Organizational Characteristics of Schools and Student Cognitive

and Social Outcomes

A second dimension of Bidwell's analysis of the school as a formal organization

focused on the socialization function of schools. Bidwell argued that social

psychological processes governing student interactions in school play a major

role in socializing students to learning and to social behavior. In a recent

analysis, Bidwell (2000) claimed that sociologists of education have not paid

enough attention to the way school context affects student socialization.

Researchers have focused primarily on how individual characteristics of students affect their academic achievement, educational aspirations, educational

attainment, and occupational status. A primary example of this individualistic

orientation is the psychological model of status attainment (Sewell and Hauser,

1980).

Some sociologists of education have examined contextual influences on stu-

dents' educational and social outcomes. These studies have addressed three

questions. First, how do peer groups influence student achievement and social

behavior? Second, what is the effect of the formal organization of the school on student academic performance and social relations? Third, how does school or

classroom climate affect student outcomes?

Peer Group Influences on Student Outcomes

Early writings of Waller (1932), Hollingshead (1949), Gordon (1957), Coleman

(1961), Newcomb (1961), and Whyte (1967) focused primarily on peer influ-

ences in school. They described students' social interactions and the emergence

of peer groups or cliques and student subcultures. They argue that peer groups

develop a set of norms that govern the academic and social behavior of their

members. These norms may support teachers' efforts to instruct students or may

366

Maureen T. Hallinan

conflict with educational goals. Other early studies by Hollingshead (1949),

Coleman (1961), and Newcomb (1961) identify the ascribed and achieved

characteristics of students, including social class, athletic ability, and physical attractiveness, that qualify them for membership in a social clique.

More recent studies of student social groups, by Cusick (1973), Roistacher

(1973), Cohen (1977), and Eder (1981), demonstrate that clique membership

affects a student's attitudes, values, social status, and adherence to group norms.

Moreover, cliques with different values, norms, and interests may coexist in the same school, and may have a differential impact on student academic and

social behavior. In most of these studies, peer influences are explained by social psychological theories of normative and comparative reference groups,

social exchange, role modeling, and labeling.

A number of survey analyses reveal the consequences of peer influences for

student achievement (Spilerman, 1971; Felmlee et al., 1985; Schunk and Han-

son, 1985; Mounts and Steinberg, 1995; Wentzel and Caldwell, 1997). These

studies identify a number of these peer effects. Peers influence a student's choice of courses, time spent on homework, and engagement in classroom interaction.

Students join with peers to exert pressure on teachers to negotiate grades, homework, and tests in exchange for class attendance and appropriate behavior. Peers have an impact on a student's motivation, effort, and attitudes toward school,

which have immediate consequences for academic performance. Peers influence

a student's educational aspirations, choice of college and educational attain-