One aspect that is debatable in tracking is achievement. Tracking may lead to higher achievement in schools. Students have the propensity to achieve more in academics when grouped together with peers having the same level of education. It has been shown that higher-level students have the likelihood of failing when grouped together with lower-level students. Talented students are able to interact and spend most of their school days with peers of the same ability (Brint, 2006).
Higher level students’ grades and test scores have been shown to increase when grouped with students with the same intellectual capability (Brint, 2006). Lower level students feel intimidated when grouped with high level students; therefore, they underperform. On the other hand, tracking may be detrimental to the achievements of low level students. Low tracks often have students with disruptive behaviors. These students distract the ones that are willing to learn, hence low grades.
Another aspect affected by tracking is self-esteem. Self-esteem levels of the students can be boosted. This is because the students are only compared to peers with similar intellectual capability. They are only matched up to students that are within their levels of learning. This helps to avert self-esteem issues that may arise from lack of achievements (Brint, 2006). It is worth noting that self-esteem has a direct effect on a student’s performance and motivation. To the contrary, public labeling of the students in lower tracks as low achievers can be embarrassing. This may hurt the self-esteem of the low-level students. Low-level students may get stigmatized. This frequently leads to demoralization.
Tracking has been shown to help in resource allocation within schools. Schools are able to identify students that require improvement so as to reach national and state schools. Principals are able to recognize when to hire more teachers to support low-level students. Schools can