IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ces/ceswps/_7866.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Academic Achievement and Tracking - A Theory Based on Grading Standards

Author

Listed:
  • Tim Ehlers
  • Robert Schwager

Abstract

We present a theory explaining the impact of ability tracking on academic performance based on grading policies. Our model distinguishes between initial ability, which is mainly determined by parental background, and eagerness to extend knowledge. We show that achievements of low ability students may be higher in a comprehensive school system, even if there are neither synergy effects nor interdependent preferences among classmates. This arises because the comprehensive school sets a compromise standard which exceeds the standard from the low ability track. Moreover, if students with lower initial ability have higher eagerness to learn, merging classes will increase average performance.

Suggested Citation

  • Tim Ehlers & Robert Schwager, 2019. "Academic Achievement and Tracking - A Theory Based on Grading Standards," CESifo Working Paper Series 7866, CESifo.
    • Handle: RePEc:ces:ceswps:_7866
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cesifo.org/DocDL/cesifo1_wp7866.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Epple, Dennis & Newlon, Elizabeth & Romano, Richard, 2002. "Ability tracking, school competition, and the distribution of educational benefits," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(1), pages 1-48, January.
    2. Arnott, Richard & Rowse, John, 1987. "Peer group effects and educational attainment," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 287-305, April.
    3. Betts, Julian R, 1998. "The Impact of Educational Standards on the Level and Distribution of Earnings," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 88(1), pages 266-275, March.
    4. Esther Duflo & Pascaline Dupas & Michael Kremer, 2011. "Peer Effects, Teacher Incentives, and the Impact of Tracking: Evidence from a Randomized Evaluation in Kenya," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(5), pages 1739-1774, August.
    5. Jebaraj Asirvatham & Michael R. Thomsen & Rodolfo M. Nayga & Heather L. Rouse, 2018. "Do peers affect childhood obesity outcomes? Peer-effect analysis in public schools," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 51(1), pages 216-235, February.
    6. Giorgio Brunello & Daniele Checchi, 2007. "Does school tracking affect equality of opportunity? New international evidence [‘Educational opportunities and the role of institutions’]," Economic Policy, CEPR, CESifo, Sciences Po;CES;MSH, vol. 22(52), pages 782-861.
    7. William Chan & Li Hao & Wing Suen, 2007. "A Signaling Theory Of Grade Inflation," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 48(3), pages 1065-1090, August.
    8. Ettore Damiano & Hao Li & Wing Suen, 2010. "First In Village Or Second In Rome?," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 51(1), pages 263-288, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ehlers, Tim & Schwager, Robert, 2016. "Academic achievement and tracking: A theory based on grading standards," University of Göttingen Working Papers in Economics 289, University of Goettingen, Department of Economics.
    2. Jacopo Bizzotto & Adrien Vigier, 2022. "Sorting and Grading," Papers 2208.10894, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2024.
    3. Kangoh Lee, 2015. "Higher education expansion, tracking, and student effort," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 114(1), pages 1-22, January.
    4. Jacopo Bizzotto & Adrien Vigier, 2022. "A Case for Tiered School Systems," Working Papers 202205, Oslo Metropolitan University, Oslo Business School.
    5. Oliver Himmler & Robert Schwager, 2013. "Double Standards in Educational Standards – Do Schools with a Disadvantaged Student Body Grade More Leniently?," German Economic Review, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 14(2), pages 166-189, May.
    6. Alessandro Tampieri, 2016. "Social background effects on school and job opportunities," Education Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(5), pages 496-510, September.
    7. Marisa Hidalgo Hidalgo, 2009. "Tracking can be more equitable than mixing: peer effects and college attendance," Working Papers 09.04, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Department of Economics, revised Jul 2012.
    8. Zoltan Hermann, 2013. "Are you on the right track? The effect of educational tracks on student achievement in upper-secondary education in Hungary," Budapest Working Papers on the Labour Market 1316, Institute of Economics, Centre for Economic and Regional Studies.
    9. Betts, Julian R., 2011. "The Economics of Tracking in Education," Handbook of the Economics of Education, in: Erik Hanushek & Stephen Machin & Ludger Woessmann (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Education, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 7, pages 341-381, Elsevier.
    10. Marisa Hidalgo-Hidalgo, 2011. "On the optimal allocation of students when peer effects are at work: tracking vs. mixing," SERIEs: Journal of the Spanish Economic Association, Springer;Spanish Economic Association, vol. 2(1), pages 31-52, March.
    11. Volker Meier & Gabriela Schütz, 2007. "The Economics of Tracking and Non-Tracking," ifo Working Paper Series 50, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich.
    12. Suzanne Bellue & Lukas Mahler, 2024. "Efficiency and Equity of Education Tracking A Quantitative Analysis," CRC TR 224 Discussion Paper Series crctr224_2024_546, University of Bonn and University of Mannheim, Germany.
    13. Holmlund, Helena, 2016. "Education and equality of opportunity: what have we learned from educational reforms?," Working Paper Series 2016:5, IFAU - Institute for Evaluation of Labour Market and Education Policy.
    14. Sönke Hendrik Matthewes, 2020. "Better together? Heterogeneous effects of tracking on student achievement," CEP Discussion Papers dp1706.pdf, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    15. Iversen, Jon Marius Vaag & Bonesrønning, Hans, 2015. "Conditional gender peer effects?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 19-28.
    16. Roller, Marcus & Steinberg, Daniel, 2020. "The distributional effects of early school stratification - non-parametric evidence from Germany," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    17. Zhang, Yu & Qin, Fei & Liu, Juanjuan, 2019. "Improving education equality and quality: Evidence from a natural experiment in China," International Journal of Educational Development, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 1-1.
    18. Oliver Himmler & Robert Schwager, 2013. "Double Standards in Educational Standards – Do Schools with a Disadvantaged Student Body Grade More Leniently?," German Economic Review, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 14(2), pages 166-189, May.
    19. Marisa Hidalgo-Hidalgo, 2007. "On the optimal allocation of students when peer effect works: Tracking vs Mixing," Working Papers 07.14, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Department of Economics.
    20. Mary A. Burke & Tim R. Sass, 2013. "Classroom Peer Effects and Student Achievement," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 31(1), pages 51-82.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ability tracking; comprehensive school; education; equality of opportunity; peer group effects;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • I21 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education - - - Analysis of Education
    • I28 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education - - - Government Policy
    • D63 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ces:ceswps:_7866. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Klaus Wohlrabe (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cesifde.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.