Originally Posted by arlen1
Originally Posted by Dude
Quote
...broad and longitudinal study that took place from 1976 to 1989...
Oh, look. Science.

So it looks like grouping for tracking was (very often) done badly.
Could be, but even if so, that would not be an argument against tracking, of course. It would simply mean that placement of students into the right classes needed to be done better.

Of course, it could also be that the study had systematic flaws. For example, if a study found that remedial students at Harvard were more academically advanced and able than honors students at Podunk Community College, that would hardly be grounds to question the legitimacy of the labels "remedial" and "honors"