Social Psychology of Education 1: 323--339, 1998. 9 1998 KluwerAcademic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

323

The Effect of Track Position on Absenteeism* A M Y J. O R R University of Notre Dame

Abstract. Absenteeism is one of the major problems facing America's schools. Absenteeism disrupts the learning environment, is related to lower levels of achievement, and is associated with problems of crime and delinquency. While previous research has identified many of the determinants of absenteeism, the role of a student's position in the tracking structure within a school has not been explored. The purpose of this paper is to explore this relationship. Ordinary least squares (OLS) regression results reveal that students who are in the lower tracks within the tracking structure in a school are more likely to be absent than other students and that Black and female students in low tracks are more adversely affected by the low-track environment that non-Black and male students. These results suggest that track position must be taken into consideration when dealing with the problem of absenteeism.

Introduction One o f the major problems facing America's schools is that of absenteeism. During the 1970s, average daily attendance for New York high schools was between 50 and 70% (Birman & Natriello, 1978). During the 1980s, 20% o f the students in the Boston middle schools were absent more than 15% o f the time, and 5% o f the students were more absent than 50% o f the time (Wehlage et al., 1989). A study o f youth in an alternative school program found that students were absent an average o f 1.15 days a week (Kronick & Hargis, 1990). High absenteeism rates are problematic at the individual, school, and societal levels. At the individual level, high absenteeism rates are related to lower levels o f achievement and lead to difficulties in acquiring credentials. High rates of absenteeism reduce the amount o f schooling time a student receives and also cause a disruption in the leaming sequence (Monk & Ibrahim, 1984). Students who attend class on a regular basis may also be adversely affected by students with high rates o f absenteeism since teachers may have to take class time to provide remedial help for the absent students (Monk & Ibrahim, 1984). Absenteeism can hurt a student's chances o f future occupational success by preventing the student from obtaining needed credentials (Birman & NatrieUo, 1978). * The author would like to thank Maureen Hallinan for the use of her data set and for her comments and suggestions on previous drafts. The author would also like to thank Richard Williams and Kathryn Schiller for their comments and suggestions. Correspondence concerning this article should be sent to Amy J. Orr, Department of Sociology, University of Notre Dame, IN 46656, U.S.A. Tel: 219-232-8116; E-mail: [email protected].

324

AMY J. ORR

Students who do not obtain the credentials needed to be succesful in the job market may be unemployed or earn less when they are employed (Natriello, 1994)o Absenteeism can also create problems at the school level. Since the school is required by law to educate all young people, high rates of absenteeism may threaten the school's legitimacy. High absenteeism rates can also affect the amount of funding a school receives since the size of a school's budget is often based on attendance rates (Birman & Natriello, 1978). High rates of absenteeism are also problematic at the societal level. Crime and delinquency become problems when a large number of adolescents are not in school (Birman & Natriello, 1978). Another problem is created when these students "fail to acquire the basic competencies necessary for productive adult life." Limited success in the job market may also lead to a dependency on governmental services, such as welfare and health care assistance, in order to survive (Natriello, 1994). In order to deal effectively with the problems associated with high absenteeism rates, research has been done to explore the determinants of absenteeism. The resuits of these studies have shown that both student characteristics and school charaeteristics are associated with high rates of absenteeism. Most of the previous research on absenteeism has focused on student characteristics. Studies have shown that socioeconomic status (SES), family background characteristics, and other student background characteristics are related to absenteeism. Those students most likely to be absent are low-SES students, students from single-parent families, and students from households that have few educational resources (Nalriello, 1994). Students who are behind in grade level - therefore older than their classmates - are more likely to be absent than those in the appropriate grade (Hahn, 1987). Studies have reported inconsistent results in regard to the effects of race, ethnicity, and gender on absenteeism. Students with high rates of absenteeism also exhibit different attitudes and behaviors in school than those students with low absenteeism rates. Their school performance is poorer, and they have lower self-esteems, more discipline problems, and fewer positive relationships with peers and adults (Natriello, 1994). Recent research has shown that school characteristics also affect absenteeism. The internal organizational features of schools can have a significant impact on absenteeism rates. Bryk and Thum (1989) found that, after controlling for student background characteristics, the rate of absenteeism in Catholic schools is approximately a third less than it is in public schools. They also discovered that absenteeism is higher in schools where there is a greater incidence of discipline problems, and lower in schools where students feel they are safe, perceive discipline to be fair and effective, and where there is a strong press toward doing homework and getting good grades. Absenteeism is lower in schools where there is an interest in academics and a concentration of students in academic pursuits and where intemal curricular diversity and social class diversity are low. Absenteeism is also higher in larger schools (see also, Wehlage & Rutter, 1986).

THE EFFECT OF TRACK POSITION ON ABSENTEEISM

325

While research has provided a better understanding of the effects of school organization on absenteeism, one important factor has been omitted from these studies. Research has failed to explore the effects of track position on absenteeism. Tracking refers to the assignment of students to instructional groups by ability (Hallinan, 1994). It is a highly controversial but prevalent practice in America's schools. While research has shown that absenteeism is higher in schools that are likely to practice tracking (Bryk & Thum, 1989), the effects of track position on absenteeism have not been explored. The purpose of this paper is to examine the relationship between an individual's position in the tracking structure and absenteeism. Theory Research regarding the effects of school organization on absenteeism has often utilized the concept of alienation to explain the link between certain organizational features of schools and high absenteeism rates.l It has been argued that some structural aspects of schools - such as large school size, a highly diversified staff, and a diversified curriculum - can increase fealings of alienation, thus resulting in high absenteeism rates (Birman & Natriello, 1978; Newmann, 1981). The same type of argument can be applied to the relationship between track position and absenteeism. At the school level, alienation is one mechanism that could link low-track position to high rates of absenteeism. Low-track students may be placed in an environment that is conducive to alienation and may have higher rates of absenteeism than students in other tracks. At the same time, individuals or groups of individuals could react to this environment differently. Individuals who come into the school already feeling alienated may have a stronger reaction to the environment than those who do not. Some students are more sensitive to their learning environment than others. Thus, while low tracks may be alienating in general, all students may not be affected in the same way. TRACK POSITION AND ALIENATION

Alienation is defined as "the estrangement of an individual from an established context of his or her involvement" (Henricks, 1982). The main indicators of alienation are powerlessness - a sense of low control over events; normlessness - a sense that there are not cohesive goals within a society; meaninglessness - a sense of incomprehensibility of personal or social matters; isolation - a sense of exclusion or social rejection; and self-estrangement - the inability of an individual to find activities that are self-rewarding and engaging (Ha~lley & Hoy, 1972; Man, 1992; Newmann, 1981; Schacht, 1970; Seeman, 1959).

326

AMYJ. OaR

Powerlessness Powerlessness is defined as "the expectancy or probability held by the individual that his [or her] own behavior cannot determine the occurrence of the outcomes, or are enforcements, he [or she] seeks" (Seeman, i959). Feelings of powerlessness can result when an individual is placed in a marginal position within a society or when individuals are being controlled or manipulated by authority figures (Man, 1992). Tracking creates an academic hierarchy in which, typically, the stature of highability students is increased while the stature of low-ability students is decreased (Hallinan, 1994). Students occupying low-status positions are often separated from sources of academic support, which could result in feelings of"marginality" (Henricks, 1982). Students who lack academic support and experience feelings of marginality may feel that there is little that they can do to change their low-status position, which could lead to high levels of powerlessness. Students in lower tracks are often seen as deviants from official school norms and expectations. Due to this, high degrees of social control are often placed on them. Studies have shown that teachers use coercive power, such as reprimands and restriction of movements, more often in lower tracks than in higher tracks (Mau, 1992; Oakes, 1985). High levels of control can lead to feelings of powerlessness for low-track students.

Normlessness Normlessness denotes a situation in which a society has a set of goals but does not provide all individuals with the means to attain them (Seeman, 1959). High academic achievement is the goal of the school. The school usually rewards students on the basis of academic achievement but may not provide all students with the resources needed to attain the goal of academic achievement or the rewards associated with it. The amount and quality of instruction that a student receives has direct positive effects on achievement (Reynolds & Walberg, 1991). In order to attain high academic achievement, the quality and quantity of instruction that a student receives should be high. If all students are to have an equal opportunity to attain high academic achievement, quality and quantity of instruction should be at a maximum for all students. Within the tracking structure, this is often not the case. Research has shown that the quality and quantity of instruction decreases as track level decreases (Hallinan, 1994; Oakes, 1985). Well-qualified teachers are disproportionately found in higher tracks. Low-track students encounter teachers that have low expectations and standards (Hallinan, 1994; Oakes, 1985). Teachers in lower tracks are more likely simply to go through the motions of teaching rather than being really committed to their task. Referred to as teacher disengagement, this has been found to be the leading indicator of normlessness among students (Hoy, 1972).

THE EFFECT OF TRACK POSITION ON ABSENTEEISM

327

Time spent on instruction in the classroom is lower for low-track students than it is for high-track students. Actual time spent learning is lessened because of interruptions due to administrative and disciplinary tasks (Hallinan, 1994; Oakes, 1985). Teachers in lower tracks are more likely simply to go through the motions of teaching rather than being really committed to their task. Referred to as teacher disengagement, this has been found to be the leading indicator of normlessness among students (Hoy, 1972). Time spent on instruction in the classroom is lower for low-track students than it is for high-track students. Actual time spent learning is lessened because of interruptions due to administrative and disciplinary tasks (HaUinan, 1994; Oakes, 1985). Since less time is allocated to learning in low-track classes, these students may not be able to learn concepts, topics, and skills fully (Oakes, 1985). Due to these inequities, low-track students may not be able to reach the goal of high academic achievement set by the school, which could result in feelings of normlessness.

Meaninglessness Meaninglessness is defined as "a lack of connectedness between the present and the future" (Mau, 1992). It occurs when an individual lacks an understanding of the activities in which he or she is engaged or when an individual is unsure of how present activities will help him or her in the future (Hartley & Hoy, 1972). One of the purposes of school is to prepare students for the future. Generally, the aim of school is to prepare as many students as possible for post-secondary education. Students who do not have college aspirations, are unsure about their future endeavors, or see no connection between their academic work and their future economic prospects may see school as irrelevant or meaningless (Natriello, 1994). Low-track students tend to have low expectations for their educational futures. Students in how tracks tend to have substantially lower educational aspirations than students in higher tracks and more negative academic self-concepts (Oakes, 1985). This could result in the low-track student feeling that school is meaningless.

Isolation Isolation occurs when an individual has a "low expectancy for inclusion and social acceptance" (Henricks, 1982). The individual lacks integration in a friendship network and/or minimally participates in a society (Mau, 1992). Tracking usually creates a social hierarchy based on track level. Within the social hierarchy, low-track students are assigned a lower status in the social structure than students in higher tracks. Due to their low-status position, low-track students are likely to receive less respect from their peers (Hallinan, 1994). This can decrease their expectancy for social inclusion or acceptance and increase feelings of isolation. Low-track students are also likely to lack integration in a friendship network within their classrooms. Students in low-track classes are more likely than students

328

AMY L ORR

in high-track classes to say that their classmates are unfriendly, that students argue with each other, that there is dissonance in their classroom, and that they feel left out of class activities (Oakes, 1982). This could increase the amount of alienation that low-track students experience.

Self-estrangement Self-estrangement refers to the "inability of the individual to find self-rewarding activities that engage him" (Seeman, 1959). The activities that the individual is involved in lack intrinsic meaning, and the individual does not have a sense of pride in his or her work (Hartley & Hoy, 1972; Seeman, 1959). Lessons and instructional materials for students in lower tracks are less interesting and engaging than those in higher tracks (Hallinan, 1994; Oakes, 1982). Topics and skills that are offered in low-track courses are consistently less demanding than those in higher tracks (Burgess, 1983; Hargreaves, 1967; Oakes, 1985). Therefore, students in low tracks may be more likely than students in other tracks to experience a sense of self-estrangement. TRACK POSITION AND ABSENTEEISM

The arguments and research findings presented here suggest that low-track students may be more likely than students in other tracks to experience alienation. This could result in higher levels of absenteeism for students in low tracks. Hypothesis 1: Students in lower tracks in a school will have higher rates of absenteeism than students in other tracks.

RACE, GENDER, INCOME, TRACK POSITION, AND ABSENTEEISM

As stated earlier, while occupying a position in a low track can lead to high levels of alienation in general, individuals or groups of individuals could react to the lowtrack environment differently. This may be true for Blacks, females, and children from low-income families. Low-track position could have a stronger impact on these groups than on their counterparts - non-Blacks, males, and children from high-income families.

Race Differences in the Effect of Track Position on Absenteeism Black students generally arrive at school experiencing some degree of alienation due to factors external to the school. Blacks in general are more likely than nonBlacks to be subjected to alienating experiences such as racism, discrimination, and segregation (Moyer & Motta, 1982). Due to this, the percentage of Blacks who feel alienated is larger than the percentage of Whites experiencing alienation (Middleton, 1963). 2 This is also true for Black children. Alienation among Black

THE EFFECT OF TRACK POSITION ON ABSENTEEISM

329

children has increased over the years, and Black children are less likely than nonBlack children to feel a sense of belonging in the larger society (Moyer & Motta, 1982). If Black adolescents experience a school environment that is alienating, their attitude that they do not belong to or are not needed by the school community may be reinforced (Calabrese, 1987). Therefore, when Black students are faced with a low-track environment which is alienating, Black students may be more likely to be absent than non-Black students in the same environment. In addition, a difference has been found in the way that the two groups respond to alienation. Moyer and Motta (1982) found that Blacks experiencing high levels of alienation show significantly more behavioral and social adjustment problems than White students experiencing the same level of alienation. Therefore, even when both groups are equal in the amount of alienation experienced, Black students may be more likely to respond with negative behaviors, such as being absent. Black students may also be more sensitive to their learning environment than non-Black students. Banks (1988) found that Black students are more likely than non-Black students to be field-dependent - meaning that they are likely to be sensitive to the social environment that surrounds them as they work. Lefcourt (1982) reported that Blacks tend to have an external locus of control - which means that they believe that there is "little or no relationship between their behavior and its consequences" (Banks, 1988). These two findings suggest that Black students may be more likely than non-Black students to view the low-track environment as a negative environment but may also be more likely than non-Black students to believe that there is nothing they can do to change it. If this is the case, withdrawing from the environment becomes a plausible solution. These arguments and research findings presented here suggest that Black students may be more negatively affected by the low-track environment than nonBlack students. This could result in low-track Black students having higher rates of absenteeism than low-track non-Black students. Since the high-track environment does not share the alienating characteristics of the low-track environment, the difference in absenteeism rates for Blacks and non-Blacks is unlikely to exist in high tracks. Hypothesis 2: Black students in lower tracks in a school will have higher rates of absenteeism than non-Black students in lower tracks, whereas Black students in higher tracks will not have higher rates of absenteeism than nonBlack students in higher tracks.

Gender Differences in the Effect of Track Position on Absenteeism Females may be more negatively affected by being placed in the lower tracks than males. Females tend to be more field-dependent than males (Banks, 1988) and to have a greater need for interaction, attention, and reinforcement (Wilkinson & Marrett, 1985), Thus, when males and females are placed in an environment that

330

AMY

j. ORR

lacks interaction, attention, and reinforcement - such as low-track classrooms females may be more adversely affected. Females also tend to place greater value on social harmony and cooperation than males (Byme, Hattie, & Fraser, 1986; Johnson & Engelhard, Jr., 1992). As stated earlier, students in low-track classes are more likely than students in hightrack classes to say that their classmates are unfriendly, that students argue with each other, that there is dissonance in their classroom, and that they feel left out of class activities (Oakes, 1982). Since females may be more sensitive to this negative environment than males, they may be more likely to withdraw from the environment. These arguments and research findings suggest that females may be more negatively affected by the low-track environment than males. This could result in lowtrack female students having rates of absenteeism than low-track male students. Since the high-track environment does not share the negative characteristics of the low-track environment, the difference in absenteeism rates for females and males is unlikely to exist in high tracks. Hypothesis 3: Female students in lower tracks in a school will have higher rates of absenteeism than male students in lower tracks, whereas female students in higher tracks will not have higher rates of absenteeism than male students in higher tracks.

Income Differences in the Effect of Track Position on Absenteeism Like Black students, low-income students generally arrive at school experiencing some degree of alienation due to factors external to the school. Many studies have found that individuals from low-income families or families living in poverty are more likely to experience feelings of alienation than their counterparts (Bronfenbrenner, 1986; Calabrese, 1987; Hochschild, 1989; Thompson & Norris, 1992). If low-income adolescents experience a school environment that is alienating, their attitude that they do not belong to or are not needed by the community may be reinforced (Calabrese, 1987). Therefore, when low-income students experience an environment in the school that is alienating - such as low-track classrooms - they may be more likely to be absent than high-income students in the same environment. Low-income individuals also tend to have an external locus of control (Banks, 1988; Battle & Rotter, 1963; Kane, 1987). This findings suggests that if lowincome students view the low-track environment as a negative environment, they may be more likely than high-income students to believe that there is nothing they can do to change it, If this is the case, withdrawing from the environment becomes a plausible solution. These arguments and research findings suggest that low-income students may be more negatively affected by the low-track environment than high-income students. This could result in low-track, low-income students having higher rates of

THE EFFECT OF TRACK POSITION ON ABSENTEEISM

331

absenteeism than low-track, high-income students. Since the high-track environment does not share the alienating characteristics of the low-track environment, the difference in absenteeism rates for low- and high-income students is unlikely to exist in high tracks. Hypothesis 4: Low-income students in lower tracks in school will have higher rates of absenteeism than high-income students in lower tracks, whereas low-income students in higher tracks will not have higher rates of absenteeism than high-income students in higher tracks.

Methodology SAMPLE

The data used to test the hypotheses came from a longitudinal study of middle and secondary schools conducted by Maureen Hallinan. 3 This analysis used a subset of the data set. The sample included approximately 1 400 students who came from one of six public high schools and one Catholic high school that participated in the study. Five of the public schools and the Catholic school were located in a large urban school district. The remaining public high school was located in a smaller urban school district. The data set contained information about students that was obtained from school records. The data set included such background information as students' gender, race, free-lunch status (a measure of low-income status or poverty), and age. It also included achievement measures (such as grades and standardized test scores in math and English), absenteeism rates, and information on math and English track position. Table I presents descriptive statistics for the sample. 4 The sample is divided evenly by gender (approximately 51% female and 49% male), and approximately 14% of the students in the sample received free lunch - hence were assumed to come from homes characterized by poverty or low income. Approximately 15% of the sample was Black. The average age of the students was 15 years. The average grade in math for students in the sample was 2.28 (equivalent to a grade of C), and the average standardized test score in math was 67. 5 The average rate of absenteeism in the sample was 4 days per semester. Students who were not assigned a position within the formal tracking structure, who were in special education classes, and who were in ESL (English as a Second Language) courses were deleted from the sample used for this study. Also excluded were those students who had missing data for one or more of the variables used in the analyses.

332

AMY J. ORR

Table L Descriptive Statistics. Mean

S.D.

0.15

0.36

Student characteristics Black Female

0.51

0.50

14.90

0.47

Free lunch

0.14

0.35

Prior absenteeism

5.07

4.77

Absenteeism Prior achievement Grade in math Standardized test score

3.62

4.26

2.28

1.07

66.64

24.10

Age

N

1408

VARIABLES IN THE ANALYSES

The dependent variable in the analyses was the number of days a student was absent from math class during the semester. This was a continuous variable ranging from 0-92 days. All absences reported were unexcused absences. The main independent variable was track position in math. Dummy variables representing this variable were created for the analysis. The dummy variables were low tracks and high tracks. Low tracks included students who were in the very basic track and basic tracks; while high tracks included students who were in the honors and advanced tracks. These variables were coded 1 if the student was in the respective tracks and 0 if otherwise. Each variable was compared to the regular track, which falls in the middle of the low tracks and high tracks. Three additional independent variables were also included in the analysis: gender, race, and free lunch. These variables were all categorical and were coded: female = 1, Black = 1, free lunch ~ 1, and otherwise -- 0. Various control variables were included in the analyses that represented conditions which could have an effect on absenteeism rates and which could help minimize selection bias. These variables included student age, prior absenteeism rate, prior achievement variables, and the school that the student was attending. Age was continuous and was coded in terms of years. Prior absenteeism rate was the number of days the student was absent from math class during the previous semester. (In this case, it was the number of days absent in the second semester of eighth grade.) This was a continuous variable ranging from 0-92 days. Prior achievement variables included the grade the student received in math the previous semester and standardized test scores in math from the previous year. Grades were coded: F -~ 0, D - ~ .67, D+ = 1.33, C - = 1.67, C ~ 2, C+ 1 2.33, B - ,~ 2.67, B ~- 3, B+ ~ 3.33,

THE EFFECT OF TRACK POSITION ON ABSENTEEISM

333

A - = 3.67, A = 4, and A+ -- 4.33. Standardized test scores were measured in percentiles. Six dummy variables were created for the seven schools. Schools A through E in the regressions were public schools; school F was a Catholic school. Each school was compared to a sixth public school. The variables were coded 1 if the student attended the respective school and 0 if otherwise. Procedures Since the model used was a simple one and its dependent variable was continuous, ordinary least squares (OLS) regression was used to test the hyotheses. To test the first hypothesis, absenteeism was be regressed on the dummy variables for track position and the various control variables. To test the second, third, and fourth hypotheses, interaction effects were added to the regression. To test for differences between Blacks and non-Blacks, the variable Black was interacted with the variables low tracks and high tracks. To test for differences between females and males, the variable female was interacted with the variables low tracks and high tracks. To test for differences between low-income students and high-income students, the variable free lunch was interacted with the variables low tracks and high tracks. Results and Discussion HYPOTHESIS 1" GENERAL EFFECTS OF TRACK POSITION ON ABSENTEEISM

The results of the regression of absenteeism on track position are presented in Table II. The standardized regression (beta) coefficient for low tracks is positive and significant. The beta coefficient for high tracks is negative but not significant. These results support the hypothesis that students in lower tracks within a school will have higher rates of absenteeism than students in other tracks. (Note that these results involved a control for prior absenteeism. This means that even if prior absenteeism helped to generate assignment to a low track, that assignment was associated with additional absenteeism.) Results for the additional independent and control variables are also presented in Table II. The beta coefficient for free lunch is positive and significant. This result suggests that students from low-income or poverty homes are more likely to be absent. Prior absenteeism also has a significant effect. (In contrast, no significant effect appears for race or gender.) Those students who have had a history of absenteeism are more often absent than those who have not. The school variables have varying effects, with students from Schools A, C and D being the most likely to be absent and students from School E being the least likely to be absent. A significant effect was not found for the variables for race, gender, age, prior achievement, and the remainder of the schools.

334

AMYJ. ORR Table IL Regression of Absenteeism on Track Position.

Beta coefficient Student characteristics

Black Female Age Free lunch Prior absenteeism

--0.03 0.04 0.01 0.07** 0.43***

Prior achievement

Grade in math Standardized test score

-0.05 0.04

School attended

School A School B School C School D School E School F

0.12"** 0.04 0.07* 0.11"** -0.23*** -0.02

Track position

Low tracks High tracks

0.08** -0.04

N

1408

R squared

0.38

* p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01. *** p < 0.001.

HYPOTHESES 2, 3 AND 4: RACE, GENDER, AND INCOMEDIFFERENCESIN THE EFFECT OF TRACKPOSITION ON ABSENTEEISM Table m presents coefficients for the interactions between race and track position, gender and track position, and the income and track position when they are added to the analysis. While the increases in R squared when the interaction variables are added to the equation is modest, the increase is significant. Note that a significant interaction appears between race (Black) and low-track position. The beta coefficient is positive and significant. In addition, there is now also a significant simple effect for the variable Black (that was masked in the analysis presented in Table II). This coefficient is negative, meaning that, when the control is entered for the Race x Tracking interaction, Black students in general are less likely to be absent from school than non-Blacks. Since the simple and interactive race effects are equal in size but opposite in direction, this means that

THE EFFECT OF TRACK POSITION ON ABSENTEEISM

335

Table IlL Regression of Absenteeism on Track Position, Including Race, Gender, and Income Interaction Effects

Beta coefficient Student characteristics

Black Female Age Free lunch Prior absenteeism

-0.08* -0.01 0.02 0.06 0.43***

Prior achievement

Grade in math Standardized test score

-0.05 0.05

School attended

School A School B School C School D School E School F

0.12*** 0.04 0.07* 0.11"** -0.23*** -0.02

Track position

Low tracks High tracks

0.00 -0.07

Interaction effects

Black*Low Tracks Black*High Tracks Female*Low Tracks Female*High Tracks Free Lunch*Low Tracks Free Lunch*High Tracks N R squared

0.08* 0.02 0.09* 0.03 0.02 -0.02 1408 0.39

* p < 0.05. ** p < 0.0h *** p < 0.001.

Black students in the low tracks are as likely to be absent as n o n - B l a c k students in low tracks, rather than being m o r e likely to be absent, as hypothesized. While the hypothesis as stated was not supported, this findings lends support to a related conclusion - that Blacks will be m o r e adversely affected by being placed in the low tracks than non-Blacks. W h e n placed in low tracks, Black students lose their attendance advantage.

336

AMY J. ORR

A significant interaction also appears between gender (female) and low-track position. The beta coefficient is positive and significant. Female students in the low tracks are absent more often than male students in the low tracks. This result supports the third hypothesis. A significant interaction does n o t appear between low-income (free lunch) and low-track position. Low-income students are not more likely than high-income students to be absent when placed in the lower tracks within a school. Therefore, the fourth hypothesis is not supported. One possible explanation for this result is that low-income and high-income students may not differ in their tendency to be field-depedent. In a study done by Ramfrez and Price-Williams (see Banks, 1988), it was found that social class had little effect on whether or not a student was field-dependent. If this be the case, then, when placed in a negative environment, low-income students may be no more likely than high-income students to be sensitive to this environment. This could explain why there are interaction effects for race and gender but not for income. While Blacks, females, and low-income students may all be "at risk" in education, Blacks and females may be more field-dependent, or more sensitive to their learning environment, than their counterparts. This could lead to Blacks and females being more adversely affected by the low-track environment than nonBlacks and males. In contrast, this would not be the case for low-income students as compared to high-income students. 6 It is also important to note that, although there is not an interaction between income and track position, there is still a simple, negative effect for income. While the coefficient is not statistically significant in Table HI it has not decreased a great deal (by comparison with Table II) when the interaction effects are added. This would suggest that low-income students a r e more likely to be absent in general, but it is not necessarily due to the school or track environment. Rather, it is more likely to be structurally induced. CONCLUSION

The purpose of this study was to explore the effects of track position on absenteeism. It is argued that students in low-track classrooms experience an environment that is alienating, which makes students in low tracks more likely to experience feelings of powerlessness, normlessness, meaninglessness, and self-estrangement. It is argued that this could result in students in lower tracks having higher rates of absenteeism than students in other tracks. It is also argued that certain individuals or groups of individuals - such as Blacks, females, and low-income students - could react to the environment differently than their counterparts for various reasons, resulting in higher rates of absenteeism for these groups. Four hypotheses were tested: (a) low-track students will have higher rates of absenteeism than students in other tracks, (b) Black students in low tracks will have higher rates of absenteeism than low-track non-Black students, (c) female

THE EFFECT OF TRACK POSITION ON ABSENTEEISM

337

students in low tracks will have higher rates of absenteeism than male students in low tracks, and (d) low-income students in low tracks will have higher rates of absenteeism than high-income students in low tracks. The results of this study support two of these hypothesis simply and a third indirectly. Overall, students placed in low tracks have higher rates of absenteeism than those placed in regular and high tracks after controlling for student background characteristics, prior absenteeism, prior achievement, and the school they are attending. In addition, Blacks are more adversely affected by the low tracking environment than non-Blacks. While Blacks are less likely than non-Blacks to be absent overall, this advantage disappears when Blacks are placed into low tracks. Females in low tracks are also more likely to be absent than males in low tracks. Low-income students in low tracks are not more likely to be absent than highincome students in low tracks. The results of this study take previous findings one step further. While high curricular diversity within a school (which usually denotes the presence of a tracking structure) can result in high levels of absenteeism (Bryk & Thum, 1989), the effects are not the same for all students. Those students who are in the lower tracks within the tracking structure are more likely to be absent than other students. These effects also differ by race and gender, with Blacks and females being the most adversely affected. The findings imply that it is not simply the existence of a tracking structure within a school that educators must consider when discussing the problem of absenteeism. Educators must consider what is happening within the tracking structure if the problem is to be dealt with effectively. While the result presented in this study provide further insight into the problem of absenteeism, further research is needed. The study should be replicated using a larger data set that allows for more control of extraneous variables and using a data set that allows one to explore the links between track position and absenteeism to be tested. While these results lend support to the argument that alienation is the mechanism that links track position to absenteeism, this argument should be empirically tested. Notes 1. This argument has been supported by empirical research. Reports on absenteeism portray large numbers of students as alienated from high school (Abramowitz & Tenenbaum, 1978; Carnegie Council, 1979; National Panel, 1976). 2. Middleton (1963) reported this effect for every type of alienation except cultural estrangement. 3. The data were collected between 1986 and 1993 under a grant from the U.S. Department of Education. 4. Descriptive statistics for the tracking variables vary by analysis. This information is available upon request from the author. Correlation matrices are also available upon request. 5. The analyses were run for both math and English, and the results were similar. Only the math results are presented here. 6. In addition, this result might be expected since the stigma attached to being Black or female in American society is greater than the stigma attached to being low income. Race and gender are

338

AMY J. ORR

associated with visible cues; and since Blacks and females are unable to hide their ascribed statuses, they may be more likely than low-income students to suffer from discrimination on a daily basis. This could lead to Blacks and females having increased sensitivity to their environment.

References Abramowitz, Susan S. & Tenenbaum, Ellen (1978). High school '77: A survey of public secondary school principals. Washington, DC: National Institute of Education. Banks, James A. (1988). Ethnicity, class, cognitive, and motivational styles: Research and teaching implications. Journal of Negro Education, 57(4), 452--466. Battle, Esther S. & Rotter, Julian B. (1963). Schildren's feelings of personal control as related to social class and ethnic group. Journal of Personality, 31, 482--490. Birman, Beatrice & Natriello, Gary (1978). Perspectives on absenteeism in high schools. Journal of Research & Development in Education, 11(4), 29-38. Bronfanbreuner, Uric (1986). Alienation and the four worlds of childhood. Phi Delta Kappan, 67(6), 430-436. Bryk, Anthony S. & Thum, Yeow M. (1989). The effects of high school organization on dropping out: An exploratory investigation. American Educational Research Journal, 26(3), 353--383. Burgess, Robert G. (1983). Experiencing comprehensive education: A study of Bishop McGregor School. London: Mtthuen. Byme, Daniele B, Hattie, John A. & Fraser, Barry L (1986). Student perceptions of preferred classroom learning environment. Journal of Educational Research, 80(1), 10--18. Calabrese, Raymond (1987). Adolescence: A growth period conducive to alienation~ Adolescence, 22(88), 929-938. Carnegie Council on Policy Studies in Higher Education (1979). Giving youth a better chance: Options for education, work and service. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Hahn, Andrew (1987). Reaching out to America's dropouts: What to do? Phi Delta Kappan, 69(4), 256--267. Hallinan, Maureen (1994). Tracking: From theory to practice. Sociology of Education, 67(2), 79-84. Hargreaves, David H. (1967). Social relations in a secondary school. London: Roufledge and Kegan Paul. Harfley, Marvin C. & Hey, Wayne K. (1972). "Openness" of school climae and alienation of high school students. California Journal of Educational Research, 23(1), 17-24. Hem'icks, Thomas S. (1982). Toward a general theory of alienation. Sociological Inquiry, 52(3), 200221. Hochschild, Jennifer L. (1989). Equal opportunity and the estranged poor. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, 501, 143--155. Hey, Wayne K. (1972). Dimensions of student alienation and characteristics of public high schools. Interchange, 3(4), 38-52. Johnson, Charlene & Engelhard, Jr., George (1992). Gender, academic achievement, and preferences for cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning among African-American adolescents. Journal of Psychology, 126(4), 385-392. Kane, Thomas J. (1987). Giving back control: Long-term poverty and motivation. Social Service Review, 61, 405-419. Kronick, Robert E & Hargis, Charles C. (1990). Dropouts: Who drops out and why- and the recommended action. Springfield, IL: Thomas Lefcourt. Lefcourt, Herbert M. (1982). Locus of control: Current trends in theory and research (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbanm Associates. Mau, Rosalind (1992). The validity and devolution of a concept: Student alienation. Adolescence, 27(107), 731-741.

THE EFFECT OF TRACKPOSITIONON ABSENTEEISM

339

Middleton, Russell (1963). Alienation, race, and education. American Sociological Review, 28, 973-977. Monk, David H. & Ibrahim, Mohd A. (1984). Patterns of absence and pupil achievement. Achievement Educational Research Journal, 21, 295--310. Moyer, Thomas R. & Motta, Robert W. (1982). Alienation and school adjustment among Black and White adolexcents. Journal of Psychoogy, 112, 21-28. National Panel on High School and Adolescent Education (1976). The education of adolescents. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Natriello, Gary (1994). Dropouts, school leavers, and truancy. International Encyclopedia of Education, 3, 1602-1607. Newmann, Fred M. (1981). Reducing alienation in high schools: Implications of theory. Harvard Educational.Review, 51, 546--564. Oakes, Jeannie (1982). Classroom social relationships: Exploring the Bowles and Gintis hypothesis. Sociology of Education, 55, 197-212. Oakes, Jeannie (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. New Haven, C'E. Yale University Press. Reynolds, Arthur J. & Walberg, Herbert J. (1991). A structural model of science achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83( 1), 97-107. Schacht, Richard (1970). Alienation. New York: Doubleday. Seeman, Melvin (1959). On the meaning of alienation. American Sociological Review, 34, 783--791. Thompson, Martie P. & Norris, Fran H. (1992). Crime, social status, and alienation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 20( 1), 97-119. Wehlage, Gary G. & Rutter, Robert A. (1996). Dropping out: How much do schools contribute to the problem? In G. Natriello (Ed.), School dropouts: Patterns and policies. New York: Teachers College Press, pp. 70-88. Wehlage, Gary G., Rutter, Robert A., Smith, Gregory A., Lesko, Nancy & Fernandez, Ricardo R. (1989). Reducing the risk: Schools as communities of support. London: Falmer Press. Wilkinson, Louise C. & Marrett, Cora B. (1985). Gender influences in classroom interaction. London: Academic Press.

Biographical Note Amy J. Orr is a graduate student in sociology at the University of Notre Dame. Her research interests include tracking, absenteeism, race, and ethnicity in education.