Organizational Differentiation Of Students And Educational Opportunity

Organizational Differentiation Of Students And Educational OpportunityAuthor(s): Aage Bøttger SørensenSource: Sociology of Education, Vol. 43, No. 4 (Autumn, 1970), pp. 355-376Published by: American Sociological AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2111838 .

Accessed: 28/06/2014 08:20

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

American Sociological Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toSociology of Education.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 193.142.30.77 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 08:20:46 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=asa

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2111838?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Organizational Differentiation Of Students And Educational Opportunity*

Aage B0ttger S0rensen The Johns Hopkins University and the University of Copenhagen

Organizational differentiation of students is defined as the division of a school's student-body into subgroups (classes, sections, streams) of a relatively permanent character for instructional purposes. A vast body of research exists on the effect of organizational differentiation, especially the effects of grouping according to ability. No coherent pattern of results emerges from this research. It is argued in this paper that the inconclusiveness of the research is due not only to methodological problems, but also to the theoretical meagerness of the research. An attempt is made, therefore, to specify the crucial dimensions of the organizational differentiation. This conceptual framework is then used in the formulation of a set of mechanisms that may account for a relationship between organizational differentiation and student behavior.

Introduction

THE DIVISION OF a school's student body into subgroups of a permanent character can be termed organizational differentiation. Any educational system assigns students to groups for instructional purposes. The existence of classes, grades, sections, etc. defines formal education in contrast to the learning and training that takes place in the family or in work-and-play groups. The term organizational differentiation stresses the reference to a deliberate and formal structuring of a student body initiated by educational authorities for instructional purposes.

Organizational differentiation takes a variety of forms. A recent survey of research and practices in ability grouping-only one aspect of organizational differentiation-lists twenty-six different practices found within the United States alone (NEA, 1966). Some forms of differentiation are nearly universal; for example,

* The author is indebted to Ellen Greenberger, Robert E. Herriott, B. J. Hodg- kins, Colin Lacey and James McPartland for comments and criticisms on earlier versions of this paper.

355

Sociology of Education 1970, Vol. 43 (Fall):355-376



356 Sorensen

age-grade grouping. Often a pattern of differentiation is specific to a national educational system or a subset of it. The most marked contrasts in organizational differentiation exist between nations. Substantial within-nation variations in differentiation can be caused by a non-simultaneous introduction of new forms of differentiation in a period of reform, as was recently the case in England and Sweden, or by a decentralization of authority in educational matters, as in the United States.

A vast body of research exists on the effects of organizational differentiation. Especially prominent is research on the effects of an assignment to groups according to ability. Several comprehen- sive surveys of the literature exist (Goldberg, Passow, and Justin, 1966; NEA, 1968; Yates, 1966). It is a common conclusion in these surveys that no coherent pattern of results emerges from the existing research.

The inconclusiveness of the research may be explained partly by the high number of studies where the methodology seems in- adequate or inappropriate. The result of many studies, thus may be questioned because of peculiarities of the populations studied. Results are often obtained from short-term studies, where the effects can be expected to be long-term: The experimenters often do not control other significant variables, such as teacher behavior.

The methodological problems alone cannot explain the con- tradictory results. Carefully designed and executed studies do exist, and the inconclusiveness of findings remains. Hence, it is tempting to conclude that this aspect of the social organization of schools does not have a significance that justifies further attention.

Closing the issue with this conclusion seems unsatisfactory. It is puzzling that such a pervasive aspect of the environment of students cannot be found to have a more systematic effect on their behavior. The organizational differentiation of students determines whom a student will have as classmates, and by defining the routes to various educational ends, it will also determine the opportunities for attaining these educational ends. Both the composition of the classroom and the opportunity structure should affect the behavior of students.

Such assertions are never made in the existing studies, however. Nearly all studies relate a pattern of organizational differentiation to achievement or some other performance measure, without describing the mechanisms that would account for the predicted relationship. Relevant intervening variables are ignored and the possibility of stating the conditions under which a given result is to be expected is bypassed.

Both faulty methods and theoretical meagerness, therefore, may explain the inconclusiveness of existing research. To reevalu- ate these results, one must specify the mechanisms accounting for



357 Differentiation of Students

a relationship between organizational differentiation and student behavior, thus place the organizational differentiation of students in the context of sociological determinants of learning.

Organizational Differentiation and Determinants of Learning

A variety of characteristics of a student's behavior can be taken as the variables affected by organizational differentiation. This paper focuses on the relation between differentiation and academic achievement. As a starting point for the conceptualization of the relation between organizational differentiation and achievement, this section gives a brief outline of the variables that may specify or interpret this relation.

Student Characteristics as Determinants of Learning A number of characteristics of individual students have been

assumed to affect learning. These characteristics are commonly classified in two categories: cognitive skills, such as intelligence and creativity, which determine the ability to assimilate, memor- ize and apply material; and, a variety of personality factors be- lieved to influence the performance resulting from a given level of cognitive skill or ability.

The prediction of academic performance from a measure of ability seems most likely to be successful if the measure takes a student's specific abilities into account. Still, less than half the variance in achievement can be accounted for by such measures (Lavin, 1965). There is ample room for the operation of the various personality factors, although no single set of these variables accounts for as much variance as ability.

Of the multitude of variables assumed relevant for learning, Lavin (1965) lists 26 such variables, research in the sociology and social psychology of learning has focused especially on students' motivation, interests, values and aspirations, and attitudes or beliefs (Boocock, 1966). Motivational components, such as need to achieve, are assumed to determine the amount of effort a student will expend. Interest in specific educational activities, and the value a student places on education in general, in turn may be assumed to affect learning through an impact on motivation. Finally, beliefs such as the feeling of control over the environment and favorability of the self-image also have been assumed to operate on learning by virtue of their impact on motivation.

The causal status of the various non-cognitive characteristics is often doubtful. It is not clear, for example, to what extent aspirations and beliefs are causes rather than consequences of achievement. Even if they are assumed to affect achievement, it



358 Sorensen

is unclear how the effects are produced, and whether, for example, they only constitute necessary conditions for the operation of other factors on achievement. Little is known also about the dynamics of the interrelationship between the various determinants of learning, e.g., how personality factors affect the development of cognitive skills.

Social Relations as Determinants of Learning The various student characteristics mentioned above are sus-

ceptible to environmental influences, if not completely determined by them. Variations in achievement therefore may be related to variations in a student's social environment, the individual level characteristics being intervening variables.

The literature suggests a variety of variables as potential measures of the operative characteristics of a student's social environment. Most prominent are variables delineated according to actors who are thought to influence the student's behavior. These actors are of three principal kinds: (1) family members, responsible for the most crucial phases in the socialization of the child; (2) peers, who influence values, aspirations and beliefs of a student; (3) teachers, whose expectations may be assumed important for student motivation, and whose teaching skills may be relevant for the development of students' cognitive skills.

A massive documentation of the importance of these three groups of actors is provided by the Coleman Report (Coleman, et al., 1966). This report shows how characteristics of all three types of actors account for variation in achievement. Elements of the student's family background are uniformly the most highly correlated with achievement. This high correlation not only reflects the social influence of the family, but genetic transmission as well. Family background also will index neighborhood and non-social aspects of the environment in which the student grew up. Characteristics of peers are strongly related to achievement, too, more strongly the older the student. This pattern is also found with respect to traits of teachers, such as their verbal ability. Peer and teacher variables are in addition found more strongly related to achievement, the more unfavorable the student's family background. Hence, family background appears to specify the relationship between peer and teacher variables, and achievement.

Structural Characteristics of the School as Determinants of Learning

Although the most consistent results regarding environmental effects on achievement are attributable to characteristics of persons




with whom the student is or has been in close social interaction, these variables hardly exhaust the list of environmental characteristics assumed relevant for learning in existing research. Two sets of variables, neither of which are characteristics of a student's social relations, should be mentioned: (1) the physical environment in the form of school facilities, such as the architectural layout, labora- tory equipment and teaching machines; (2) structural characteristics, such as the reward structure (for example, the grading system), school size, and faculty organization. The variable under consideration here, organizational differentiation, is of course, itself a member of this class of variables.

These characteristics may operate directly on student characteristics relevant for learning. The grading system-the frequency and form of evaluations typical for a school system-thus may have a direct effect on student motivation, as may the use of facilities such as teaching machines. Other characteristics may affect learning indirectly, by determining characteristics of a student's social relationships. The architectural layout of a school may be relevant for the formation of peer groups, and faculty organizations may be relevant for teacher behavior.

The individual level variables and those delineated according to the actors with whom the student forms social relations can interpret or specify the relation between organizational differentiation and achievement. The characteristics mentioned here do not give rise to the delineation of variables with the same function. Rather these structural characteristics, to the extent that they are correlated with a pattern of organizational differentiation, are apt to confound the effect of the organizational differentiation of students. In an empirical investigation such covariation between organizational differentiation and other structural characteristics of the school should be taken into account. In the following analysis, however, we will limit ourselves to the task of outlining the mechanisms that may link organizational differentiation and achievement without attempting to state in detail the possible effects of other structural characteristics of the school. To do this it is necessary first to specify the relevant characteristics of organizational differentiation.

Dimensions of Organizational Differentiation

Vertical and Horizontal Differentiation

Organizational differentiation was referred to above as the assignment of students to groups for instructional purposes. Two goals are pursued in such an assignment. One is to reduce the



360 S0rensen

amount of variation in whatever characteristics the school assumes relevant for a student's learning capacity. Differentiation initiated with this purpose in mind may be referred to as vertical differentiation. The other goal is to reduce the amount of variation in the kinds of skill or knowledge the school attempts to transmit to students within a given period of time. The resulting differentiation according to activities manifested in a curriculum will be referred to as horizontal differentiation.

A nearly universal form of vertical differentiation is age-grade grouping, although exceptions do exist (e.g., non-grading, multi- grading). The underlying assumptions are that either biological age or "educational age" (past educational experience) is an index of learning capacity. The former assumption is most important in lower grades, the latter in higher levels of education.

Because of its near universality, age-grade grouping is taken for granted in the following discussion. Vertical differentiation will be taken to mean further subdivisions according to assumed learning capacity. Vertical differentiation hence is synonymous with ability grouping in all its forms, including, of course, the groupings found in strongly selective European secondary school systems.

Horizontal (curriculum) differentiation is most pronounced in the upper levels of the educational system. On these levels, such differentiation usually reflects some concern for those future activities-occupational and other-for which the educational system prepares the student.

Horizontal and vertical differentiation often overlap, so that groups with different curricula are formed on the basis of learning capacity.

Inclusiveness

It was conjectured above that organizational differentiation affects individual academic development by determining a student's chances for attaining a higher educational level. The relevant characteristic shall be denoted the inclusiveness of the educational system. By degree of inclusiveness, we mean the number of opportunities assumed to be available at different educational levels. This may be difficult to measure directly, but one index would be the proportion of a cohort that obtains a given educational level in a particular educational system.

The educational level chosen for reference in measuring inclusiveness depends on the actual problem investigated. Here, where most often the reference is to primary and secondary schools,




a reasonable measure of inclusiveness would be the proportion completing the highest secondary level.

Assignment Procedure The assignment of students to groups directly determines

the student composition of the classroom relative to the composition of the cohort from which the class is drawn. The particular procedure used can be characterized by the criteria used in the assignment, and by the results of the assignment; that is, the resulting classroom composition.

An important characteristic of the assignment procedure is what may be denoted as the degree of electivity. By electivity is meant the degree to which students' own decisions are allowed to be a determining factor in the assignment to groups.

Electivity is related to whether vertical or horizontal differentiation is at issue. Schools rarely rely exclusively on students' own self-evaluations in assigning them to groups on the basis of vertical differentiation, whereas student preferences often are allowed to play a major role in assignments to horizontally differentiated groups. Because of overlap between horizontal and vertical differentiation, it can be the case, however, that student preference is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for the assignment to groups.

Educational authorities must rely on some index of learning capacity as an assignment criterion when the assignment is not wholly a question of student preferences.' Most often this index will be one of three types: (1) past performance, as measured by grades or achievement test scores obtained earlier in the educational career; (2) current achievement level, as measured by a test or examination; (3) a direct measure of current cogitive skills, such as an I.Q. test.

These measures differ with respect to their dependency on non-cognitive factors relevant for learning, with I.Q. score pur- portedly less dependent than the other two. Past performance and current achievement take non-cognitive factors explicitly into account, as they are indices of learning accomplished. Past performance, as measured by obtained grades is, in addition, dependent on student-teacher relationships, for grades reflect teacher evaluations.

In general, any index of learning used as an assignment criterion will show some amount of correlation with the various determinants of learning. It follows that a vertical assignment will

1 In an elective assignment students themselves of course may rely on an evaluation of their ability.



362 S0rensen

produce classrooms more homogeneous with respect to the various student characteristics relevant for learning. The extent to which the assignment criterion is dependent on non-cognitive factors relevant for learning then will determine the extent to which the classroom will be homogeneous with respect to such characteristics as students' motivation, values and beliefs.

The amount of homogeneity that educational authorities intend to produce by the assignment, in terms of the index of learning used, shall be denoted the selectivity of the assignment. The intercorrelation between different determinants of learning means that selectivity will be an index of the between-classroom variation in student characteristics relevant for learning. The choice of assignment criterion determines the extent to which this between- class variation is a variation in non-cognitive characteristics relevant for learning.

Electivity in an assignment to classes of course also will produce more homogeneous classrooms, at least with respect to student interests and aspirations. However, we shall reserve the use of the word selectivity for the amount of homogeniety intended by educational authorities in their use of an assignment criterion in a not completely elective assignment.

Scope

The vertical and horizontal differentiation determines which instructional groups exist in an educational system. The assignment procedure determines the membership of these groups. It is important, also, to consider to what extent a given group of students will be members of the same classroom over time, since this may be important for the group memberships of a student. This aspect of organizational differentiation shall be denoted the scope of the differentiation.

A pattern of organizational differentiation is said to have a high scope if it obliges a student to spend most of his educational activities with the same group of students. The traditional Euro- pean way of organizing secondary education is an example of a differentiation with a high scope; once assigned to a class students share most of their educational activities for as long as they are in the secondary school system with the same students.

Low scope implies that the classroom composition changes repeatedly. This may occur in combination with a horizontal differentiation, where the classroom varies acording to subject, because students are allowed individual choice. Another possibility is assignment to different vertically delineated groups in different subject areas. The student may follow a more demanding section




or stream in some subjects and less demanding classes in others, depending on his specific abilities.2

The Effects of the Organizational Differentiation on Achievement

The conceptualization outlined above was a necessary pre- liminary to the main task of assessing effects of differentiation on achievement. The fruitfulness of this approach can now be evalu- ated. The next sections are an attempt to outline mechanisms relating differentiation and achievement.

Following the classification of determinants of learning given above, into student characteristics relevant for learning, and characteristics of a student's social relationships, we shall distinguish between direct effects of organizational differentiation on student characteristics relevant for learning, and indirect effects. The indirect effects are those derived from the impact of the organizational differentiation on a student's social environment, that is the influence of differentiation on characteristics of a student's peers and teachers. The third group of actors, mentioned above, the family may be assumed largely unaffected by the pattern of organizational differentiation, although such characteristics as parents educational aspirations may be influenced by the differentiation. The pervasive influence of family background on achievement may be relevant, however, for the effect of organizational differentiation on achievement, and some attention therefore will be given this variable both in dealing with direct and indirect effects.

Direct Effects on Student Characteristics The individual level determinants of learning are, as men-

tioned above, factors such as the students' aspirations, beliefs, values, and interests. If the pattern of differentiation to which a student is exposed affects these characteristics, they should interpret a relationship between organizational differentiation and achievement.

Aspirations and Inclusiveness The inclusiveness of an educational system determines what

are the assumed chances of obtaining a certain educational level, for example of getting to college. It is a well-known finding in

2 Scope may be distinguished from the rigidity of differentiation. Rigidity is defined as the extent to which students may transfer to another group than the one originally assigned to. Rigidity affects the stability of the classroom composition, too, but usually only a minority of students are involved.



364 S0rensen

social mobility studies that a person's social aspirations will depend on his chances of obtaining a given social status. Similarly, we can expect that the higher the inclusiveness of an educational system, the greater the probability that an individual student will aspire for a high level of education. To the extent that variations in aspirations produce variations in achievement, a direct effect of inclusiveness on achievement will obtain.3

The effect of inclusiveness on achievement via aspirations is especially relevant in connection with a student's family background. Inclusiveness can be assumed to interact with the well- known strong effect of family background on achievement. The family is a source of influence on students' educational aspirations from the first day in school. Parents as well as students will adjust their educational aspirations to the inclusiveness of the educational system. A variation in inclusiveness, however, may be assumed to be most salient for students with an unfavorable family background, since they will tend to be marginal candidates for a higher level of education. High inclusiveness then will weaken the effect of family background on aspirations, low inclusiveness strengthen the effect. The effect of family background on aspirations seems important for the effect of family background on achievement. Hence the degree of inclusiveness may be expected to influence the effect of family background on achievement.

Electivity and Beliefs

Coleman and his colleagues found that a student's belief that he could control his own environment had a stronger positive correlation with achievement than any other non-cognitive characteristics of the student (Coleman, et al., 1966). This correlation may reflect an effect of the rewards from academic accomplishment on the student's feeling of control. It may be assumed, nonetheless, that control over the environment affects achievement due to its enhancement of the student's motivation to achieve (Seeman, 1963).

If this assumption is granted, it follows that characteristics of organizational differentiation influencing this belief will affect learning. A likely variable is the degree of electivity within organizational differentiation. High electivity allows a student's own

3 It could be argued against this assertion, that increasing inclusiveness will reduce the salience of academic achievement for obtaining a high educational level. Increasing inclusiveness therefore may reduce the motivation to achieve. This mechanism could counteract the positive effect of inclusiveness on achievement. However, we propose, that even if an increase in aspirations is not sufficient for producing an increase in achievement, a certain level of aspirations is necessary for improving a student's performance.




preferences to determine which educational activities he will en- gage in, perhaps in turn increasing the student's subjective feeling of control.

Since electivity is more likely to be higher under horizontal than differentiation, horizontal differentiation should foster the student's belief that he can control his environment.

Interests and Horizontal Differentiation The horizontal differentiation determines which educational

activities a student engages in. Students differ with respect to their interests in different subject matter and their specific abilities vary. Hence, the horizontal differentiation may determine to what extent the student experiences a congruence between his interests, specific abilities and the activities he engages in. It is reasonable to assume that this degree of congruence affects how rewarding the educational experience is to the student, and in turn affects motivation, aspirations and learning (cf. Cronbach, 1949; Shepler, 1956).

High scope, in general, precludes a high degree of congruence between specific abilities, interests, and activities. It is unlikely that a specific combination of activities fits a sizeable number of students. Low scope should conversely enhance congruence, especially if combined with high electivity. High electivity is important, since the best judge of how rewarding educational activities are, is probably the student himself.

Vertical Differentiation and Self-Image There are several studies that show that a student's self-image

has a positive relation to his achievement (Brookover, 1964; Cole- man, et al., 1966). As with respect to feeling of control over the environment, the simple relationship between self-image and achievement does not tell to what extent self-image is a cause rather than a consequence of achievement.

A vertical differentiation of students is a formal classification of students into the bright and the less bright. The differentiation itself, therefore, may be experienced as a punishment or reward and in this way affect the self-image of the student. The possible effect on achievement, hence, should be one of increasing the between-class variation in achievement over and above what is accounted for by the vertical assignment itself.

The stigmatizing effect of the vertical differentiation can be argued to be counteracted, though, by a change in the level of competition in the classroom created by the vertical differentiation. If a student's self-image is dependent on how he regards his aca-



366 Sorensen

demic standing in relation to his classmates, a uniform positive effect of differentiation on self-image follows.

Whether the net effect of a vertical differentiation is one of stigma or not is difficult to predict. It may be hypothesized that the stigmatizing effect will prevail, the more visible the vertical differentiation is, and the more the differentiation is relevant for the student's educational career. This would explain that Goldberg and associates (1966) found a general positive effect of vertical differentiation on self-image. This study was a large-scale experi- ment and it is not clear whether the different patterns of differentiation introduced in any way were felt as relevant for the student's career or viewed as a permanent feature of the school. Luchins and Luchins (1948) on the other hand, found a stigmatizing effect of streaming, which they also found to be very visible.

Indirect Effects of Organizational Differentiation on Achieve- ment

Organizational differentiation determines the student composition of the classroom and thus may be assumed relevant for characteristics of a student's peers. The pattern of organizational differentiation also may influence the teachers to whom a student gets exposed and the behavior of these teachers. If the differentiation in this way determines the characteristics of persons with whom a student engages in social interaction, then the student's own behavior may be changed in a way relevant for his academic performance. An indirect effect of organizational differentiation thus will obtain.

The analysis of the indirect effect will be given in two main sections, one on the effects derived from the impact of differentiation on student composition of the classroom, another on the relation between differentiation and teacher characteristics and behavior.

Effects on Achievement from the Impact of Organizational Differentiation on Classroom Composition

The student composition of a classroom is determined by the assignment procedure. In the case of random assignment, the classroom composition will reflect the overall composition of a school's student body. The composition of the student body may correlate with the type of organizational differentiation found in the school; e.g., because innovations in differentiation are introduced first in high status communities. Such a covariation between the composition of a school's student body and organizational differentiation




should be controlled for when the effect of organizational differentiation is studied.

Some aspect of the student composition of a classroom is known once we know the assignment procedure. Whether this knowledge will enable us to predict an effect on achievement depends on two conditions: first, the extent to which the assignment has affected the classroom composition with respect to student characteristics that may influence the individual student in his social interaction within the classroom and that will affect his learning; second, the extent to which students form their social relations with classmates. In other words, our ability to predict an effect of the assignment procedure on learning depends on the extent to which the classroom composition brings about changes in student characteristics relevant for learning, and this is a function of whether the assignment has an impact on the educational climate of the classroom and the extent to which peer-groups are formed within the classroom so that the climate may get transmitted to the student.

The next section will analyze the relevant characteristic of organizational differentiation for the formation of peer-groups among classmates. Then follows an analysis of the relation between the assignment procedure and the extent to which the classroom composition is relevant for learning. Finally, a note on the role of family background will be given as this characteristic seems especially relevant in connection with the mechanisms to be outlined. The analysis will focus on the effect of a vertical differentiation only. This aspect of organizational differentiation is meant to produce homogeniety in classrooms with respect to learning capacity. Predictions of effects on individual achievement from the classroom composition is, therefore, most clear-cut in this case.

The Formation of Within-Classroom Social Interaction

Homans (1951) proposes that the higher the frequency of interaction in the "external system" of a social group, the higher the frequency of interaction in its "internal system." In other words, the higher the frequency of interaction imposed on a group by virtue of a common set of activities, the greater the likelihood that group members will form primary social relationships. It follows that the number of activities a classroom has in common will foster the formation of within-classroom interaction.

The scope of the organizational differentiation was defined as the extent to which a given group of students will be members of the same classroom over time. This definition implies that the scope of the differentiation determines the number of activities a student will share with the same group of fellow students. In accordance with Homans' proposition it may be predicted that the



368 S0rensen

higher the scope of a pattern of organizational differentiation, the greater the likelihood that a student will form social relations with classmates.

Other characteristics of a school, such as its architectural layout and characteristics of a school's student body, may be relevant for how peer-groups are formed among students. Our problem is, however, not to account for the formation of peer-groups in general, but to predict the formation of such groups from knowledge of the organizational differentiation, and scope is clearly the relevant characteristic.

If the differentiation has low scope, then it will not be possible to predict an effect of the assignment procedure on individual achievement since a student will change classrooms repeatedly; and it cannot be assumed that characteristics of a student's peer- groups can be deduced from knowledge of the classroom composition. If, on the other hand, there is high scope, then we may assume that a student's peer group is likely to have characteristics determined by the assignment procedure, since we expect that students will tend to form social relations with classmates. Scope is a variable that specifies the possible effect of the assignment procedure on individual achievement.

Assignment Procedure, Classroom Composition and Achieve- ment The assignment to vertically differentiated classes, i.e., group-

ing according to ability, is meant to produce classrooms more homogeneous with respect to some index of learning than a random assignment. Any index of learning will to some extent, at least, correlate with non-cognitive determinants of learning. It follows that the classroom composition resulting from a vertical assignment will be more homogeneous also with respect to such characteristics as aspirations, values and beliefs that may get transmitted to the individual student in his interaction with classmates. The resulting increase in between-class variation in educational climate may be expected to increase the between-class variation in achievement, to the extent that students form their social relations within the classroom.

The vertical differentiation in itself accounts for a greater between-class variation in achievement than the one to be found had there been random assignment. The effect of the assignment on. classroom composition in terms of student values, beliefs and aspirations, therefore, is one of reinforcing over time the between- classroom variation in achievement over and above what is accounted for by the differentiation itself. The achievement of those assigned to high ability classes is expected to improve, of those




assigned to low achieving classes to deteriorate over time as a function of students' social interaction within the classroom. This does not mean that the mean achievement level of the whole cohort necessarily will change. Whether such a change will take place depends on the overall distribution of achievement in the cohort.

The magnitude of this general effect of vertical differentiation may be expected to depend on the three characteristics of the assignment procedure singled out previously: the electivity, the choice of criterion, and the selectivity of the assignment. The role of these characteristics is to be analyzed below.

Some empirical evidence on the predicted general effect of vertical differentiation can be found in several studies (Blandford, 1958; Daniels, 1961; Dockrell, 1964; Wilcox, 1964). All of these studies report an increase in between-class variation in achievement as a result of vertical differentiation, over and above what the grouping in itself accounted for.4 It is significant that the above mentioned studies all were conducted in school systems where the organizational differentiation may be classified as one with a high scope.

Electivity In connection with a vertical differentiation, electivity is

usually never complete, but student and parent wishes may still be a necessary, but not sufficient condition for gaining entrance to high ability classes. Some electivity in a vertical differentiation, hence, may be expected to make classes more homogeneous with respect to educational aspirations. The within-classroom social interaction of a student may be expected to modify his educational aspirations toward the typical level of the class. To the extent that educational aspirations affect achievement, this mechanism will contribute to an increase in the between-classroom variation in achievement over and above what is accounted for by the assignment itself, provided, of course, that the assignment has a high scope.

The traditional European pattern of organizing secondary education is a good example of elective vertical differentiation. Parent and student wishes are usually necessary for gaining entrance to, for example, grammar school in Britain. As mentioned above, these educational systems also have a high scope. We would expect an especially prominent effect of the vertical differentiation on achievement in such systems.

4 Blandford (1958), using a covariance technique, reports, for example, a highly significant F ratio between the variances in achievement scores in streamed and unstreamed classes, over a 30 month period. He does not find a significant difference in the mean level of achievement between streamed and unstreamed children.



370 S0rensen

Choice of Assignment Criterion The indices of learning that educational authorities will rely

on in the assignment to ability groups were classified above according to the extent to which the index is dependent on non-cognitive determinants of learning. We distinguished between a direct measure of cognitive skills, such as an I.Q. test; measures of current achievement level as obtained on a test or an exam; and, finally, measures of past performance, such as grades. The order in which these criteria are mentioned indicates their assumed degree of dependence on non-cognitive characteristics.

The more the index of learning used in the assignment is dependent on non-cognitive characteristics, the more homogeneous the classroom will be in terms of such student characteristics. It follows that the choice of criterion will influence the extent to which the classroom composition is relevant for student learning, given social interaction within the classroom. The choice of assignment criterion, hence, may be assumed to influence the magnitude of the effect of vertical differentiation on the between-class variations in achievement.

Selectivity Selectivity was defined above as the amount of homogeneity

produced by the assignment with respect to the index of learning used. That is, selectivity measures the amount of between-class variation intended by the assignment. The greater the selectivity the greater the likelihood that a student's classmates will be alike in terms of non-cognitive characteristics relevant for learning. The greater the selectivity the greater the probability that student characteristics relevant for learning will change toward the typical level of the class as a result of within-classroom social interaction. In- creasing selectivity, therefore, may be expected to increase the general effect of a vertical differentiation on between-classroom variation in achievement.

It may be conjectured that high selectivity will add to the effect of the scope of the organizational differentiation in producing within-classroom interaction. It is a well-established sociological principle that persons tend to interact with those like them. Hence, the increased homogeniety of the classroom produced by greater selectivity may increase a tendency to form peer-groups within the classroom.

The Role of Family Background Due to the high association between family background and

the various determinants of learning, a vertical differentiation will




result in a segregation of students according to family background. The magnitude of this effect may be expected to depend on the three characteristics of the assignment procedure just discussed. There is direct evidence with respect to electivity that holding ability level constant, students from a less favorable family background apply less often to high ability streams than students with a more favorable background. They incidentally also are rejected more often (Boalt and Husen, 1964). Some electivity in vertical assignment, therefore, should increase the amount of segregation found with respect to family background. It is well established that the more dependent an index of learning is on non-cognitive characteristics, the more highly it will correlate with family background (Wiesmann, 1964; Husen, 1967). Hence, the choice of criterion may be expected to influence the extent to which an ability grouping also becomes a grouping with respect to family background. Finally, it is reasonable to assume that the more homogeneous the classroom becomes with respect to an index of learning, the more homogeneous it will be with respect to the family background. Hence, increasing selectivity should lead to increasing segregation of classes with respect to family background.

It has just been argued that a vertical differentiation will lead to an increase in the between-class variation in achievement over and above what the assignment in itself accounts for. The effect of the assignment on the between-class variation in family background will parallel the effect on achievement. It follows that a vertical differentiation will strengthen the relation between family background and achievement. The magnitude of this effect will depend on the characteristics of the assignment and our ability to predict this development depends, as before, on the scope of the differentiation. The general hypothesis that a vertical differentiation with high scope will tend to increase the correlation between family background and achievement is documented by Douglas (1964). He established the amount of increase or decrease in test scores between ages 8 and 11 for children streamed according to teacher assessment of ability-a criterion documented to be highly dependent on non-cognitive characteristics. Holding initial ability level constant, it was found that students placed in the positively selected stream showed a gain in test score from age 8 to 11, while those in the lower stream experienced a decline. The assignment was found to be strongly correlated with social class of the students, and the result amounts to an increase in the correlation between family background and achievement over age. The streaming re- inforces the process of social selection as predicted above.5

5 Douglas' study has been criticized for ignoring the regression effect (Horobin et al. 1967). The data presented in the critique (from a study in Aberdeen, Scotland)



372 S0rensen

The Coleman Report (Coleman, et al., 1966) found that students with unfavorable family background (Negroes) were more dependent on the classroom composition than those with favorable background (Whites) in their achievement. This finding is explained in terms of peers being more important for achievement the more unfavorable the family background is. Since the effects of a vertical differentiation are explained by the influence of peers on achievement, it may be expected that the effect of the assignment on the relation between family background and achievement especially influences the achievement of students from unfavorable family backgrounds. This specification of the general hypothesis is supported by a Swedish study (Husen and Svensson, 1960).8

Impact of Organizational Differentiation on Teacher Be- havior There are two mechanisms that may account for a covariation

between forms of organizational differentiation and teacher behavior. First, there may be a relationship between differentiation and allocation of teachers to grades and classes. Second, teacher expectations of their students may be influenced by the organizational differentiation.

Allocation of Teachers It seems safe to assume that teaching bright children uni-

versally commands higher prestige than teaching the less bright. Except when specific counteracting mechanisms are introduced, bright children, therefore, get more experienced and more compe- tent teachers. The existence of a vertical differentiation enables an allocation of teachers according to student ability. Furthermore, it may be expected that the more selective this vertical differentiation, the greater the between-classroom variation in teacher competence.

do not enable an investigation of the effect of streaming, however. The critique is based on tables showing that Douglas' main results concerning the effect of social class on development of ability (his data on streaming are only a subset) shows a pattern conforming to the one to be expected from a regression effect. Since streaming is correlated with social class, the effect of the regression effect is held responsible also from the streaming data. It may be argued against the critique that a statistical artifact-the regression effect-does not exclude a substantive process, but of course invites caution. Direct replications of studies seems in addition far superior to inferences from isolated partly irrelevant data, when the validity of findings is questioned.

8 Comparing an elective vertical differentiation with a random assignment of students they found the achievement of those with favorable family background largely unaffected by the pattern of organizational differentiation, whereas those with unfavorable background were affected.




No direct evidence on the relation between teacher allocations and patterns of organizational differentiation exist. The validity of the above argument may be inferred, however, from the Cole- man Report (Coleman, et al., 1966). This study shows a clear relation between competence of teachers and the ability and background of their students. In European systems differences in competence are often institutionalized according to the academic capacity of students. This is the case, for example, in Denmark.

Several studies (Boocock, 1966; Coleman, et al., 1966) report an effect of teacher competence on achievement. In the Coleman report, competence was indicated by verbal ability, and a significant amount of the variation in the students' test scores could be explained by this characteristic. Teacher characteristics, in fact, accounted for more variation in student achievement than all other measured school characteristics combined, excluding student-body characteristics.

It follows that vertical differentiation, due to its impact on teacher allocation, will increase between-class variation in achievement over and above what the assignment in itself accounts for. This effect may be expected to vary positively with the selectivity of the assignment.

Teacher Expectations Rosenthal's (1968) study of the effects of teacher expectations

on learning seems to support his main hypothesis-that there is an effect of teachers' expectations regarding the performance of students on these students' subsequent achievement. Students' performance tends to fulfill teacher expectations. The study has severe methodological problems,7 but the conclusion seems plausible, although replications are desirable.

Vertical differentiation of students provides teachers with a clue as to the ability of their students. That this affects their expectations regarding the performance of students is a rather trivial assertion. Vertical differentiation, therefore, should produce teacher expectations that reinforce the achievement differences between classes accounted for by the assignment.

A further contribution to this effect of differentiation on between-class variation in achievement occurs if teachers play a crucial role in the assignment to classes. Teachers can be expected to be concerned about their own capacity to make judgments of students and to evaluate students so that this judgment does not appear faulty.

7 See for example Thorndike's review in American Educational Research Journal, vol. 5, no. 4 1968:708-711.



374 Sorensen

Condusion

The organizational differentiation of students has been defined as grouping of students for instructional purposes. This paper has outlined several dimensions of organizational differentiation. A major distinction has been one between horizontal differentiation, intended to assign students to classes with different curricula, and vertical differentiation, intended to assign students to different groups according to their assumed learning capacity. The latter form of differentiation often has been justified by stating that teacher effectiveness will be greater when teachers are dealing with homogeneous classrooms. If this statement is taken to mean that the teaching method used by most teachers is most effective in homogeneous classrooms, then this paper has only partly dealt with this assertion, since no attempt has been made to analyze the effectiveness of different teaching methods in different settings. What has been shown is that characteristics of the grouping pattern are apt to have consequences for the academic achievement of a student-the most reasonable criterion of teacher effectiveness. These consequences may not be intended, but they are nonetheless not to be ignored. They reflect forces influencing achievement, regardless of how the teacher teaches, and impose conditions on classroom teaching that may override many instructional innovations.

Apart from the distinction between vertical and horizontal differentiation, organizational differentiation was characterized by three other features: (1) the degree to which it leads many, rather than few students to a higher level of education, denoted the degree of inclusiveness; (2) by characteristics of the procedure used in the assignment of students to classes: the electivity of the assignment, or the degree to which student preferences play a role; the assignment criterion; and the selectivity of the assignment; and (3) by the extent to which the student is a member of the same classroom over time, denoted as scope.

It has been argued that the various characteristics of organizational differentiation have a set of direct effects on individual-level characteristics relevant for learning, and a set of indirect effects. The indirect effects are derived from the impact of differentiation on student composition of the classroom and on teacher characteristics and behavior. The composition of the classroom and teacher behavior in turn influence student characteristics relevant for learning.

Some of the direct effects of organizational differentiation on student characteristics relevant for learning are effects that may influence the general level of achievement for a cohort of students exposed to a given pattern of differentiation. Most of the




hypotheses advocated above suggest a differential effect on the achievement of students. A stigmatizing effect of a vertical differentiation, the impact of organizational differentiation on classroom composition, and the effect of differentiation on teacher behavior, all have been argued to affect the between-class variation in achievement. A vertical assignment in itself accounts for a greater between-class variation in achievement than a random assignment. The effect of classroom composition and teacher behavior is expected to reinforce this between-class variation in achievement over time as a function of students' social interaction with classmates and teachers.

The strong influence of family background on academic achievement is relevant for the mechanisms outlined. A vertical differentiation, because of the high correlation between family background and student characteristics relevant for learning, leads to a segregation of classrooms with respect to family background. The effect of differentiation on between-class variations in achievement, therefore, may be expected to produce an increase in the correlation between family background and achievement. Since the effect of classroom composition is explained by the influence of peer-groups, and it has been shown that the performance of students from unfavorable backgrounds tends to be especially strongly affected by characteristics of peers, the impact of the organizational differentiation on achievement of students from unfavorable backgrounds may be especially important. A differential effect of another characteristic of organizational differentiation, its inclusiveness, on students from different backgrounds also have been noted.

The impact of organizational differentiation on social in- equality of education makes it an important instrument for an educational policy that attempts to equalize opportunity. Organiza- tional differentiation is well suited as a policy instrument. It is exclusively in- the hands of educational authorities, empowered to make decisions about the form of differentiation. A pattern of organizational differentiation that increases the effect of family background on achievement can be changed, whereas the family background is difficult or impossible to alter.

References

Blandford, J. S. 1958 "Standardized tests in junior schools with special reference to the

effects of streaming on the constancy of results." British Journal of Educational Psychology 28:170-173.

Boalt, Gunnar, and Torsten Husen. 1964 Skolans Sociologi. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.

Boocock, Sarane S. 1966 "Toward a sociology of learning." Sociology of Education 39:1-45.



376 S0rensen

Borg, Walter R. 1964 "An evaluation of ability grouping." Cooperative Research Project

No. 577. Logan: Utah State University. Coleman, J. S., and Ernest Q. Campbell, et al.

1966 Equality of Educational Opportunity. Washington, D.C. Government Printing Office.

Daniels, J. C. 1961 "The effects of streaming in the primary school." British Journal of

Educational Psychology 31:67-78, 119-127. Dockrell, W. B.

1964 "Edmonton junior high school streaming project." Studies in Grouping. Alberta Teachers Association; abstracted in Yates, (1966).

Douglas, J. W. B. 1964 The Home and the School. London: McGibbon and Kee.

Drews, Elizabeth M. 1962 The effects of heterogeneous and homogeneous grouping upon children

of three ability levels in ninth-grade English classes. Michigan: dittoed, abstracted in Yates, 1966.

Goldberg, Miriam L., Harry A. Passow, and Joseph Justman. 1966 The Effects of Ability Grouping. New York: Teachers College, Columbia

University. Homans, George C.

1951 The Human Group. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul Limited. Horobin, Gordon, David Oldman and Bill Bytheway.

1967 "The social differentiation of ability." Sociology 1:113-129. Husdn, Torsten and Niels-Eric Svensson.

1960 "Pedagogic milieu and development of intellectual skills." The School Review 68:36-51.

Hus6n, Torsten. 1967 "The effect of school structure upon utilization of ability." Social

Objectives in Educational Planning. Paris: OECD. Koontz, William F.

1961 "A Study of achievement as a function of homogeneous grouping." Journal of Experimental Education 30:249-253.

Lavin, David E. 1965 The Predication of Academic Performance. New York: Russell Sage

Foundation. Luchins, Abraham and Edith Luchins.

1948 "Children's attitude toward homogeneous grouping." Journal of Genetic Psychology 72:3-9.

Rosenthal, Robert and Leonore Jacobson. 1968 Pygmalion in the Classroom. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston,

Incorporated. Seeman, Melvin.

1963 "Alienation and social learning in a reformatory." American Journal of Sociology 59:270.

Wiesman, Stephen. 1964 Education and Environment. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Wilcox, John. 1961 "A search for the multiple effects of grouping junior high school

pupils." Peabody Journal of Education 41:216-225. Yates, Alfred, (ed.)

1966 Grouping in Education. New York: John Wiley and Sons.



Documents

Organizational Differentiation Of Students And Educational Opportunity