Further Evidence of How Peers and Tracking Affect Educational Opportunities

Researchers frequently find peer effects from grade school¹  through college.²  As one example, a study found that elementary students did better in math and reading when more peers in their class had attended preschool, perhaps because attending preschool had prepared students for classroom routines, thus reducing disruptions and allowing all students to make faster progress.³  Nearly all such studies confine their outcomes of interest to those measuring academic performance. In this issue of Pediatrics, Dudovitz et al⁴  expand the body of research on peer effects in schools by observing how assignment into classes with higher-performing students led to the adoption of better health behaviors, thus growing our understanding of the ways that a shared classroom can lead to shared attitudes and behaviors.

As a child progresses through school it becomes more likely that they will find themselves sorted into classes separated by students’ academic performance, a practice known as tracking that is intended to provide teachers with classrooms that are homogenous in academic readiness, enabling more tailored instruction. As a result, students in a typical high school are divided into at least two groups moving through contrasting social experiences within the same school building. Sometimes called “second-generation segregation,” the practice can distribute educational opportunities unequally, much like segregation between schools.^5,6 

Although it is difficult to determine exactly how peers influence behaviors, one study found positive effects on academic achievement from having peers who are more conscientious.⁷  Another found that peers affected not only measures of academic achievement but also feelings toward school.⁸  In another, a positive relationship between assignment to lower track classes and dropping out of school was moderated by peers’ attitudes toward school.⁹  It seems clear from studies like these that students take cues from other students regarding academic attitudes and behaviors.

If peers influence academics, it would stand to reason that they would affect other aspects of student behavior as well. The study by Dudovitz et al⁴  asks whether academic tracking might affect health-related behaviors through peer effects. The paper is noteworthy for several reasons. The first is that the study makes use of a lottery that randomly sorted students into tracks. By comparing those students who were assigned to the more advanced classes to those students who were not, the researchers could reasonably expect the two groups to be otherwise similar. Second, the study attempts to separate the effect of peers from the effect of instruction by collecting data on students’ social connections. By noting which peers the students knew, the researchers could more confidently draw conclusions that it was the interaction with fellow students that produced observed differences. In the end, the study contributes persuasive empirical evidence that peers affect what students take away from school.

Such knowledge is useful to policymakers, as it suggests that access to upper-track classes could be extended to more students so that they can benefit from such settings. However, the thornier question is how to serve the other students who would remain in lower-track classes. Could they not benefit from learning alongside higher-performing peers as well? Would it be better for all students if schools were to dismantle tracking mechanisms, thereby giving all students a chance to learn alongside students who are conscientious and talented? Detracking schools is a politically fraught policy proposal, but one that might improve equity in educational opportunities.