UNCORRECTED PROOF Please cite this article in press as: Lucas, S. R., Berends, M., Race and track location in U.S. public schools, Research in Social Stratification and Mobility (2006), doi:10.1016/j.rssm.2006.12.002 ARTICLE IN PRESS +Model RSSM 32 1–19 Research in Social Stratification and Mobility xxx (2006) xxx–xxx Race and track location in U.S. public schools 3 Samuel R. Lucas a,∗ , Mark Berends b 4 a Sociology Department, University of California-Berkeley, 410 Barrows Hall # 1980, Berkeley, CA 94720-1980, USA 5 b Peabody # 514, 230 Appleton Place, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37203-5721, USA 6 Received 14 June 2006 7 Abstract 8 Scholars continue to debate whether persistent racial inequality flows primarily from differences in measured achievement [e.g., Cancio, A. S., David Evans, T., & Maume, D. J., Jr. (1996). Reconsidering the declining significance of race: Racial differences in early career wages. American Sociological Review, 61, 541–556; Farkas, G., & Vicknair, K. (1996). Appropriate tests of racial wage discrimination require controls for cognitive skill: Comment on Cancio, Evans, and Maume. American Sociological Review, 61, 557–560], a debate pointing scholars toward the school. Yet, a look inside schools reveals conflicting evidence concerning students’ opportunities. Notably, analyses of race and track location have found Whites and Asians advantaged when compared to Blacks and Latino/as [e.g., Mickelson, R. A. (2001). Subverting swann: First- and second-generation segregation in Charlotte–Mecklenberg schools. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 215–252], Black–White–Latino/a equality [e.g., Lucas, S. R., & Gamoran, A. (2002). Tracking and the achievement gap, In J. E. Chubb, & T. Loveless (Eds.), Bridging the gap (pp. 171–198). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press], and Whites disadvantaged when compared to Blacks and Asians [e.g., Garet, M. S., & DeLany, B. (1988). Students, courses, and stratification. Sociology of Education, 61, 61–77]. Upon investigating whether schools actually vary in their racial/ethnic gaps in track location, we find important school-level differences. This variation is not random; the more racially diverse the school, the better Whites’ chances and the worse Blacks’ chances of college prep course-taking. Provocatively, predicted probabilities of college-prep course-taking are consistent with one-to-one substitution of Whites for Blacks as one moves from less to more diverse schools. The results suggest analysts must explore cross-school variation to discern when, where, and why comparable students have different placements. Further, the findings imply that pursuing diversity, the sole remaining acceptable justification for race-conscious desegregation efforts, may actually hinder Blacks’ access to demanding curricula. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 © 2006 Published by Elsevier Ltd. 26 Keywords: High school tracking; Racial inequality; Desegregation: Discrimination; Stratification 27 28 Scholars have continued to the debate the cause 29 of racial differences in cognitive achievement (Fischer 30 et al., 1996; Herrnstein and Murray, 1994; Jencks & 31 Phillips, 1998). The evidence for racial differences in 32 measured achievement is widely accepted, but the expla- 33 nation is hotly contested (e.g., Daniels, Devlin, and 34 ∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 510 642 4765; fax: +1 510 642 0659. E-mail address: Lucas@demog.berkeley.edu (S.R. Lucas). Roeder, 1997; Entwisle & Alexander, 1992; Fordham, 35 1988; Lubinski & Humphreys, 1997; Mickelson, 1990; 36 Steele, 1997). One possible explanation for persistent 37 racial gaps in measured achievement is that stu- 38 dents of different racial groups have differing school 39 experiences—they may attend different schools, occupy 40 different statuses when they attend the same school, or 41 otherwise relate differently to education. 42 The possibility of race-linked differences in school 43 experience poses many questions, most notably the ques- 44 tion of equity. This important question can be raised in 45 1 0276-5624/$ – see front matter © 2006 Published by Elsevier Ltd. 2 doi:10.1016/j.rssm.2006.12.002