{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020080321285140562, 'fraction_numerical': 0.002677376171352075, 'mean_word_length': 6.085308056872038, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Two Cities’ Tracking and Within-School Segregation

Evidence from two school systems whose ability grouping and tracking systems were subject to scrutiny in 1993 in conjunction with school desegregation cases demonstrates how grouping practices can create within-school segregation and discrimination against African-American and Latino students. In both school systems, tracking created racially imbalanced classes at all three levels—elementary, middle, and senior high, with African-American or Latino students consistently over represented and white and Asian students consistently underrepresented in low-ability tracks in all subjects. Neither district’s placement practices created classrooms with a range of measured student ability and achievement in classrooms sufficiently narrow to be considered homogeneous “ability groups,” and African-American and Latino students were much less likely than whites or Asians with comparable scores to be placed in high-track courses. These disproportionate lower-track placements worked to disadvantage minority students’ achievement outcomes. Whether students began with relatively high or relatively low achievement, those who were placed in lowerlevel courses showed lesser gains over time than similarly situated students placed in higher-level courses. In both systems, grouping practices created a cycle of restricted opportunities and diminished outcomes, and exacerbated differences between African-American and Latino and white students.