Search results

Intro -- TABLE OF CONTENTS -- Acknowledgments -- Abbreviations -- Executive Summary -- 1. Introduction -- 2. Background -- 3. The Four Pillars of the Knowledge Economy -- Policy and Institutional Framework -- Innovation Systems -- Financing R&D Development and Its Use by Industry -- Education and Lifelong Learning -- Information Infrastructure (ICT/e-Development) -- 4. Monitoring and Evaluation -- 5. Lessons -- Annexes -- Annex A. Knowledge Economy Project Menu -- Annex B. Bank Innovation Support and Science and Technology Projects (1980-2003) -- Background Papers and Materials -- LIST OF BOXES -- 1 Bank Innovation Support and Science and Technology Projects (1980-2003) -- 2 The Four Pillars of the Knowledge Economy -- 3 Policy Reforms to support Innovations Agenda -- 4 India -- 5 Korea -- 6 Turkey -- 7 China -- 8 Chile -- 9 Mexico -- 10 IPR Case Study, National Chemical Laboratory, India -- LIST OF FIGURES -- 1 Investment in Knowledge -- 2 R&D Expenditures by Source of Financing -- 3 Investment in Venture Capital.

Schools use an array of strategies to match curricula and instruction to students' heterogeneous skills. Although generations of scholars have debated ''tracking'' and its consequences, the literature fails to account for diversity of school-level sorting practices. In this article, we draw on the work of Sørensen and others to articulate and develop empirical measures of five distinct dimensions of within-school cross-classroom tracking systems: (1) the degree of curricular differentiation, (2) the extent to which sorting practices generate skills-homogeneous classrooms, (3) the rate at which students enroll in advanced courses, (4) the extent to which students move between tracks over time, and (5) the relationship between track assignments across subject areas. Analyses of longitudinal administrative data following approximately 20,000 eighth graders enrolled in 23 middle schools through the 10th grade indicate that these dimensions of tracking are empirically separable and have divergent relationships with student achievement and the production of inequality.