A Comment on: “ Goals and Gaps: Educational Careers of Immigrant Children” by Michela Carlana, Eliana La Ferrara, Paolo Pinotti
AS IMMIGRATION TO OECD COUNTRIES has risen, the question of how to ensure the success of immigrant students has grown more critical. In Europe, the question is complicated by the common practice of tracking students at an early age into different types of schools. One concern is that immigrants may enroll in college preparatory tracks at lower rates than natives with similar achievement. The present study documents gaps in track choice among high-achieving immigrant students in Italy, and evaluates an intervention aimed at aligning the choices of these students with their academic potential. It thereby provides important evidence both on the education of immigrants and on educational tracking. In the United States, there are related debates about programs in which Black and Hispanic students are under-represented: for example, gifted education, advanced tracks within schools, and college prep coursework. These debates pit advocates of tracking and other policies, who extol the benefits of matching curriculum and instruction to levels of student ability, against critics who argue that tracking reinforces segregation and inequality. But the goals of the two sides are not always at odds. Segregation in tracking is often driven by factors unrelated to student ability—such as information barriers, implicit biases, or gaps in parental support and advocacy. Policies that remove these barriers and push capable students from disadvantaged groups to complete higher levels of education can improve match quality, while also promoting social integration and economic opportunity. Further, such policies may have important spillover effects by helping to change perceptions and raise expectations among parents, teachers, and future generations of students. There is mounting evidence that socioeconomic gaps in choice and representation can be reduced through policies that automate or simplify steps in the decision process. Among high-ability elementary school students, gaps in gifted program participation can be reduced by replacing a system of parent and teacher nominations with test-based, universal screening (Card and Giuliano (2016a)). Among high school students, decisions about whether and where to attend college can be influenced by polices that expand college admissions testing (Bulman (2015), Goodman (2016)), facilitate applications for financial aid (Bettinger et al. (2012)), or provide information through targeted mailings (Hoxby and Turner (2013)). One concern about such procedural and informational interventions is that they are temporary fixes and may not address underlying sources of under-representation, such as gaps in information gathering skills, parental support, and expectations. Theses gaps could make under-represented groups more likely to fail in challenging programs. For example, evidence on college mentoring suggests that light-touch “nudges” may be insufficient for producing lasting effects among disadvantaged students, especially when students lack parental support (Carrell and Sacerdote (2017), Cunha, Miller, and Weisburst (2018)). But there is also evidence that discounts such “mismatch” concerns. In a