分班爭議並沒有隨著2004年《國民教育法第12條》、2008年《國民小學及國民中學常態編班及分組學習準則》終止，反而在報章媒體不斷地揭露下，發現分班情形依然存在，到底分班是否能提昇學生的數學成就表現？對進入好班學生有效？對進入中後段班學生有效？哪種程度的學生能從分班中獲得最多好處？
本研究企圖回答上述四個問題，並從反事實（counterfactuals）的研究想像，利用傾向分數配對（propensity score matching, PSM），搭配事後分層的方式，討論分班的效果。以相較於沒有分班，進入前段班、中後段班對學生數學成就表現的影響，最後分析哪種程度的學生能最大化分班效益。
資料來源為臺灣教育長期追蹤資料庫(TEPS)第一波（2001）國一學生與家長問卷、第二波（2003）國三學生與家長問卷，依變項為國三學生IRT3-P的數學分析能力，並轉換成100分的模式以有助解釋，自變項為二三年級待在好班與沒分班、三年都在中後段班與沒分班，並利用學生的個人特質、家庭背景、之前的班級情形、學校因素作為控制變項。
研究結果發現學生二三年級在好班、相較於沒有分班，能增加5分；學生三年都在中後段班，則是會損失2分。分班如果以學生一年級的數學表現為標準，越不可能進到好班的學生、以及中等程度的學生受益最大，能增加6-12分。

Tracking is a crucial and controversial issue and has been investigated frequently in past researches. Most of the researches focused on the impact of tracking on student performance. However, findings about tracking are inconclusive due to research design and the quality of the data. Because real experiment is almost impossible, it is hard to determine the impact of tracking. Fortunately, with the latest development in the method for statistical analysis, we use propensity score to tell the difference between the treated and untreated groups (i.e. tracking and de-tracking)
Latest finding shows that the effect of tracking varies by national contexts. Tracking has positive impact on student performance in countries with high-stake testing, such as South Korea, Israel and Taiwan. It would be informative to examine the impact of tracking using Taiwan’s case.
In sum, the research questions to be addressed are as follows:
1. What is the impact of tracking on the match achievement of junior high school students in Taiwan?
2. Who benefits most from tracking and de-tracking?
3. What suggestions can we make regarding the practice of tracking?
The data is obtained from Taiwan Education Panel Survey (TEPS). The data used for the analysis was collected from national representative sample of junior high school students. They were surveyed in 7th grade and then again in 9th grade. For the outcome variable, math scores in the 7th and 9th grade were used for investigation.
As to the analytical method, propensity score matching method was used to determine the differences between the treated and untreated group.
In order to analyze tracking effects, this article investigates the causal effects of tracking on students’ 9th of math performance within a counterfactual framework. With counterfactual framework, we are able to overcome some of the biases traditional survey data and analytical method would cause.
Our findings indicate that students who were assigned to high-track classes increase 5 points compared to students who attended school with no tracking. Students who were assigned to middle/low-track classes would decrease 2 points, comparing with students who attended school with no tracking. Consequently, tracking has a positive impact on students’ grades.
The people who benefit most from tracking are those who could not have gone to high-ability groups. For those students with high ability in math, staying in high ability class or not does not make a lot of differences. Reflections on current tracking practices are discussed.

1. 中文部份
人本教育基金會（無日期a）。政府漠不關心，學校陽奉陰違！2002年國中違反常態編班狀況調查報告。2009年12月26日，取自http://hef.yam.org.tw/research/08/down08.htm
人本教育基金會（無日期b）。保守勢力風起雲湧，升學歪風死灰復燃---各縣市升學編班狀況調查報告。2009年12月26日，取自http://hef.yam.org.tw/research/6/index06.htm
王乙徹（2008）。查能力分班 校方要學生作假。2009年1月7日，取自http://1-apple.com.tw/index.cfm?Fuseaction=Article&Sec_ID=2&ShowDate=20081226&IssueID=20081226&art_id=31262745&NewsType=1&SubSec=6
王麗雲、游錦雲（2008）。高中環境對學生學習影響之評估：以臺灣教育長期追蹤資料庫進行檢證。論文發表於國立臺灣師範大學教育評鑑與發展研究中心主辦「臺灣高中教育政策檢討與展望」研討會，臺北市。
王儷蓉（2006）。編班方式對於國中生學習成就的影響。國立臺灣大學經濟學研究所碩士論文，未出版，臺北市。
李玉涵（2004）。同學、朋友及家庭同儕對學生成績之影響。東吳大學經濟學系碩士論文，未出版，臺北市。
徐秘康（2006，5月22日）。中部資優班聯招　老師下跪抗議。TVBS。2009年4月17日，取自http://www.tvbs.com.tw/news/news_list.asp?no=lili20060522084622
國民小學及國民中學常態編班及分組學習準則（2008）。
國民中學學生基本學力測驗推動工作委員會（無日期）。2009年4月3日，取自http://www.bctest.ntnu.edu.tw/
國民教育法（2009）。
張苙雲（2003）。臺灣教育長期追蹤資料庫：第一波(2001)學生【公共使用版電子檔】、第一波(2001)家長【公共使用版電子檔】。中央研究院調查研究專題中心【管理、釋出單位】。
張苙雲（2005）。臺灣教育長期追蹤資料庫：第二波(2003)學生【公共使用版電子檔】、第二波(2003)家長【公共使用版電子檔】。中央研究院調查研究專題中心【管理、釋出單位】。
張苙雲（2007）。臺灣教育長期追蹤資料庫：公用使用版：第一波(2001)、第二波(2003)、第三波(2005)限制使用版：第一波(2001)、第二波(2003)現場使用版：第一波(2001)、第二波(2003)（國中/高中/高職/五專）資料使用手冊。中央研究院調查研究專題中心【管理、釋出單位】。
張煌熙（1973）。國中編班方式與學生學習動機之關係。國立臺灣師範大學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版：臺北市。
張錦弘（2006，5月18日）。中部資優班聯招 教育部宣布不算數。聯合電子報。2009年4月17日，取自http://mag.udn.com/mag/campus/storypage.jsp?f_ART_ID=34252
許殷宏（2006）。教學實踐與學生身份認同-國中美術班與普通班的比較。教育研究集刊，52（2），125-153。
陳昺麟（1994）。國中教育的選擇和社會化功能與學生自我概念關係之研究。國立臺灣師範大學公民訓育學系碩士論文，未出版：臺北市。
陳博政（1982）。國中能力分班、教師期望與教師教學態度之研究。國立臺灣師範大學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版：臺北市。
陳鳳麗（2009）。被爆能力分班 草屯國中駁斥。自由時報電子報。2009年，4月11日，取自http://www.libertytimes.com.tw/2009/new/apr/11/today-complain4.htm
黃志偉（2003，9月12日）。國中老師反對能力分班　下跪請命。TVBS。2009年4月18日，取自http://www.tvbs.com.tw/news/news_list.asp?no=eveno20030912154231
黃紀（2008）。因果推論與觀察研究：「反事實模型之思考」。社會科學論叢，21（2），1-21。
黃敏雄 (2004)。班級同質程度與數學成就：東西方社會間的差異。香港社會學學報，5，77-101。
黃敏雄 (2007)。班級內與班級間數學表現差異：跨國與跨年級比較，台灣社會學，14，155-189。
黃敏雄 (2008)。班級同質程度、家庭背景及數學表現：運用雙重差分法的跨國分析，台灣社會學刊，40，1-44。
黃雅屏（2008）。樸園盃測驗　國中能力分班。2009年1月7日，取自http://www.peopo.org/portal.php?op=viewPost&articleId=26416
楊孟麗、譚康榮、黃敏雄 (2003)。「台灣教育長期追蹤資料庫」分析能力測驗之心理計量特質」。中央研究院：臺北市。
謝宇（2006）。社會學方法與定量研究。北京市：社會科學文獻。
謝亞恆（2007）。影響國中階段學生學業成就成長量的個人、家庭及學校因素之研究。高雄師範大學教育學系博士論文，未出版：高雄市。
謝季桓（2006）。人本教育文教基金會影響常態編班政策歷程之研究。國立臺灣師範大學教育學系碩士論文，未出版：臺北市。
謝銀仲（2009）。被指能力分班 昇平國中否認。自由時報電子報。2009年1月11日，取自http://www.libertytimes.com.tw/2009/new/jan/10/today-complain2.htm
簡佩琼（2005）。能力分班的教學效果分析-以高中生的學習成績為指標。佛光人文社會學院心理學系碩士班碩士論文，未出版：宜蘭縣。
顏國樑（1998）。由政策執行的觀點論影響國民中學常態編班執行成效的因素及其因應策略。教育政策論壇，1(1)，38-63。
關秉寅、李敦義（2008）。補習數學有用嗎？一個「反事實」的分析。台灣社會學刊，41，97-148。

2. 英文部份
Ayalon, H. & Gamoran, A. (2000). Stratification in Academic Secondary Programs and Educational Inequality in Israel and the United States. Comparative Education Review, 44(1), 54-80.
Betts, J. R. & Shkolnik, J. L. (2000a). The effects of ability grouping on student achievement and resource allocation in secondary schools. Economics of Education Review, 19, 1–15.
Betts, J. R. & Shkolnik, J. L. (2000b). Key difficulties in identifying the effects of ability grouping on student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 19, 21–26.
Broaded, C. M. (1997). The Limits and Possibilities of Tracking: Some Evidence from Taiwan. Sociology of Education, 70(1), 36-53.
Carbonaro, W. (2005). Tracking, students' effort, and academic achievement. Sociology of Education, 78(1), 27-49.
Duflo, E., Dupas, P. & Kremer, M. (2008). Peer effects and the impact of tracking: Evidence from a randomized evaluation in Kenya, NBER Working Paper, 14475.
Eden, D. (1984). Self-Fulfilling Prophecy as a Management Tool: Harnessing Pygmalion. The Academy of Management Review, 9(1), 64-73.
Galindo-Rueda, F. and Vignoles A. (2005). The Heterogeneous Effect of Selection in Secondary Schools: Understanding the Changing Role of Ability. CEE Discussion Paper, 52.
Gamoran, A. & Hoffer, T. B. (1993). Effects of Instructional Differences among Ability Groups on Student Achievement in Middle-School Science and Mathematics. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association, Miami.
Gamoran, A. & Mare, R. D. (1989). Secondary School Tracking and Educational Inequality: Compensation, Reinforcement, or Neutrality? American Journal of Sociology, 94, 1146-1183.
Gamoran, A. (1986). Instructional and Institutional Effects of Ability Grouping. Sociology of Education, 59(4), 185-198.
Gamoran, A. (1987). The Stratification of High School Learning Opportunities. Sociology of Education, 60, 135-155.
Gamoran, A. (1992). The Variable Effects of High School Tracking. American Sociological Review, 57(6), 812-828.
Gamoran, A. (1993). Alternative Uses of Ability Grouping in Secondary Schools: Can We Bring High-Quality Instruction to Low-Ability Classes? American Journal of Education, 101, 1-22.
Gamoran, A. (2004). Classroom Organization and Instructional Quality In H. J. Walberg, A. J. Reynolds, & M. C. Wang(Ed.) Can unlike students learn together? : grade retention, tracking, and grouping (pp.141-155). Greenwich, Conn : Information Age Pub.
Gamoran, A. (2009). Tracking and inequality: New directions for research and practice (WCER Working Paper No. 2009-6). Madison: University of Wisconsin–Madison, Wisconsin Center for Education Research. Retrieved December 27, 2009, from http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/publications/workingPapers/papers.php
Gamoran, A., Nystrand, M., Berends, M. & LePore, P. C. (1995). An Organizational Analysis of the Effects of Ability Grouping. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 687-715.
Gamoran, A., Porter,A. C., Smithson, J. & White, P. A. (1997). Upgrading High School Mathematics Instruction: Improving Learning Opportunities for Low-Income, Low-Achieving Youth. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19, 325-338.
Hallinan, M. T. (1991). School Differences in Tracking Structures and Track Assignments. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 1(3), 251-275.
Hallinan, M. T. (1994). Tracking: From Theory to Practice. Sociology of Education, 67(2), 79-84.
Hallian, M. T. (2004a). Race Effects on Ability Group Outcomes In H. J. Walberg, A. J. Reynolds, & M. C. Wang(Ed.) Can unlike students learn together? grade retention, tracking, and grouping (pp.115-140). Greenwich, Conn : Information Age Pub.
Hallian, M. T. (2004b). The Detracking Movement. Education Next, 4(4), 72-76.
Hallian, M. T. & Ellison B. J. (2006). The Practice of Ability Grouping In M. T. Hallinan, (Ed.) School Sector and Student Outcomes (pp. 125-152). Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press.
Hanushek, E. A. & Woßmann, L. (2006). Does educational tracking affect performance and inequality? Differences-in-differences evidence across countries. The Economic Journal, 116, 63–76.
Harding, D. J. (2003). Counterfactual Models of Neighborhood Effects: The Effect of Neighborhood Poverty on Dropping Out and Teenage Pregnancy. American Journal of Sociology, 109(3), 676-719.
Heckman, J. (2005). The Scientific Model of Causality. Sociological Methodology, 35, 1-98.
Kierein, N. M. & Gold, M.A. (2000). Pygmalion in Work Organizations: A Meta-Analysis . Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(8), 913-928.
Kim, T., Lee, J., & Lee, Y. (2008). Mixing versus sorting in schooling : Evidence from the equalization policy in South Korea. Economics of Education Review, 27, 697–711.
Kulik, J. A. (2004). Grouping, tracking, and de-tracking. In Walberg, H. J., Reynolds, A. J. & Wang, M. C.(Eds.), Can unlike students learn together? grade retention, tracking, and grouping (pp. 157-182), Greenwich, Conn. : Information Age Pub.
Lazear, E. P. (2001). Educational Production. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116(3), 777-803.
Leuven, E. & Barbara S. (2003). Psmatch2: Stata Module to perform full Mahalanobis and Propensity Score Matching, Common Support Graphing, and Covariate Imbalance Testing. Retrieved April 4, 2009, from http://ideas.repec.org/c/boc/bocode/s432001.html#abstract
Loveless, T. (2009). Tracking and Detracking: High Achievement in Massachusetts Middle Schools. Retrieved December 27, 2009, from http://www.schoolinfosystem.org/pdf/2009/12/200912_Detracking.pdf
Morgan, S. L. & Winship, C. (2007). Counterfactuals and Causal Inference: Methods and Principles for Social Research. New York : Cambridge University Press
Morgan, S. L. (2001). Counterfactuals, Causal Effect Heterogeneity, and the Catholic School Effect on Learning. Sociology of Education,74, 341-74.
Morgan, S. L., & Harding, D. J. (2006). Matching Estimators of Causal Effects: Prospects and Pitfalls in Theory and Practice. Sociological Methods Research ,35(3), 3-60
Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Oakes, J. and Guiton G. (1995). Matchmaking: The Dynamics of High School Tracking Decisions. American Educational Research Journal, 32(1), 3-33
Pekkarinen,T., Uusitalo,R. and Kerr, S.(2009). School Tracking and Development of Cognitive Skills. IZA Discussion Paper 4058.
Rees, D.I., Brewer, D.J. & Argys, L.M. (2000). How should we measure the effect of ability grouping on student performance? Economics of Education Review, 19, 17–20.
Rosenbaum, J. E.(1976). Making inequality : the hidden curriculum of high school tracking. New York : Wiley.
Sorensen, A. B.(1970). Organizational Differentiation of Students and Educational Opportunity. Sociology of Education, 43(4), 355-376.
Winship, C & Sobel M. (2004). Causal Inference in Sociological Studies," in Melissa Hardy and Alan Bryman(Ed). Handbook of Data Analysis(pp.481-503), California : Sage Publications.