minority teachers

8/7/2019 Minority Teachers

1/15

Studies Journal, Vo l. 25, No. 2,1997 (235-248)

A New Look at the Role-M. Hess and David L. Leal*

In this article, w e present for the first time system aticevidence that the percentage of minority faculty has a significantpositive relationship with overall college matriculation rates in urbanschoo l districts across the nation. Although there is little discussion inthe education literature of how minority teachers might influenceachievement by students of all races, there is a widespread assump tionthat minority teachers improve the performance of minority students.Our data support this assumption, but they also suggest an importantcaveat. We will explain why this finding could mea n that systemicschool district behaviors cause the higher rates of college attendance,while the ethnic makeup of aculty acts as a proxy for these behaviors.This finding has impo rtant policy implications, as focusing only on therole-modeling hypothesis might lead to incom plete or incorrect reformremedies for urban school districts.In this article, we present for the first time systematic evidence that the

llege matriculation ra tes in urban school districts across the nation . Although

hat minority teachers improv e the perform ance of minority students. Our findingpports this ass um ptio n, but it also sug ges ts an imp ortant cav eat. W e will

This has important substantive implications, as we will show that1986) and others might lead to incomplete or incorrect policy rem edie s. If it is

iculation, then it is those behavio rs that should be exam ined and em ulated . Ause, and may co nsu me scarce urban school district resourc es that could b e usedo aid students more effectively. Th e role-mode ling h ypothes is and the system


2/15

Policy Studies Journal, 25:2positive impact on measures of Latino student behavior (Fraga et a l., 1986; Me& Stewart, 1991; Polinard, W rinkle, & Longoria, 1990), as well as research on tconnection between Latino teachers and Latino student test scores (Meier, 1993)The assumption that minority teachers will improve the performance students who share their ethnicity is founded on two different, but compatibhypotheses. The first hypothesis is that minority teachers w ill be role models minority students (Adair, 1984; Graham, 1987; Stewart et al., 1989) anempathetic toward them (Alexander & Miller, 1989; Foster, 1989, 1990; LadsoBillings, 1992), thereby enhancing minority student perform ance. The secohypothesis is that White teachers generally have low expectations for minoristudents (Cornbush & Korth, 1980; Davidson & Lang, 1960; Rosenthal Jacobson, 1968; Wilkerson, 1970) or are racist (Trueba, 1983), and therefohinder minority student performance. Hereafter, these more specific hypotheswill be referred to jointly as the "role-modeling hypothesis."

However, there is little evidence to support either of these claims fsame-race teachers. In a recent consideration of the literature on the effect African-American teachers on minority students, Cizek (1995, p . 90) wrote, would be unwise to suggest that African-Am erican teachers are de facto bettteachers of minority students than are teachers of other ethnic backgrounwithout substantial evidence." In an introduction to King's (1993, p. 113) articadvocating the recruitment of minority teachers, the joum al editor noted similar"There has been relatively little research to provide guidance on the effect minority teachers on minority students." King (1993, p. 130) stated more strongthat, "empirical research is necessary to determine the effects and the potentibenefits of having African-American teachers and a varied racial/ethnic teachinforce for all ethnicities of studen ts." Cizek (1995, p . 83) characterized tliterature reviewed by King (1993) on the positive effects of minority teachers minority students as a collection of "essays, com mentaries, and reflective pieces

There even is evidence that m inority teachers may be less effective wminority children than are other teachers (United States Commission on CivRights, 1973). In fact, given evidence that minority teachers generally are lewell prepared (Cizek, 1995; King, 1993; Smith, 1989) and may be less able thaminorities who choose other occupations (Roberson, Keith, & Page, 1983minority teachers might be expected to have a negative impact on overall studeperformance.Hypotheses

Our analysis of 62 urban school districts finds that, after controlling fother relevant factors, the minority percentage of school faculty has a strongpositive relationship with college attendance among the overall studepopulation. Given the fact that there is only limited broad-based and systema


3/15

HesslLeal: Minority Teachers, Minority Students, and College Matriculatiheightened student performance generally is equally consistent with an argumentthat districts hiring minority teachers systematically are enhancing studentperformance in other ways. We present here a second set of hypotheses that couldexplain the minority teacher finding but may have little or nothing to do with therace of the teachers themselves. These other factors associated with minorityteachers also may help improve the quality of teaching, so that districts with ahigher percentage of minority teachers produce higher student performance.There may be several factors at work explaining higher rates of collegeattendance in districts with a higher percentage of minority teachers, besides rolemodeling or heightened faculty sensitivity. There are at least three hypothesesthat explain why districts with a large number of minority faculty might be betterthan other districts at sending students to college: (a) Schools that hire minorityteachers may do so as part of a general effort to improve urban studentperformance, so that increased diversity is merely one manifestation of a dis trict'sreform efforts.^ (b) Districts hiring minority faculty may have higher facultyturnover. Therefore, these districts would have more new teachers, who may bemore energetic or open to professional innovation than more senior teachers nearretirement, (c) Minority faculty may be more capable than White faculty becauseparticularly before the 1970s teaching was one of the more prestigious positionsavailable to Blacks while teaching was a less prestigious occupation for Whites.This could produce a self-selection effect in which minority teachers, particularlyolder ones, are more competent than their W hite counterparts.Any of these approaches could impact student performance, in whole orin part, through mechanisms other than the previously cited role-modelinghypothesis. In the research that has been conducted to date, however, the minorityteacher variable would pick up the entire effect. Consequently, we argue thatunderspecification plagues policy conclusions drawn from previous work. Thesehypotheses, as noted above, do not exclude potential role-modeling effects.The implication of any of our three hypotheses is that strategies that seeksimply to put minority teachers in classrooms may create unanticipatedundesirable effects, particularly if it means hiring less qualified teachers orinterfering with those behaviors that have made districts with diverse facultiesmore capable . Therefore , it is important that we exam ine whether thesehypotheses are valid before basing prescriptive policy on the role-modelinghypothesis. Although we cannot test all these hypotheses directly w ith thisdataset, we will present some evidence for the systemic model. We also will testthe role-modeling hypo thesis by examining how minority teachers impactminority student matriculation in the South; a legacy of discrimination suggeststhat this is the region where role-modeling effects should be largest.In sum, we suggest that the few previous studies that have attempted tofind same-race teaching effects may have been flawed by their premise.Presuming that minority teacher hiring would enhance minority student


4/15


5/15

HesslL eal: M inority Teachers, Minority Students, and College Matriculatido not require any test. Therefore, students may take or not take the SAT for avariety of reasons that have nothing to do with achievement.Other types of test scores might be useful, but they are not available inthe CUBE dataset. Furthermore, the comparability and objectivity of standardizedtests administered in different districts is largely illusory. A 1987 study (Cannell,1987) of all 50 states discovered that no state is below average at the elementarylevel on any of the six major nationally normed commercially available tests.Additionally, 90% of local school districts claimed that their average scoresexceeded the national average, and "more than 70 percent of the students testednationwide are told they are performing above the national average" (Cannell,1987, pp. 1-2).Lieberman (1993, p. 83) offered an extensive discussion of the problemspresented by attempts to gauge school district performance based on test data. Hisinvestigation of Cannell's 1987 study showed that average test scores had beeninflated artificially in several ways: (a) Poor students were excluded ordiscouraged from taking the tests; (b) teachers assigned tests as homework ortaught test items in class; (c) test security was minimal or nonexistent; (d) studentswere allowed more time than prescribed by test regulations; (e) unrealistic, highlyimprobable improvements from test to test were not audited or investigated; (f)teachers and administrators were not punished for flagrant violations of testprocedures; and (g) test results were reported in ways that exaggeratedachievement levels. Others who have also noted the many problems withstandardized testing include Clarke & Agne (1997), Finn (1991), Orfield &Ashkinaze (1991), and Sizer (1996).College MatriculationThe percentage of students entering college was the best availablemeasure of achievement for several reasons. First, increasing the percentage ofgraduates attending college is a goal common to high schools across the nation.Thus, unlike the SAT, it is a criterion by which all high schools can be compared.The college matriculation rate also measures some basic amount of academicachievement, unlike graduation rates, which reflect little more than attendance inmany urban systems. It seems reasonable to believe that college matriculation is,in part, a reflection of the efforts of teachers to motivate students, which makes itan appropriate dependent variable for this study. Aside from the occasionalathlete, the average urban high school student is unlikely to be recruited by acollege. High school may be the only place where students are pushed towardcollege, particularly in urban districts, where the social problems of poverty, one-parent families, lack of role models, violence, and teen pregnancy are welldocumented (Peterson & Jencks, 1991).The measure of college matriculation is the percentage of high school


6/15

Policy Studies Journal, 25:2Minority FacultyThe key explanatory variable we investigate is the percentage of the fulltime teaching staff comprised of racial minorities. There are a variety of ways thvariable could be operationalized. We counted the total number of minority fultime equivalent (FTE) faculty, and then divided that by the total number of fultime equivalent district faculty. We adopted this approach because we arinterested in what is symbolized by the presence of nontraditional faculty, rathethan in the presence of a specific ethnic minority. The m inority percentage almost entirely Black and Latino faculty, although a handful of Asians and NativAmericans are included in this figure (Blacks and Latinos comprise over 95% othe FTE minority faculty).^Other Variables

The percentages of Latino students and Black students are included aseparate variables in order to examine the differences these groups have on districeducational outcom es. We also included a measure of the percentage of thschool board consisting of racial minorities, based on the hypothesis that minoritboard members might work especially hard to improve educational outcomes fominority students.A dummy variable for whether or not a district has ever been under desegregation plan is also included. Those districts with desegregation may bthose with the most troubled histories, and thus would correlate with loweachievement outcomes for Blacks but perhaps not for Whites. A desegregatioorder also may result in "White flight" from the district, and therefore thesdistricts may have lower matriculation rates as Whites have higher matriculatiorates on average than Blacks.We also included control variables for median family income in thdistrict, dollars spent per student, and the student-teacher ratio. Higher incomlevels and expenditures per student are expected to increase rates of collegattendance, while a higher student-teacher ratio is expected to produce leseffective education and to reduce rates of college attendance.A measure of total district enrollment is included in case larger districthire minority faculty at a slightly higher rate (simple correlation of 0.08) aneducate students less capably than do smaller districts, which have feweresponsibilities and fewer managerial demands.We also included an interaction term of a southern states dummy variablwith the percentage of minority faculty.^ This interaction term serves as a test othe role-modeling hypothesis. Because of the legacy of discrimination in thSouth, we would expect to see evidence of role modeling by minority teachers ominority students in this region above all others. If there is no such evidence, thethis would suggest that systemic explanations need to be examined more closely


7/15

HesslLeal: Minority Teachers, Minority Students, and College MatriculaEducation. It is based on an extensive questionnaire sent to each of the memberschool districts. Due to incomplete retum s and somewhat ambiguous reportingprocedures, data are not complete for all variables. Five districts failed to answerso many questions that they were dropped from the analysis. Twelve otherdistricts did not answer one or two questions, but they were reclaimed via thetechnique of substitution at the mean. The Boston school disu^ict, for example, didnot report the student-per-teacher ratio, but it reported data for all other questions.Therefore, the mean response for all school districts for the student-per-teacherratio was substituted for this blank value. This has the value of adding anobservation with 10 true responses and 1 mean response, a reasonable statisticatrade-off. Appendix A lists the schools that were included and those droppedfrom the dataset. Descriptive statistics for all variables and the simple correlationsamong the independent variables are shown in Appendix B. The model also wasrun with these 12 districts excluded, but the results did not change in anyimportant ways.The 1994 School District Data Book (National Center for EducationStatistics, 1995) compiled the 1990 census by school district for each of thenation's approximately 15,000 school districts. These data permit us to usedemographic variables that are coterminous with school district boundaries. Dueto different collection years for the CUBE study and the census, explanatoryvariables are for 1989-1990 except for the measure of school district spendingwhich is for 1990-1991.

The percentage of students attending college is also taken from theCUBE data. It is the figure each district submitted for the "percentage of highschool students attending college."The key explanatory variable, percentage minority of district teachingstaff, was calculated using figures from the 1992 CUBE study. We added togetheall non-White full-time equivalent faculty and then divided that sum by eachdistrict's total FTE faculty.The data were analyzed using ordinary least squares regression (OLSbecause the dependent variable is continuous.Results

The fully specified model explaining college matriculation is:COLLEGE MATRICULATION% = a + j3i MEDIAN INCOME+ P2 %MINORITY STAFF -- Ps %LATINO STUDENTS+ P4 %BLACK STUDENTS + P5 TOTAL ENROLLMENT+ P6 DOLLARS PER STUDENT + P7 %BOARD MINORITY+ Ps STUDENTS PER TEACHER -- % SOUTH


8/15

Policy Studies Journal, 25:2

Table 1Model on College Matriculation

VariablesConstantPercent minority facultyMedian incomePercent Black studentsPercent Latino studentsTotal enrollment(in thousands)Dollars spent per studentPercent minority membersof school boardStudent per teacher ratioSouth dummyInteraction of South andpercent minority facultyDesegregation order dummyAdjusted R^Observations

Coefticient(SE)0.629(0.224)0 . 3 5 9 -(0.149)8.77e-06*(4.55e-06)-0.476***(0.165)

-0.095(0.143)1.25e-O4(1.02e-(>4)-3.57e-06(1.68e-05)-0.065(0.115)-0.010(0.008)0.192*(0.078)-0.323*(0.167)0.041(0.053)0.35

57Sources: Council of Urban Boards of Education 1992 school district survey; 1990 United StateCensus.Notes: * p


9/15

HesslLeal: Minority Teachers, Minority Students, and College Matriculamore minority staff was canceled out almost entirely by the effect of theinteraction variable. We suggest two explanations for this finding.We believe the most likely hypothesis is that high percentages ofminority faculty in the rest of the nation are evidence of reform efforts or similarattempts to diversify the school system, whereas the presence of minority teachersin the South does not signify district-initiated reform efforts. In the South,minority teachers may be evidence of judicially required integration, or they mayhave been in the system because of the historic existence of a separate Blackschool system. Neither of these possibilities may be correlated with district-initiated efforts to improve student outcomes. A second hypothesis is that, due toa history of discrimination in the South, minority teachers are less effective aclassroom instruction than they are in the rest of the nation.The problem these results present for the role-modeling hypothesis is thatthe presence of minority teachers is associated with very impressive overalldistrict improvements, even though their impact is hypothesized to be on only onesegment of the student population. Further, because all minority teachers areincluded in the variable, the ethnicity-matching implied by the role-modelinghypothesis is experienced by only a segment of the minority student population. Iis possible theoretically that the college achievement variable is driven largely byminority students, but this would have to be a large gain by the 15% of samplestudents who are Latino and the 32% who are Black to drive the findings. Thisseems less believable than the alternative of across-the-board gains, particularlybecause the same-race role-modeling hypothesis would predict that a minorityteacher would affect only one or the other student population. This means that asame-race teacher would have to be extremely effective with students of his or heown race, and no less effective than average with students of other races, toproduce the observed gains.We believe the finding on differential effects in the South is consistenwith the structural hypotheses. Considering the South 's history of discriminationrole modeling might be expected to have a stronger effect in the South thanelsewhere. This is because students growing up in an environment with such along history of discrimination should be more responsive to role modeling thanare other students. The fact that the effect of minority faculty is weaker in theSouth suggests role-modeling explanations may be incomplete or flawed.The above discussion suggests that the argument that minority teacherssignificantly improve minority student performance is incomplete. We maintainthat what little research currently exists on the effect of minority faculty may bemistaken in its conclusions in support of the role-modeling hypothesis. Th ishypothesis is in doubt because it could be explained by the systemic hypothesisdiscussed previously.The effect on the matriculation levels of the districts' entire studen


10/15

Policy Studies Journal, 25:2students, the fewer students overall go to college, although this does not hold trufor Latino stud ents. The size of the school district, the historical or co ntemp orarexistence of a desegregation plan, and the percentage of minority school boarme m bers had no impact in the m odel. The dumm y va riable for the South significant and positive, which is a little surprising, but perhaps not so in light othe com paratively low college tuition for southem state educational institutions.Conclusions

The educational literature long has presumed that hiring more minorityteachers will improve minority student academ ic perform ance. In this article, wpresent for the first time systematic evidence that the percentage of minorityfaculty has a significantly positive effect on college attendance among the overalstudent pop ulation . In other w ord s, after contro lling for the Black and Latinpercentage of district students, minority faculty percentage was statisticallysignificant and significantly improved the m od el's explained varian ce. Thirelationship also held after controlling for median family income and studentteacher ratios.These results provide broad-based empirical evidence for the rolemod eling hypothesis com mo nly found in the educ ation literature. It is alspossible, however, that other, more systemic, effects may fit data believed to bconsistent w ith this hyp othe sis. Ev iden ce for this latter poss ibility is that theffect of minority teachers actually is reduced greatly in the South, whereas legacy of discrimination suggests that this is the one region where role-modelineffects should be the largest.Another problem is that the presence of minority teachers is associatedwith overall district im proveme nts, even though their impact is hypothesized to bon only one segmen t of the student popu lation . It is pos sible that the collegachievement variable is driven largely by minority students, but this would have tobe a large gain by the 15% of sample students who are Latino and the 32% whoare Black in order to drive the findings. Th is seem s less belie vab le than thalternative of across-the-board gains, particularly because the same-race rolemodeling hypothesis would predict that a minority teacher would affect only onstudent pop ulation. This mean s that a sam e-race teache r would have to bextremely effective with students of his or her own race, and no less effective thaaverage with students of other races, in order to produce the observed gain s.These findings have important substantive im plication s. A sole reliancby education reformers on the role-m ode ling hyp othesis argued by Fraga et a(1986) and others migh t lead to incorrect policy rem edies. If it is system behaviothat is causing both more minority hiring and higher rates of college matriculationthen it is those behav iors that should be exam ined and em ulated . A remedy tha


11/15

HesslLeal: Minority Teachers, Minority Students, and College Matriculatiocrease urban student academic performance.

Frederick M. Hess is director of the Center for Educational Policy in theofessor (by courtesty) of govemment at the University of Virginia.David L. Leal is an assistant professor of political science at the State

The data used in this study are available from the Inier-university Consortium for PoliticalThe nam es of the authors appear in alphabetical order.The CU BE study is a 62-city compilation produced triennially by the Co uncil. It is basedn an extensive q uestionn aire sent to each of the mem ber school d istricts. A list of the resp onding

^For instance, Alexander and Eckland (1975) found that student contact with teachers andounselors regarding college plans had no apparent consequences in terms of actual student plans tottend college.An example of this is in Alexander and Eckland (1975), who found that one of the directeterminants of college plans among high school students is the curriculum in which sophomores were

nrolled. Urban districts working to impro ve student perform ance very well might try to enhanc eurricula and encourage students to participate in more challenging programs, while working todiversify and pursue new faculty.Unfortunately, districts simply reported an aggregate college attendance rate, so it is notpossible to examine whether minority faculty have a different effect on minority than on White studentperformance. Ob viously , that is a crucial question for testing the role mode ling hy poth esis, but itcannot be addressed with the ava ilable data.There are other ways to construct this variable. One approach would look at each ethnicminority as an independent percentage of the distria's faculty, which would have examined the impactof ethnic faculty of a specific ra ce. Ho we ver, this still does not addres s the question of w heth er anyapparent effects produced by same-race faculty simply are the product of causally prior institutionalforces.Southem states have a higher percentage of minority teachers than do other regions; thecorrelation of the Sou th with m inority faculty p erc enta ge was 0.25. ll ii s is not surp rising, given thehistory of race relations in the South, particularly the historic existence of a separate Black schoolsystem, as well as more recent desegregaticHi requirements.

ReferencesAdair, A. (19 84). Desegregation: The illusion of black progress. Lanham , M D: University Press of

America.Alexander, K., & Eckland , B. (1975 ). Con textual effects in the high school attainm ent proc ess.


12/15

Policy Studies Journal, 25:2Co m bus h, C , & Ko rth, W . (1980). Teac her perception & teacher-s tudent interaction in integraclassrooms. Journal of Experim ental Education, 48,259-263.Dav idson, H. H., & Lang, G.. (1960). Ch ildren 's perceptions of their teacher s' feelings toward threlated to self-perception, school achievement and behavior. Journal of ExperimenEducation,29, lOl-nS.Finn, C. (1991). We must take charge: Our schools and our future. New York, NY : Free Press.Foster, M. (1989). Recruiting teachers of color: Problems, programs & possibilities. Pa

presented at the fall conference of the Far West Holmes Group, Reno, NV.Foster, M. (1990). The politics of race: Through the eyes of African-Am erican teach ers. JournaEducation, 172,123-141.Fraga, L., Meier, K., & England , R. (1986 ). Hisp anic Am ericans and educa tional policy limitsequal access. Journal of Politics, 48, 850-876.Graha m, P. (1987). Black teachers: A drastically scarce resource. Phi Delta Kappan, 68, 598-605King, G., Keoh ane, R., & Verba, S. (1994). Designing social inquiry: Scientific inference qualitative research . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.King, S. (1993). The limited presence of African-American teachers. Review of Education Resear6 J , 1 1 5 -1 4 9 .Ladson -BiUings, G. (199 2). Libe ratory cons eque nces of literac y: A case of culturally relevinstruction for African American students. Journal of Negro E ducation, 61 , 378-391 .l iebe rm an, M. (1993). Public education: An autopsy. Cam bridge, M A: Harvard University PressM eier, K. (1993 ). Latinos and repres entative bureaucra cy: Testing the Tho mp son and Henderhypotheses. Journal of PubU c Adm inistration Research and Theory, 22, 157-171 .M eier, K., & Stewart, J. (1991). The poUtics of Hispanic education. Alb any, NY : State UniversityNew York Press.Na tional Center for Edu cation Statistics. (199 4). School District Data Book. Washington, DNatiwial Center for Education Statistics.Orfield, G., & Ashkinaz e, C. (1991). The closing door: Conservative policy and black opportunChica go, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Peterson, P., & Jencks, C. (1991). The urban underclass. Washington, DC: Brookings Insiitution.Polinard, J. L., W rinkle, R., & Longoria, T. (1990). Education & gove ma nce : Representational linto second generational discrimination. Western PoUtics Quarterly, 43 , 631-647.Rob erson, S., Keith, T., & Page , E. (1983). Now w ho aspires to teach. Educational Researcher, 13-21.Rose nthal, R., & Jacob son, L. (1968) . Teac her expec tations for the disadv antage d. ScientiAmerican. 218,12-22.Sizer, T. (1996). Horace s hope: Wh at works for the Am erican high school. Boston, MA: HoughtMifflin Co.Sm ith, G. (1989). Increasing the number of minority students: Recom mendations and a callaction. Unpublished man uscript, Ma ssachusetts Institute of Techn ology, Q uality Educatfor Minorities Project. Cam bridge, MA .Stew art, J., M eier, K., & Eng land, R. (198 9). In quest of role m ode ls: Ch ang e in black teacrepresentation in urban school districts, 1968-1986. Journal of Negro E ducation, 58, 1152.Trueb a, H. T. (1983). Adjustment problems of Mexican and M exican-A merica n students: anthropological study. Learning DisabiUty Quarterly, 6, 395-404.United States Com mission on Civil Rights. (1973 ). Teachers and students: Differences in teacinteraction with Mexican Am erican and Anglo students. Report V: Mexican Am ericeducation study. Washington, DC: United States Govemment Printing Office.Wilkerson, D. A. (1970). Understanding the black child. Childhood Education, 46, 351-354.


13/15

HesslLeal: Minority Teachers, Minority Students, and College Matriculationppendix A

akersfieldaltimoreBostonBridgeportChicagoCincinnatiClevelandColumbiaDallasDaytonDenverDes M oinesDetroitFt. LauderdaleGaryHuntingtonIndianapolisJacksonJacksonvilleLaredoLas VegasLincolnLong BeachMemphisMesa

MiamiMilwatikeeMontgomeryNew YorkNorfolkOaklandOrlandoPhiladelphiaPhoenixPittsburghPortlandProvidenceRaleighRenoSan BernardinoSavannahSouth BendSpringfieldSt. LouisSyracuseTacomaTampaToledoTucsonTulsaVirginia BeachWashington, DCWichita

Note: Five obse rvation s we re deleted due to exten sive missin g data: the two districts each of Houstonand San Diego and on e from Bak ersfield.


14/15

Policy Studies Journal, 25:2A ppendix BTable BlDescriptive StatisticsVariableProportion collegematriculationMedian incomeProportion minority

faculty

for all VariablesStandardMean0.622

26,016.8200.323

Proportion black students 0.324Proportion HispanicstudentsTotal enrollment(in thousands)Dollars spent perstudentProportion minority ofschool boardStudents per teacherSouth dummy

0.149100.486

5,450.7370.596

18.2910.281Interaction of South and 0.116proportion minorityfacultyDesegretation orderdummy

Table B2

0.852

Deviation0.1405,049.326

0.2290.2370.194

169.7191,289.504

0.2362.6840.4530.227

0.349

Minimum0.3514,9000.029

00.006

6.63,226

01100

0

Simple Correlations of Independent Variables

Maximu0.895

43,9000.900.9050.981

1,194.78,481

260.876

MedincMinFacHisSaiBlacStuEnroUD d S t uBrdraceTeadier

Mcdinc1.000-0.413-0.204-0.3730.112-0.041-0.444-0.289

MinFac1.0000.1490.6650.083

-0.039-0.6%-0.183

HisStu1.000-0.385-0.149

-0.143-0.3240.242

BlacStu

1.0000.1110.266-0.524-0.319

Enroll

1.0000.252-0.145-0.071

DolStu

1.000O021-0.468

Brdrace

1.000-0.026

Teacher

1.000

Interact South Dcse


15/15

minority teachers

Documents