A Comparison of the Ratings of Black, Hispanic, And White Childrens' Academic Performance, Amos N....

INFORMATION TO USERS

This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer.

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand corner and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book.

Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order.

UMI University Microfilms International

A Bell & Howell Information Company 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA

313/761-4700 800/521-0600

Order Number 9215358

A comparison of the ratings of Black, Hispanic, and White childrens' academic performance and social adjustment as related to teachers' ethnocultural background

Wilson, Amos Nelson, Ph.D.

Fordham University, 1991

U-M-I 300N.ZeebRd. Ann Arbor, MI 48106

A COMPARISON OF THE RATINGS OF BLACK, HISPANIC, AND WHITE

CHILDRENS' ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE AND SOCIAL ADJUSTMENT AS

RELATED TO TEACHERS' ETHNOCULTURAL BACKGROUND

BY

Amos N. Wilson B.A., Morehouse College, 1963 M.A., Fordham University, 1986

DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS

FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN THE DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY AT FORDHAM UNIVERSITY

NEW YORK December 1991

FORDHAM UNIVERSITY

GRADUATE SCHOOL OF ARTS AND SCIENCES

_ _0c tob e r _ _16 A _ 19 91 .19.

This dissertation prepared under my direction by

Amos Wilson

entitled A.comparison.«£..fcfo-e..£ating-S"Of--rBlackyH-i.epaniey-end White

childrens' academic performance and social adjustment as

related to teachers' ethnocultural background.

has been accepted in partial fuinilment of the requirements for the

Degree of P.oc£p.r..a£.Philosophy.,

in the Department of P.SXfiUolflgy..

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page

LIST OF TABLES ii

I. INTRODUCTION 1

Literature Review 5

Conceptual Hypotheses 35

II. METHOD 37

Subjects 37

Instrument 38

Procedure 42

Operational Hypotheses 45

III. RESULTS 49

IV. DISCUSSION 74

V. SUMMARY 97

REFERENCES Ill

APPENDICES 117

A. Report to Parent Card 117

B. Consent Letter 118

C. Research Application Form 119

D. Eigenvalues of Correlation Matrix . . . . . . .120

E. Multiple Regression Analysis 121

ABSTRACT 122

VITA 123

i

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. List of Dependent Variables 40

2. Demographic Characteristics of Samples 50

3. Overall Means and Standard Deviations of Combined Student Samples 50

4. Means and Standard Deviations Assigned by the Black Teacher Sub-sample 52

5. Means and Standard Deviations Assigned by the Hispanic Teacher Sub-sample 54

6. Means and Standard Deviations Assigned by

the White Teacher Sub-sample 56

7. Rotated Factor Pattern 59

8. Mean Reading and Math Scores and the Final Analysis of Variance 65

9. Mean Rating of Each Student Group and the Final Multivariate Analysis of Variance 66

10. The Comparative Mean Ratings of Student Performance by Each Teacher Group 73

ii

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

In conjunction with parents, teachers are among the

most influential persons in children's lives, particularly

during the primary school years. It is during these years

that children are relatively deeply impressed by their

teachers' evaluations of and interactions with them

(Brookover & Erikson, 1969). There is a substantial body of

evidence which indicates that teacher preferences and

attitudes can affect teacher-student interaction patterns

resulting in the inhibition or facilitation of student

academic/intellectual, self-concept, and social skill

development (Brookover & Erikson, 1967; 1969; Crano & Mellon,

1978; Davidson & Lang, 1969; Dusek & O'Connell, 1973;

Glidewell, Kantor, Smith, & Stringer, 1966; Good & Brody,

1973; Parlardy, 1968; 1969; Phillips, 1965; Rist, 1970;

Seaver, 1973; Shore, 1973; Staines, 1958).

Teachers' expectations for students' classroom academic

performance and behavior are influenced by their perceptions

of different ethnic and social-class groups (Rosenfeld, 1973;

Rubovitz S Maehr, 1973; Washington, 1980, 1982; Whitehead &

Miller, 1972; Williams, Whitehead, & Miller, 1971; Woodworth

& Salzer, 1971). The communication of these expectations

through both verbal and nonverbal means is likely to act as a

1

subtle yet effective shaping mechanism for student behavior

(Brophy & Good, 1970; Good, 1970; Good, Brophy, & Mendosa,

1970; Jensen & Rosenfeld, 1974; Rosenshine, 1971; Rothbart,

1971; Rowe, 1974; Scott, 1980). This shaping or perception

of student behavior in terms of teacher expectations may, in

part, account for a large proportion of the differences in

educational attainment for different ethnic groups.

It is generally noted by educational theorists and

researchers that the academic performance, achievement

motivation, and self-perceptions of Black and Hispanic

students generally rank below that of their White

counterparts (Coleman, 1975; Gerard & Miller, 1975; National

Coalition of Advocates for Students, 1985; Weikart, 1984).

For example, Black students fail competency tests in larger

proportions than do their White or Asian counterparts, and in

some communities, than their Hispanic peers (National Urban

League, 1984). Evidence exists which indicates that there

are significant differences in grade-point average,

achievement test performance, drop-out rates, reading

levels, etc., attained by various ethnic groups (Blackwell,

1984; Coleman, 1966; College Board, 1985; Jensen, 1980;

National Urban League, 1985). This and related evidence have

demonstrated relationships between the above factors and such

factors as socioeconomic class, family, cultural, and ethnic

background. For example the College Board (1985) presented

evidence which suggests that "Overall... black students are

2

exposed to less-challenging educational program offerings

which are less likely to enhance the development of higher

order cognitive skills and abilities than are white

students." Black students are more likely to be enrolled in

remedial programs than in programs for the talented and

gifted, more likely to be in vocational education than in

college prep programs, and are likely to have taken fewer

courses in math, science, and social studies. The Board

concludes that these outcomes are to a measurable degree due

to teachers* partial perceptions of their students. Such

decisions, it was noted, are made during the elementary

school years. A similar situation exists in regard to

Hispanic students (National Commission on Secondary Schooling

for Hispanics, 1985).

A number of theorists and researchers have contended

that the relatively lower achievement and self-concept of

Black and Hispanic children may be, in part, due to lower

expectations for high performance and less positive attitudes

toward these students by their teachers (Banks & Grambs,

1972; Clark, 1964; Lanier & Wittmer, 1977; Rist, 1970;

Tucker, 1980). However, before this attitude-oriented

contention can be accepted,, it is necessary to demonstrate

that (1) teachers' different attitudes toward each of their

students affect the performance of those students; and that

(2) students' perceptions of themselves are related to their

teachers' perception of them. After evidence for these

3

latter assertions has been presented, it is necessary to

demonstrate that (3) teachers' expectations in regard to

students' academic performance are related to and reflective

of their students' ethnocultural, linguistic, and social

status backgrounds.

One major source of differing teacher attitudes toward

students of varying ethnocultural backgrounds may be the

ethnocultural background of the teachers themselves. It is

the purpose of the following review to present some of the

evidence which relates to the three propositions enumerated

above as well as the latter contention that teachers'

ethnocultural background may be a source of their attitudes

toward their students.

Presumably, according to the above research, if

teachers' observable evaluations and perceptions are based on

non-objective and negative ethnic, social class, and cultural

typification, students who are the targets of such attitudes

should evidence lower academic performance and social

adjustment than their counterparts not so targeted. Those

groups who are seen as possessing devalued status

characteristics, e.g., Blacks, Hispanics, would be accorded

lower academic and behavioral ratings (Jensen &. Rosenfeld,

1974) .

It may be concluded that relative to their apparent

influence on the academic achievement and social adjustment

of students, a determination of the relationship between

4

teacher attitudes and teacher evaluations of their students

is of critical importance. Also of importance is the

determination of the origins of teachers' attitudinal

orientations toward their students. A delineation of the

sources of such orientations is of primary importance if the

orientations are subject to bias and should be remediated.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Teacher Attitudes and Student Academic Performance

Dusek and O'Connell (1973) undertook a longitudinal

study of teacher expectancy effects on the achievement test

performance of elementary school pupils as measured by the

Stanford Achievement Tests (SAT). At the beginning of the

school year, SATs, disguised as tests to measure academic

potential, were administered to second and fourth graders.

During the first test session each teacher (without knowledge

of test results) was asked to predict her students' year-end

performance levels in language and arithmetic skills. Each

teacher was also asked to rank the students in her classroom

from 1 to N based on her expectations regarding their

overall year-end performance. The teachers were told that

testing would be conducted at the middle and end of the

school year and that the tests would be validated by

comparing the scores with school grades and teacher

attitudes toward individual students.

Dusek and O'Connell found strong, consistent effects on

5

student performance which appeared to be due to teacher

rankings. Children ranked higher by the teacher had higher

SAT scores on each testing than children ranked lower. These

results were interpreted as "expectancy effects" since the

rankings were based on the teachers* expectations regarding

the students' year-end performance. Of course, it is also

quite possible that the effects due to teacher rankings

reflected the teachers' accuracy in estimating the ability

levels of their students. That is, quite possibly the

children's academic potential determined the teachers'

expectation rather than the reverse.

A more direct study of the influence of teachers•

expectations on students' scholastic achievement was

undertaken by Palardy (1968, 1969). Specifically, he sought

to determine whether teachers' reported beliefs about first-

grade boys' probable success in reading had any effect on

their achievement in that area. To arrive at this

determination Palardy administered a questionnaire designed

to elicit teachers* beliefs concerning the probable success

of first-grade boys in learning to read.

At the beginning of the school year, five first-grade

teachers who reported that they believed that boys are as

successful as girls in learning to read (Group A) were

matched with five teachers who indicated that they believed

that boys are less successful than girls in learning to read

(Group B). It was found that in Group A the boys achieved as

6

well as the girls. In Group B the boys were less successful

than the girls.

Palardy's study seems to suggest that teachers' beliefs

and expectancies regarding their pupils' potential for

learning may affect their academic achievement. The quasi-

experimental design of the study makes such a conclusion

somewhat tentative, however.

Seaver (1973) obtained a sample of 79 pairs of siblings

from the class rosters of two elementary and junior high

schools in which they were enrolled. The sibling pairs

included in the sample were separated by no more than three

grade levels and had completed Grade 1 in the same school.

Younger siblings were classified according to whether their

older sibling had been a high or low performer in Grade 1.

It was hypothesized that pupils taught by the same teachers

as their older siblings (expectancy condition) would perform

better than those taught by a different teacher (control

condition) if their older siblings had been good students and

worse than the controls if their older siblings had performed

poorly.

The mean scores of the younger siblings as measured by

SAT subtests and their teacher - assigned Winter and Spring

grade-point averages were computed and compared. As

predicted, when the older siblings' performance was high, the

younger siblings taught by the same teachers scored higher (

than the control group on all variables. Conversely, when

7

the older siblings' performance was low, the expectancy group

(younger siblings taught by the same teachers) scored lower

than the controls.

The findings of Seaver's study suggest again that

student performance is influenced in a predictable direction

by teacher expectations. The findings are, however, only

suggestive due to the correlational nature of the study.

Objectively, it establishes a correlation between performance

of older and younger siblings for those with the same

teacher. Nevertheless, it is difficult to separate the

effects of home environment and student expectancies from

those of teacher expectancies. The obtained effects could be

attributed to the students as well as the their teachers. It

is quite likely, for example, that student expectancies were

derived in part from knowledge of their older siblings'

experiences with the same teacher which may in some

substantial way, have influenced their performance as much as

or more than did teacher expectancies. These factors suggest

that the results of Seaver's study while suggestive are

equivocal.

Sutherland and Goldschmid (1974) provide evidence that

low or negative teacher expectations may adversely affect the

performance of pupils with high academic potential. They

asked a group of elementary school teachers to use their own

subjective criteria to estimate each of their pupils'

academic ability. The students were rated according to the

8

following categories: (1) poor, (2) below average, (3)

average, (4) above average, and (5) superior. The students

were administered IQ tests individually with a pre- and

posttest interval of five months.

The results indicated that where the teacher ranked a

superior student, as defined by a high IQ, as "average" or

"below average" the IQs of those students decreased during

the test intervals. No significant positive or negative

changes in IQ occurred when the teacher ranked a superior

student as "above average" or "superior." No relationship

was found between teachers* expectations and IQ gain whether

or not original IQ values were partialled out. Thus, it

appears that intellectual development and functioning may be

adversely affected when a teacher expects less from a

superior student than he is capable of delivering. The

results also suggest that it may be easier to lower the

performance level of a child with relatively high academic

potential relative to his teacher's expectation than it would

to accomplish the reverse. Once again, other interpretations

are also possible.

A critical issue germane to the relationship between

teacher expectations and student achievement is that of

causation: Do children's characteristics and actions

determine teachers' expectations or are teachers'

expectations determined by children's academic and social

behavior? Crano and Mellon (1978) utilized the cross-lagged

9

panel correlational method (Campbell, 1963; Campbell &

Stanley, 1963; Pelz & Andrews, 1964) which permits causal as

opposed to purely correlational inferences, in an attempt to

answer this question.

Crano and Mellon utilized a sample of 4,300 beginning

elementary pupils. The students were tested at yearly

intervals for four years on a number of social, attitudinal,

and academic variables. Teachers* rankings of the children's

general classroom demeanor (e.g., the student's propensity to

disobey, to be orderly, etc.); reasoning or arithmetic

ability (two types of rating); and global or general

abilities, were obtained. In addition, the students were

administered achievement tests at the end of each of the four

years of the study.

Crano and Mello found positive differences in 62 of 84

possible comparisons indicative of the causal primacy of the

teachers' evaluations and expectations of the pupils' later

performance. While they did not deny that the pupils' early

performance influenced later teacher evaluations, they

concluded that the effect of early expectations and

evaluations made by the teachers far outweighed the impact of

early student performance and behavior on later esrpectations.

Conceptually, Crano and Mellon's study assessed two

different types of teacher expectancies. One type was

concerned primarily with the child's social skills or

conduct: Did the child have a positive attitude toward

10

school work, was he a pleasure to have in class, was he

obedient? The second type was concerned with the teacher's

evaluation of the child's academic status, as denoted by the

ratings of the child's reading and arithmetic and general

ability.

The most consistent result in favor of the expectancy

hypothesis was obtained from teachers' ratings of the

students' social skills rather than their academic

performance. This finding suggests that teachers'

expectations are not merely reflective of the pupils'

objectively determined academic skills. If this

interpretation were accurate it would be expected that the

academic expectancy measures would have been more predictive

of later performance than the social expectancy measures. It

should be noted that some of the social ratings items

utilized by Crano and Mellon, e.g., "positive attitude toward

school work" and "pleasure to have in class," could be

arguably classified as academic ratings. Thus, a teacher's

social evaluations and expectations of a child would appear

to have significant impact on that child's academic

performance.

Crano and Mellon's findings do not invalidate the

assumption that teachers * expectations are caused by student

performances. The results to a degree support that

assumption. However, the findings very strongly suggest that

teachers' expectations significantly influence the

11

{

performance of students. They further suggest that teachers'

expectations influence students' performances more than

students' performances influence teachers' expectations.

Collectively, the studies reviewed to this point

suggest that differential teacher attitudes regarding

students' academic behavior may well be actualized in the

students' achievement and growth.

Teacher Attitudes and Student Self-perceptions

There is a substantial body of evidence which suggests

that differential teacher attitudes may influence students•

self-concepts as well as their classroom performance. That

is, pupils' self-perceptions to a significant degree are

formed through interaction with their teachers (Banks &

Grambs, 1972; Brookover & Erikson, 1967; 1969; Davidson &

Lang, 1965; Foshay, 1953; Glidewell et al., 1966; Morse,

1964; Perkins, 1958; Slobetz & Lund, 1956; Staines, 1965;

Wattenberg & Clifford, 1962; Washburne & Heil, 1960;

Washington, 1979). Generally, these studies have found

strong relationships between children's self-concepts and

their academic achievement. Moreover, they further suggest

that the more positive students believe their teachers feel

about them, the better their academic performance.

In a representative study Davidson and Lang (1965)

attempted to determine if pupils' perception of their

teachers' feelings are related to their self-concept, school

achievement, and classroom behavior. They began by

12

administering a checklist of trait names used by respondents

to describe how people feel about them and how they feel

about themselves, to 203 fourth, fifth, and sixth graders in

a New York City public school. The list was administered

twice. During the first administration the pupils were

instructed to respond to the 35 adjectives comprising the

list in terms of "My teacher thinks I am ..." This list or

scale yields a measure of perceived teacher feelings,

referred to as the Index of Favorability. The second

administration of the checklist measured the students' self-

perceptions.

The teachers rated how well their pupils performed

academically on a four-point scale: Very Well, Adequately,

Below Average, and Very Poorly. At the same time, the

teacher also rated each child on 10 behavioral or personality

characteristics.

Correlational analyses of the results of the four

measurements just described indicated clearly that the

pupils who had a more favorable or positive self-concept

also perceived their teachers' feelings toward them to be

more favorable or positive. This finding supports the view

that a pupil's self assessment is related to his or her

perception of how "significant people" feel about him or her.

It was also found that while not necessarily causally

related, the more positive the pupil's perception of their

teachers' feelings, the better their academic achievement.

13

These findings are consistent with previous studies by

Ausubel (1954) and Jourard and Remy (1955) which indicated

that teachers are among the significant people believed to

affect children's feeling about themselves.

Finally, Davidson and Lang also found that the more

positive the children's perception of their teachers'

feelings, the better was their academic achievement and the

more desirable their classroom behavior as rated by the

teachers. The children who were rated by their teachers, as

being disorderly, defiant, unfriendly, or troublesome,

perceived their teachers' feelings toward them as being less

favorable than children not so rated. Furthermore, the mean

favorability index declined with decline in achievement level

and decline in social class.

Overall, the results of Davidson and Lang's study seem

to imply that a teacher's reaction to a child may be

influenced by his or her social status and other personal and

behavioral characteristics. The study does not lend itself

to the determination of causality. It does suggest, however,

that certain pupils* characteristics, such as self-

perception, perceived teacher feelings, achievement, and

behavior in school, are interrelated.

The preceding review of the literature was concerned

with evidence with seems to demonstrate a relationship

between teacher attitudes and the nature of students'

classroom behavior. The literature seems to support the

14

following contentions: teachers form differing attitudes

toward students' academic abilities and behaviors; and

students' self-perception and performance tend to reflect

their perceived teacher attitudes toward them.

Teachers' Attitudes and Perceived Student Characteristics

While it is important to determine whether teachers

hold differing attitudes toward their students and whether

these attitudes influence student academic performance, it is

equally important to determine the source or basis for such

attitudes. The source presumably may be located in two major

areas - the teachers' subjective reactions to certain

attributes of their students and the ethnocultural make-up of

the teachers themselves.

This section provides a brief look at some student

attributes which appear to elicit differentiating teacher

attitudes and interactions. Among the more salient student

attributes which have been shown to elicit differing teacher

attitudes are ethnicity, socioeconomic status, divergent

speech patterns and gender (Stern & Keislar, 1977). In

accordance with the central concern of this proposal only

those studies pertaining to student ethnicity and linguistic

orientations are reviewed here.

Student Ethnicity and Teachers' Attitudes. Research

indicates that disadvantaged, racial minority, and lower

class children are perceived differently by their teachers,

in contrast to their advantaged, racial majority, and middle

15

class counterparts. For example, Jensen and Rosenfeld (1974)

conducted an experiment wherein teachers were selected from a

randomly generated list of schools in a large southwestern

city. The teachers were asked to evaluate individual middle

and lower class Anglo, Chicano, and Black students on a set

of 15 semantic-differential scales dealing with teachers*

classroom evaluative criteria.

The teachers were placed into groups based upon mode of

stimulus presentation; audio (listening to speech without

visual cues), visual (seeing without vocal cues), and audio

visual (seeing and hearing stimuli simultaneously) and were

then exposed to videotapes of the students. The students

were recorded in interview situations in which they were

asked to discuss their favorite television shows and games.

The tapes contained edited portions of these interviews which

were approximately two minutes in duration. After exposure

to the stimulus tapes, the teachers rated each student on the

semantic scales. Overall, Jensen and Rosenfeld found that

Anglo students were regarded more favorably than either Black

and Chicano students, respectively. This preference was

generally the case in all modes of presentation.

Lov/er class anglo students were generally rated more

favorably than both middle- and lower-class Chicanos. These

findings are consistent with the results of similar studies

which dealt with the evaluation of various ethnic groups

based on vocal cues (Harms, 1961; Moe, 1972; Naremore, 1971;

16

Williams et al., 1971). These studies found that social

class made no significant difference in the ratings for

Chicano students, who were consistently rated at the lower

end of the scales.

Utilizing an interaction coding system to classify

teacher verbal behavior as related to student behavior,

Jackson and Cosca (1974) assessed teacher verbal behavior

with reference student ethnicity within schools of the

Southwest United States. Observers visited 494 classrooms

which were predominately Anglo and Chicano in student

composition. They found that the teachers observed, praised,

or encouraged Anglo students 35% more than they did Chicano

students. In addition, teachers accepted or used Anglo

students1 ideas 40% more than they did those of Chicano

students, and directed 21% more questions to Anglos than to

Chicanos. While this study does not specify whether its

findings applied irrespective of what the students said, it

suggests that teachers tend to interact with their students

in terms of the latter's ethnic characteristics.

Marwit, Marwit, and Walker (1978) executed a study of

the effects of student ethnicity on teacher judgment of the

severity of classroom misbehavior. They designed an

instrument consisting of fabricated "incident reports"

(descriptions of student behavioral transgressions in the

classroom) to 60 White student teachers. On page one of the

instrument appeared the picture of a fourth grade Black or

17

White child who had "perpetrated the incident." The second

page consisted of 15 statements regarding the severity of the

incident ("e.g., Compared to everyday classroom behaviors,

the misbehavior described is not serious"), disciplinary

action recommended ("e.g., I would normally recommend

suspension from school for such an incident."), or character

evaluation ("e.g., Considering the situation, it is likely

that the child will indulge in behavior similar to this in

the future."). Each statement was followed by a five-point

Likert-type scale ranging from "strongly agree" to "strongly

disagree." Page three consisted of the Pupil Control

Ideology Scale, a teacher authoritarianism scale developed by

Willower et al. (1973). This scale was included as a measure

of concurrent validity for the 15-item "incident" scale.

The instrument was administered to the student teachers

during orientation to student teaching and again 16 weeks

later at the conclusion of practice teaching. It was found

that no racial partiality was exhibited in the teachers'

responses to the fabricated reports, prior to student

teaching. That is, there was not a significant difference

between Black and White student pre-teaching evaluations.

Post-teaching ratings showed a significant increase in how

the teachers judged the severity of the Black children's

misbehaviors. No comparable change occurred in the ratings

of the White children. (

Teacher Attitudes and Student Speech Characteristics

18

The language or dialect spoken by the student is an

attribute which is frequently confounded with student

ethnicity and social class. Anisfeld et al. (1962), Buck

(1968), Naremore (1971), and Williams and Naremore (1971)

provide evidence that ethnic and social class

characteristics are transmitted paralinguistically, i.e.,

through the non-content, vocal properties of speech.

Cohen and Kimmerling (1971) in their review of 18

studies dealing with attitudes based on speech differences,

reported that race was correctly identified from hearing

alone 95% of the time. The speech patterns heard were

associated by their listeners with stereotypical attitudes

regarding the personal traits and abilities of the speakers.

Cohen and Kimmerling noted that without exception the

research literature indicates that linguistically based

attitudes and stereotypes affect teachers• perceptions of

their students. Interestingly, they also noted that if the

same linguistic performance is attributed to a White student

it is given a higher rating by White teachers. Furthermore,

nonstandard speakers are consistently rated low in education,

intelligence, socioeconomic status, and speaking ability.

A comprehensive series of studies carried out by

Williams et al. (1971), suggest that judgments based on

speech characteristics are generally predictive of how

children are both graded and assigned to classrooms.

Rosenfeld (1973) found that listening to speech with no

19

visual cues as to the race of the speaker, was the most

critical factor (as compared to visual and combined

audiovisual factors) in establishing the stereotypical

attitudes of teachers. Similarly, Gilberts, Guckin, & Leeds

(1972) found that while ethnicity, social class, and language

cues affect the ratings White teachers assign to students,

language and social class have far greater impact in

producing negative assessments.

In the foregoing sections of this review, evidence was

cited which suggests that teachers' attitudes toward

students may influence the level of their students' academic

performance and self-perceptions. This section of the review

presented evidence which indicates that teachers subjectively

react to certain attributes of students, e.g., their

perceived ethnicity, social class, and speech

characteristics. These subjective reactions may predispose

teachers to evaluate essentially similar abilities,

behaviors, and performances by students belonging to

different ethnic or linguistic groups differently. It is not

clear why these differences in ratings occur, that is, it is

not clear how or why such reactions are learned. In light of

the evidence presented in this section as well as in the

previous sections it seems that a proportion of lower-class

or ethnic minority children may fail to achieve at grade

level for reasons other than lack of ability or classroom

behavior.

20

Teacher Attitudes and Their Own Ethnocultural Background

We have examined evidence which supports the contention

that teachers hold differential attitudes toward students in

their classrooms. This evidence also suggests that

generally, teachers tend to perceive and evaluate their

students in accordance with their attitudes toward them.

Evidence was also presented which indicates that

students* ethnocultural and social class characteristics are

two major sources of differential teacher attitudes,

interactive and evaluative orientations. Student attributes

which elicit differentiated teacher attitudes are ethnicity,

socioeconomic class, divergent speech characteristics or

languages, level of ability or achievement performance, and

classroom behavior (Stern & Keislar, 1977). Consequently,

such differential teacher attitudes may predispose them to

behave differentially toward their students.

A second major, and perhaps primary, source of

teachers' differential attitudinal behaviors toward their

students may be the teachers* own personal and social

attributes. For example, teachers* ethnicity or

ethnocultural attributes, may also predispose them to behave

differentially toward their students. In this section

evidence is presented which suggests that a relationship

exists between teachers' evaluative behavior toward the

academic performance of their students and teachers'

ethnocultural background.

21

An ethnocultural group "is a collection of individuals

who have in common any of the following: (1) national

origin; (2) language and cultural traditions; (3) religion;

or (4) readily identifiable physical features" (Watson &

Johnson, 1972). Generally, an ethnoculture is a complex

whole which includes certain knowledge, beliefs, morals,

laws, customs, and other capabilities and habits acguired by

the members of an identifiable societal group (Wallace,

1970).

Members of an ethnic group may also exhibit

ethnocentric attitudes. Such attitudes are defined as

feelings and beliefs by one ethnic group that other ethnic

groups are inferior, less likeable, and amoral, etc. Less

formally stated, ethnocentrism refers to the tendency for

each ethnic group to believe in the superiority of its

culture (Horton & Hunt, 1982). Ethnocentrism is often the

central force behind intergroup and interpersonal conflict,

misperceptions, and prejudicial behavior (Green, 1968).

Ethnocentrism may conceivably be an operating and

determining factor relative to the nature of teachers1

attitudinal behaviors toward their students, especially when

the ethnocultural background of students and teachers differ

significantly. Under such circumstances it would be expected

that each ethnic category of teacher would exhibit more

favorable attitudinal behaviors toward students who belong to

his or her own ethnic group than toward students belonging to

22

other ethnic groups (other factors held constant). Studies

which have investigated the evaluative behavior of teachers

whose ethnocultural background is both the same as and

different from the ethnocultural background of their students

is the focus of this section. The central subject matter of

this investigation is the evaluative relationship of Black,

Hispanic, and White teachers to their students. Previous

studies which have specifically investigated this

relationship which include Hispanic teachers are extremely

rare. Studies of Black and White teacher evaluative

attitudes toward Black and White students are relatively more

numerous. It is for this reason that the studies reviewed in

the following sections pertain the evaluative attitudes of

Black and White teachers toward Black and White students.

However, some indications of teacher attitudes toward

Hispanic students as compared to Black and White (Anglo)

students were discussed previously (Jackson & Cosca, 1974;

Jensen & Rosenfeld, 1974). These studies suggested that

Hispanic students are less generally favorably perceived and

evaluated by teachers than are White and Black students,

respectively (no ethnic differentiation was made in regard to

the teachers).

Attitudes as Measured by Surveys. Gottlieb (1964),

utilizing an adjective checklist, investigated the

differences in attitudes of Black and White elementary

school teachers toward Black and White pupils from low-

23

income families. Each teacher was given a list containing 33

adjectives and asked to check those adjectives which come

closest to describing the outstanding characteristics of the

children with whom he or she was working. Of the 33

adjectives listed, the two groups of teachers differed

significantly on fifteen. The five items used most

frequently to describe all their students by White teachers

were: "Talkative," "Lazy," "Fun Loving," "High Strung," and

"Rebellious," respectively. The items most frequently

selected by Black teachers to describe all their students

were: "Fun Loving," "Happy," "Cooperative," "Energetic," and

"Ambitious." Generally, White teachers tended to avoid those

adjectives which reflect stability and the types of qualities

commonly desired of children in the formal classroom setting.

Black teachers tended to select those adjectives which seem

to be universal attributes of children (i.e., energetic, fun

loving, and happy) in addition to those which appear to be

related to successful learning experiences (i.e., ambitious

and cooperative). Overall, Gottlieb reported that the Black

teachers were less pessimistic in their evaluations of the

students than were the White teachers. It should be noted

that Gottlieb did not report the attitudes of the two groups

of teachers toward each group of students (i.e., Black and

White).

Washington (1980) identified twelve characteristics

"important for children in school." She listed six as

24

positive: brightest/high achiever; most cooperative; well-

adjusted to school; best all around student; physically

attractive; winning personality. The remaining six

characteristics were listed as negative: troublemaker/

defiant/uncooperative; has academic problems; immature/has

adjustment problems; destructive/gets into fights; lazy/

doesn't apply self; needs to improve physical appearance.

During individual interviews, teachers were asked to

designate two children to each one of the twelve

characteristics, i.e., two children who best exemplified the

relevant trait. These designations were later coded

according to the ethnicity of the teachers and students.

Overall, Black teachers selected more Black children to

positive categories (e.g., brightest/high achiever, most

cooperative) than did White teachers. Black teachers

selected 35 percent of the Black children to the positive

categories, whereas, White teachers designated only 22

percent of the Black children to the groups representing

positive characteristics. The attitudes of the two groups of

teachers toward the White students were not reported.

Relative to the characterization of Black children, this

study seems to suggest ethnocultural differences in the

perception of children does occur, particularly betx̂ een Black

and White teachers.

In a second study utilizing the same list described in

the previous paragraph, Washington (1982) interviewed Black

25

and White elementary school teachers. In this instance, both

Black and White teachers perceived White students more

positively than Black students. In contrast to this general

finding, however, a number of significant differences

relative to specific characterizations of students by the

teachers were found. For example, compared to Black

teachers, White teachers indicated that White students needed

to improve their personal appearance and that Black students

had academic problems. Conversely, Black teachers most often

indicated that Black students needed to improve their

personal appearance and that White students had academic

problems. Thus, in regard to academic problems,

Washington's findings suggest that some apparently

ethnocentric differences in the perception of children may

exist between Black and White teachers.

The studies cited above suggest that when specific

characterizations or evaluations of Black and White students

are noted, particularly those which are relevant to academic

performance, ethnocultural and perhaps ethnocentric

differences between Black and White teachers may exist. In

all three studies discussed in this section there are

indications that in selecting those pupils who seemed to

exhibit those characteristics relevant to successful learning

experiences (e.g., ambitious and cooperative, brightest/high

achiever, relative lack of academic problems), Black teachers

tended to view Black children more favorably than White

26

teachers did.

Attitudes as Measured by Simulation Studies. Scott and

Ntegeye (1978) assessed Black and White public school

teachers1 evaluations of four presumably distinctive

attitudes, values, motivational, and behavioral patterns

characteristic of their disadvantaged, inner-city students.

The patterns selected for this study represented personality

characteristics identified by Clift (1969) as basic to and

distinctive of disadvantaged minority students:

1. low-self-esteem; negative feelings of personal

worth; self-deprecatory reactions;

2. unrealistically high levels of aspirations, yet

low levels of aspiration when concrete action is

needed;

3. negative reaction to new situations; submissive

reactions in situations which the student does not

feel capable of mastering; problem-solving through

repeated withdrawal in threatening situations;

4. peer-orientation; attracted more to the values of

peers than to those of adults (p. 101).

The teachers were administered a "Situation Test"

consisting of eight story-situations depicting elementary

school children engaged in various class activities. In each

of the situations, the students exhibited a behavioral

sequence indicative of one of the four personality

characteristics listed above. For each situation, the

27

I.

teachers rated the students on a single behavior dimension:

a five-point scale ranging from (1) "most like to have

student in class" to (5) "least like to have student in

class." The higher the score, the higher the rejection

response. The mean rejection response of White teachers was

nearly twice that of Black teachers. This finding suggests

that Black teachers tend to express a greater preference for

and acceptance of students manifesting traits characteristic

of disadvantaged minority students than do White teachers.

This finding is consistent with those of the previous section

which suggest that teachers from different ethnocultural

backgrounds evaluate specific characteristics of students

differently.

Critical Overview

The review of the literature in the preceding sections

presented evidence which supports the following contentions:

(1) Teachers differ in their attitudes toward students*

academic behavior and these attitudes are related to student

performance; (2) Students* self-perceptions are related to

their teachers* perception of them; (3) Teachers'

expectations in regard to students' academic performance are

related to their students' ethnocultural,, linguistic, and

social status background.

In the last section of the review evidence was

presented which indicates that teacher attitudes are (

ethnoculturally and possibly ethnocentrically based. The

28

concept of ethnocultural orientation implies that members of

an ethnic group, despite national background,

denominational, social status, or individual differences

among them, do resemble one another in certain fundamental

patterns of cultural beliefs, attitudes, and conduct, more

than they resemble members of other ethnic and cultural

groups. Ethnocentric orientation refers to the view that

one's ethnic group is obviously superior to all others and

the view that other groups are less attractive, intelligent,

moral, etc., than one's own (Allport, 1935). Evidence was

cited which suggests that Black and White teachers tend to

differ in their attitude toward Black and White pupils,

particularly in areas related to the pupils' academic and

social functioning. The two groups of teachers differed in

their attitudes toward Black and White pupils in areas

related to the possession by the pupils of characteristics

which reflect stability and the types of qualities commonly

desired of children in the formal classroom setting, e.g.,

initiative or energy, ambitiousness, cooperativeness

(Gottlieb, 1964); brightness, achievement motivation,

attractiveness, lack of academic problems (Washington, 1980;

1982); self-esteem, level of aspiration, reactions to new

situations and problems, peer orientation (Scott & Ntegeye,

1978). In these areas Black teachers more favorably regarded

Black students than White students and White teachers more

favorably regarded White students than Black students. Thus,

29

it appears that relative to certain perceived academic and

personal traits, Black and White teachers differed in their

estimation of the degree to which such characteristics were

exhibited by their Black and White pupils. Since their

differences tended to follow ethnic lines such differences

could arguably be ethnocentrically and/or ethnoculturally

based.

However, conclusions based on studies reviewed in the

last section of this investigation must be drawn with

caution for a number critical reasons: (1) the extreme

paucity of truly relevant studies which can be viewed as

tests of the hypothesis in question - that teachers1

attitudes toward their students may be ethnoculturally or

ethnocentrically oriented; (2) inadequate sample sizes; (3)

lack of observational follow-ups (except Washington, 1980) to

determine whether teachers' classroom and evaluative

behaviors were in agreement with their expressed attitudes

toward certain groups of students; (4) the use of artificial,

simulated, paper-and-pencil situations which make realistic

extrapolations extremely risky.

However, taken altogether, the studies discussed in the

last section suggest that teachers, Black and White teachers

at least, hold ethnoculturally and perhaps ethnocentrically

based attitudes towards their student in regard to certain

specific abilities, behaviors, and traits. If teachers' (

evaluations of their students' behavior is congruent with

30

their attitudes, these studies further imply that such

evaluated student behavior would also to a degree, be

ethnoculturally and/or ethnocentrically oriented.

It was noted that the central focus of this study was to

investigate the relationship between the ethnocultural

background of teachers, i.e., Black, Hispanic and White

teachers, and the ways they evaluate the performance of their

students, also Black, Hispanic and White. Studies which

compare the evaluative behavior of these three groups of

teachers are simply not available. However, there is

evidence which suggests that when ethnicity of teachers is

not considered, Hispanic students are less favorably

perceived than are White and Black students.

Problem

While the research literature consistently and clearly

delineates several student characteristics which may serve as

stimuli that evoke non-objective teacher attitudinal

orientations, it has to a substantial extent not attempted to

delineate the origins of such tendencies relative to the

personality and other characteristics of teachers themselves.

In the latter section of the review studies were cited which

seem to suggest that some of the non-objective attitudes held

by teachers may be ethnoculturally and ethnocentrically

based. That is, teachers' ethnocultural background

experiences tend to influence their perceptions and

evaluations of their students. However, studies which have

31

investigated comparatively, the relationship between

teachers' ethnocultural background and their perceptions of

their students are very sparse. For example, only

Washington's studies (1980, 1982) speak directly to the

influence of teachers* ethnocultural backgrounds and

ethnocentric orientations on their perceptions of and

attitudes toward their students. A search of the relevant

literature failed to locate any studies which have

investigated the relationship between teachers• ethnocultural

background and their actual evaluation of their students*

academic and social performance, particularly when those

students belong to different ethnic groups. An important

question arises as to whether there can exist equal

educational opportunity and equal opportunity for

intellectual growth for certain ethnic group students if

their teachers evaluate them on the basis of potentially

unfair ethnocultural and ethnocentric orientations.

Attitudes and Behavior

An attitude is a learned predisposition to respond in a

specific way, negatively or positively, toward people,

ideas, or situations (Haber & Runyon, 1983). A major reason

for studying attitudes is the expectation by many social

scientists chat they may predict behavior. The assumption

that a person's attitudes determine his or her behavior is

deeply ingrained in social psychology (Allport, 1935). While

some attitude constructs frequently do predict behavior

32

(Dillehay, 1973; deFleur & Westie, 1952, Weitz, 1972), there

is evidence that there frequently is no one-to-one

correspondence between expressed attitude and subsequent

behavior (Azjen & Fishbein, 1980; Wicker, 1969).

In light of the foregoing discussion, there is a

question as to whether teachers* attitudes toward their

students' as indicated by the studies cited in the review,

can predict teachers' evaluations of their students*

performance under actual education conditions. None of the

studies cited in the review demonstrated that systematic

relationships exist between teachers' attitudes toward their

students and their evaluation of their students' academic

performance. Until studies which demonstrate such

relationships have been performed inferences regarding

teachers• attitudes and their related evaluations of their

students• academic performance must be viewed as tenuous or

of doubtful validity.

In summary, two major problems exist in the study of

the relationship between teachers' ethnocultural background

and their perception and evaluation of students. These

problems include: (1) the fact that few, if any, studies

have determined the relationship between ethnoculturallv

related teacher attitudes toward their students and their

actual academic and social evaluation of their students, and

(2) the fact that few, if any, studies have determined the

relationship between teachers' ethnocultural background and

33

their actual evaluation of their students* academic and

social performance. It is the latter problem which was the

focus of this investigation.

Purpose

The purpose of this was to investigate the above

problems (the first one indirectly) through an examination of

teachers• actual evaluation of their students * academic and

social performance as related to the ethnocultural

backgrounds of teachers and students. This study was

designed to determine if teachers, specifically, Black,

Hispanic, and White elementary school teachers, evaluate

their students• academic and social performance in ways

related to their ethnocultural backgrounds as well as those

of their students. Assuming, as was suggested by the last

section of the review, that teachers' attitudes toward their

students tend to be ethnoculturally related, this study also

proposed to determine if those attitudes are predictive of

teachers' actual evaluative performance.

Conceptual Hypotheses

Evidence presented in the last two sections of the

review suggested the following: (1) Teachers' attitudes

coward their students are related to and reflective of their

students* ethnocultural, linguistic, and social status

background. Specifically, studies were reviewed which

suggest that when ethnicity of teachers is not considered,

34

White students are more favorably perceived and evaluated

than are Black and Hispanic students, respectively. (2)

Teachers differentially evaluate their students' academically

related behavior and social/personal characteristics partly

in ways related to the teachers' own ethnocultural

backgrounds. (3) Teachers tend to evaluate the non-academic

and academically related behavior (i.e., students' personal

and behavioral characteristics which may influence their

academic performance, e.g., grades in specific subjects) of

students belonging to their own ethnic group more favorably

than those belonging to other ethnic groups.

In light of the above evidence it was hypothesized that:

1. In their ratings of their students' academic and

social performance, Black, Hispanic, and White

teachers as a whole, would rate the academic and

social performance of White students more

favorably than Black and Hispanic students,

respectively. Social performance includes

personal and social conduct, work habits,

homework, and health habits.

2. a. Black teachers would rate the academic and

academically related social performance of Black

students significantly higher than would White and

Hispanic teachers.

b. Black teachers would rate the academic and

social performance of Black students significantly

35

higher than that of White and Hispanic students,

producing a relative ranking of Black, White, and

Hispanic students.

a. Hispanic teachers would rate the academic and

social performance of Hispanic students

significantly higher than would Black and White

teachers.

b. Hispanic teachers would rate the academic and


significantly higher than that of White and Black

students, producing a relative ranking of

Hispanic, White, and Black students.

a. White teachers would rate the academic and

social performance of White students significantly

higher than will Black and Hispanic teachers.

b. White teachers would rate the academic and


higher than that of Black and Hispanic students,

producing a relative ranking of White, Black, and

Hispanic students.

36

CHAPTER II

METHOD

Subjects

The subjects of this investigation were 45 Black,

Hispanic, and White elementary school teachers and 405 of

their Black, Hispanic, and White students who teach in and

attend schools located in New York City. The 45 teachers

included 15 subjects from each ethnocultural group. The 405

students [nine subjects per teacher] included three from each

ethnocultural group of students per teacher. Ethnicity of

students and teachers were identified through examination of

official records by the school principals. Ethnicity of

student subjects were identified by classroom teachers

according to their records.

The schools from which both the teacher and student

samples were chosen were located in areas of a large school

district of mixed ethnic residence. Though predominantly

Black and Hispanic in composition, the neighborhoods from

which the student samples were drawn contained large White

populations as well. On the whole, the target communities

may be described as containing a mixture of private

households and well-kept apartment dwellings. The

37

communities may be socioeconomiocally described as generally

lower-middle- and upper-working class.

The large majority of the students attending the schools

in the selected district were Black and Hispanic

[approximately 70 - 80%]. In contrast to the size and ethnic

composition of the district's student population, only a

minority of its teachers are Black and Hispanic

[approximately 20 - 25%]. These percentages of students and

teachers fairly typify the student-teacher composition of New

York City schools as a whole, though marked variations in

student and teacher population occur in many districts [New

York City Board of Education, 1989].

All of the schools utilized in this investigation,

except one, were headed by White principals and as stated

above, all of their teaching staffs were predominantly White.

The selected district's elementary schools ranked slightly

above average in reading and math achievement test score

averages compared to other elementary school districts in

New York City [New York City Board of Education, 1988].

Reading and math achievement test score averages varied

considerably within districts as they did within the system

as a whole [New York City Board of Education, 1988.]

Instrument

The "Report To Parents" or the "Student Progress

Report", commonly referred to as a "report card", is a

uniform report which is filled out by the teacher and sent to

38

parents at the end of three marking periods during the

academic year. (See Appendix A for a sample card). The

report card was utilized to abstract information relevant to

the goals of this investigation. The card consists of three

major sections. The first section records the student's

academic achievement in various subject areas. Achievement

is rated according to four categories: E = excellent; S =

satisfactory; N = needs improvement; U = unsatisfactory.

Specifically, the student's performance is evaluated in the

following subject matter areas; Reading, Oral Language,

Written Language, Mathematics, Social Studies, Science, Music

and Art.

The second section of the report card records the

teacher's evaluation of the pupil's achievement in [1]

Personal and Social Development; [2] Work Habits; [3]

Homework; [4] Health; and [5] Physical Education. Each of

these areas are further subdivided into specific categories.

These activity areas are also rated according to the same

four categories indicated above. A total of 38 categories

were utilized by this investigation. They are listed in

Table 1.

The third section provides space for the teacher's

comments to the parents concerning the student's deportment,

adjustment, and other pertinent matters. Space is also

provided for parental responses to the teacher.

Each category in the first and second sections were

39

assigned values to aid in computation and analysis: E = 4.0;

S = 3.0; N = 2.0; U = 1.0. The "E" category is used by

teachers to denote student performance which is judged to be

significantly above average or superior. Student performance

which is considered average is assigned to the "S" category.

The "N" category is used by teachers to indicate that the

student's performance is less than satisfactory but not

seriously problematic or low-average. It is also used to

indicate that the child's previously unsatisfactory behavior

is improving but not yet satisfactory or conversely, that

previously satisfactory behavior is deteriorating. Category

"U" denotes that the student's performance is well below

average or that the student failed or is failing to perform

on an acceptable level. In light of these factors the "N"

category can be considered to be of intermediate value

between the "S" and "U" categories.

Table 1

List of Variable Major Dependent Variables and Their Sub-Categories

COMMUNICATIONS ARTS VI Learns new words V2 Roads with understanding V3 Shows an interest in reading V4 Listens carefully V5 Employs standard English V6 Expresses thoughts clearly

( (Continued on next page)

40

Table 1 Continued

List of Variable Major Dependent Variables and Their Sub-Categories

WRITTEN LANGUAGE V7 Expresses thoughts clearly V8 Writes creatively V9 Uses correct sentence structure V10 Uses correct spelling Vll Writes legibly MATHEMATICS VI2 Knows number facts V13 Uses computation V14 Shows knowledge of other math concepts V15 Applies skills in problem solving & statistics V16 Demonstrates problem solving skills SOCIAL STUDIES V17 Understands & interprets information VI8 Is aware of current events V19 Understands map & globe skills V20 Learns use of reference material SCIENCE V21 Knows science facts & concepts V22 Understands & uses scientific method MUSIC V23 Participates in classroom & school music activities ART V24 Participates in classroom & school art activities HEALTH V25 Understands basic health concepts PHYSICAL EDUCATION V26 Participates in activities V27 Performs required skills WORK HABITS V28 Follows directions V29 Completes work on time V30 Shows initiative V31 Works neatly V32 Takes care of books & materials V33 Homework PERSONAL & SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT V34 Gets along well with others V35 Shows rocpcct V36 Carries out responsibilities V37 Obeys rules & regulations V38 Shows self-control

41

Procedures

In order to collect the data necessary to the completion

of this investigation permission to conduct research in the

elementary schools was obtained from the New York City Board

of Education, Office of Educational Assessment. [See

Appendices B and C]. The process of obtaining permission

from the New York City Board of Education involved writing of

two initial letters asking its authorization to conduct

research in its elementary schools and detailing the research

procedures to be utilized in collecting the data relevant to

this investigation.

In addition, the investigator agreed to the Office of

Educational Assessment's stipulations and restrictions which

included not identifying teachers, students, schools or other

personnel by names or in ways which would violate individual

and institutional privacy rights. After agreeing to these

stipulations the request for permission was reviewed and

passed by the Proposal Review Committee of the Office of

Educational Assessment. While permission was granted by the

Board of Education the participation in this investigation of

district superintendents, principals and teachers was

voluntary. Moreover, districts which contained the student

and teacher sample populations had to foe located and

persuaded by the investigator to participate in this

research.

Four school districts contacted did not contain the

42

requisite population samples though their superintendents

were cordially helpful to the research herein. Two district

superintendents whose schools contained the requisite

student and teacher sample populations refused requests to do

research in their districts because they or their local

boards of education expressed the fear that the ethnic focus

of the research might stimulate ethnic tensions and

sensitivies. Finally, the superintendent of the school

district utilized in this investigation responded favorably

to the request to perform the required data collection the

schools under his purview.

After permission to do research in the district by the

district superintendent was obtained, the office of the

deputy superintendent assisted this researcher by providing a

list of schools whose demographics fit the requirements of

this investigation. The deputy superintendent also made

initial contact with the school principals whose schools were

selected for study. These initial contacts were followed-up

by a visit to the schools by the investigator. The school

principals identified those teachers whose ethnicity and

classroom student ethnic composition met the demands of this

investigation. Additionally, the principals provided the

researcher with a letter of introduction explaining to the

teachers the purpose of his visit to their classrooms and

requesting their cooperation.

Specifically, the teachers were instructed to select

43

randomly the report cards of three students from each

student ethnic group. The teachers supplied the requisite

number of report cards to the investigator who took them to

the principal's office where the relevant data were recorded.

The cards were then returned to the teachers.

Reading and mathematics achievement test scores were

listed on student report cards as was the number of student

absences during the marking period. Student achievement in

reading was measured by the Degrees of Reading Power Test.

Student math achievement was measured by the mathematics

subtest of the Metropolitan Aptitude Test. Student

attendance records were checked to assure that the students

had spent a comparable amount of time in the classroom. It

should be noted that only forty percent (40%) of the reading

and mathematics achievement scores were collected due in part

to their unavailability at one school which contributed

approximately forty percent of the entire student sample for

this study. Furthermore, an additional twenty percent of the

scores were not collected as a result of their not being

recorded on the report cards by the teachers due to student

absenteeism at the time the tests were administered.

All the schools practiced ability grouping. Ability

grouping [or homogeneous grouping] refers to the practice of

placing students with comparable academic performance and/or

achievement test performance into the same classes. Hence,

the classes utilized by this investigation were rather

44

homogeneous in terms of previous achievement test performance

and past academic achievement. According to labor agreements

high to low achieving groups are rotated among teachers

yearly.

Operational Hypotheses

1. It was expected that the overall grade-point

averages of White students' academic and social performance

by the teachers as a whole would be statistically

significantly higher than the overall average performance in

these areas by Black and Hispanic students, respectively, as

measured by grades recorded on the Student Progress Report.

2a. It was expected that the overall grade-point

average ratings of Black students' academic and social

performance by Black teachers would be statistically

significantly higher than the overall grade-point average

ratings of Black students' performance in these areas, by

White and Hispanic teachers, respectively, as measured by

grade recorded on the Student Progress Report.

2b. It was expected that the overall grade-point

average ratings of Black students• academic and social

performance by Black teachers v/ould be statistically


ratings of the performance of White and Hispanic students in

these areas, respectively, as measured by grades recorded on

the Student Progress Report.

45


averages ratings of Hispanic students' academic and social

performance by Hispanic teachers would be statistically


ratings of Hispanic students* performance in these areas by

Black and White teachers, respectively, as measured by grades

recorded on the Student Progress Report.


averages ratings of Hispanic students' academic and social

performance by Hispanic teachers would be statistically


ratings of the performance of White and Black students in




averages ratings of White students' academic and social

performance by White teachers would be statistically


ratings of White students' performance in these areas by

Black and Hispanic teachers, respectively, as measured by

grades recorded on the Student Progress Report.


averages ratings of White students' academic and social

performance by White teachers would be statistically


ratings of the performance of Black and Hispanic students in

46



Statistical Analyses

A single multivariate analysis of variance [MANOVA] was

performed to test all of the hypotheses. The factors of this

analysis [utilized as dependent variables] were Linguistics,

Math/Science, Adjustment, and Participation.

The first hypothesis, that the teachers as a whole would

rate the performance of White students more favorably than

that of Black and Hispanic students, was tested by the MANOVA

to determine the statistical significance of the differences

between the overall academic and social means of the three

student groups. Similarly, the predictions of Hypotheses 2a,

3a, 4a, that each teacher group would rate the performance of

its own student ethnic group more favorably than the other

two teacher group, was tested by the MANOVA to determine the

significance of the differences between the overall academic

and social means assigned to each student group by each

teacher group [teachers across students].

The predictions of Hypotheses 2b, 3b, 4b, that each

teacher group would rate the performance of its own student

ethnic group more favorably than the other two student

groups, was tested by the MANOVA to determine the

significance of the difference between the overall means of

each student group under each teacher group [students across

teachers]. Three-way interactions between the ethnicity of

47

the three teacher and student groups were also evaluated for

interpretive purposes.

Supplementary analyses were performed for preliminary

data preparation and to facilitate interpretation of the

student rating data. A principal components analysis, a

procedure which is analogous to factor analysis, was

performed in order to attain an economy of description and to

aid in the parsimonious evaluation of relatively large number

of variables. A series of one-way analyses of variance were

performed to test differences between student groups with

regard to reading and math achievement scores.

Supplemental, ancillary post-hoc analyses were performed

to determine which differences between the overall grade

point averages each group of teachers assigned the student

groups as a whole contributed to statistically significant F

ratios. These analyses permitted a systematic investigation

of the relationship between teacher ethnicity and overall

grade-point averages assigned "to students regardless of their

[students *] ethnicity.

48

CHAPTER III

RESULTS

Description of Samples

The samples of teachers included in this study consisted

of 15 elementary school teachers from each of three ethnic

backgrounds: Black, Hispanic and White. The total teacher

sample therefore consisted of 45 persons. The total student

sample included 405 3rd to 6th grade pupils. A total of 135

students from each of the three ethnic groups (Black,

Hispanic and White) were selected and utilized (three

students from each ethnic group per teacher). Academic

ratings and achievement test scores were taken directly from

the report cards of the three teacher and three student

samples as schematized in Table 2.

The results of this study are presented in two parts.

First, descriptive statistics of the total sample and each

subpopulation are given. Second, inferential statistics

using univariate and multivariate procedures are presented in

order for each of the hypotheses.

Descriptive Data

The overall means and standard deviations of the

academic and social ratings achieved by all three student

49

groups combined for each of the 38 variables are presented in

Table 3. Tables 4, 5, and 6 list the overall means and

standard deviations of the ratings given by each of the

teacher groups to their combined student groups across the 38

variables.

Table 2

Demographic Characteristics of Sample Groups

Group Category Number

Teachers Black 15

Hispanic 15

White 15

Students* Black 135

Hispanic 135

White 135

Note. *Nine students, three from each ethnic group, per teacher. N (Teachers) = 45. N (Students) = 405.

Table 3

Overall Mean Academic and Social Ratings and Standard

Deviations Achieved by Combined Student Samples for Each of

the Thirty-Eight Variables.

VARIABLE MEAN SD

COMMUNICATIONS ARTS VI Learns new words 2.87 .70

(Continued on next page)

50

Table 3 Continued

VARIABLE MEAN SD

V2 Reads with understanding 2.79 .72 V3 Shows an interest in

reading V4 Listens carefully V5 Employs standard English V6 Expresses thoughts

clearly WRITTEN LANGUAGE V7 Expresses thoughts clearly V8 Writes creatively V9 Uses correct sentence

structure V10 Uses correct spelling Vll Writes legibly MATHEMATICS VI2 Knows number facts V13 Uses computation V14 Shows knowledge of

other math concepts V15 Applies skills in problem

solving & statistics V16 Demonstrates problem

solving skills SOCIAL STUDIES VI7 Understands & interprets

information V18 Is aware of current events V19 Understands map & globe

skills V20 Learns use of reference

material SCIENCE V21 Knows science facts &

concepts V22 Understands & uses

scientific method MUSIC V23 Participates in classroom

£ school music activities 3.31 .50 ART V24 Participates in classroom

& school art activities 3.31 .50 HEALTH V25 Understands basic health

concepts 3.33 .47

2 . 9 5 2 . 9 3 3 .03

3 .06

2 . 8 5 2 .83

2 . 7 3 2 .86 2 .86

3 .03 2 . 9 3

2 .87

2 .77

2 .79

2 .93 2 . 9 5

2 .93

2 . 9 1

2 .99

3.02

. 6 8

. 6 7

. 4 6

. 5 9

. 5 7

. 6 3

. 6 5

. 6 8

. 6 8

. 6 2

. 5 7

. 5 9

. 7 4

. 6 2

. 6 1

. 5 6

. 5 2

. 5 4

. 6 3

. 5 1


51

Table 3 Continued

3 .28 3 . 2 0 3 .29 3 . 1 7

3 .22 3 . 2 1

3 .38 3 .42

3 .32 3 . 3 1 3 . 2 1

. 7 2

. 7 6

. 7 1

. 7 7

. 7 2

. 8 0

. 6 5

. 6 2

. 7 3

. 7 0

. 7 6

VARIABLE MEAN SD

PHYSICAL EDUCATION V26 Participates in

activities 3.34 .50 V27 Performs required

skills 3.37 .50 WORK HABITS V28 Follows directions V29 Completes work on time V30 Shows initiative V31 Works neatly V32 Takes care of books &

materials V33 Homework PERSONAL & SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT V34 Gets along well with

others V35 Shows respect V36 Carries out

responsibilities V37 Obeys rules & regulations V38 Shows self-control

Note. N = 405 in all cases.

Table 4

Overall Mean Ratings Given by the Black Teacher Sub-Sample to

Combined Student Groups and Related Standard Deviations

Across the Thirty-eight Variables

VARIABLE MEAN SD

COMMUNICATIONS ARTS VI Learns new word V2 Reads with understanding V3 Shows an interest in

reading V4 Listens carefully V5 Employs standard English


2 . 0 0 2 . 7 7

2 . 9 1 2 .87 2 . 9 9

. 5 4

. 5 9

. 6 1

. 5 2

. 3 3

52

Table 4 Continued

VARIABLE MEAN SD

V6 Expresses thoughts clearly 3.03 .46

WRITTEN LANGUAGE V7 Expresses thoughts clearly V8 Writes creatively V9 Uses correct sentence

structure V10 Uses correct spelling Vll Writes legibly MATHEMATICS V12 Knows number facts V13 Uses computation V14 Shows knowledge of

other math concepts V15 Applies skills in problem

solving & statistics V16 Demonstrates problem

solving skills SOCIAL STUDIES VI7 Understands & interprets

information V18 Is aware of current events VI9 Understands map & globe

skills V20 Learns use of reference

material SCIENCE V21 Knows science facts &

concepts V22 Understands & uses

scientific method MUSIC V23 Participates in classroom

& school music activities 3.50 .50 ART V24 Participates in classroom


concepts 3.34 .49 PHYSICAL EDUCATION V26 Participates in


skills 3.40 .50

2 .82 2 . 7 1

2 . 6 3 2 . 6 5 2 . 8 3

2 . 9 7 2 .97

2 .77

2 . 7 0

2 . 7 3

2 .79 2 .82

2 .82

2 . 7 7

3 .04

3 .05

. 5 3

. 5 2

. 5 4

. 6 7

. 5 6

. 4 3

. 4 5

. 5 4

. 5 0

. 5 4

. 5 0

. 5 4

. 4 7

. 4 9

. 5 9

. 5 8


53

(

Table 4 Continued

VARIABLE MEAN SD

WORK HABITS V28 Follows directions V29 Completes work on time V30 Shows initiative V31 Works neatly V32 Takes care of books &

materials V33 Homework PERSONAL & SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT V34 Gets along well with



3.27 3.14 3.37 3.25

3.37 3.17

3.34 3.43

3.28 3.29 3.13

.65

.77

.67

.73

.64

.83

.60

.58

.71

.70

.78


Table 5

Overall Mean Ratings Given by the Hispanic Teacher Sub-Sample

to Combined Student Groups and Related Standard Deviations

Across Thirty-eight Variables.

VAP.IABLE MEAN SD

COMMUNICATIONS ARTS VI Learns new words V2 Reads with understanding V3 Shows an interest in

reading V4 Listens carefully V5 Employs Dcanclarcl Enylirjh V6 Expresses thoughts

clearly WRITTEN LANGUAGE V7 Expresses thoughts clearly V8 Writes creatively


3.24 2.95

3.01 3.20 3.15

3.22

3.00 3.03

.57

.68

.77 = 68 .40

.64

.62

.70

54

Table 5 Continued

VARIABLE MEAN SD

V9 Uses correct sentence structure 2.90 .76

V10 Uses correct spelling 3.16 .63 Vll Writes legibly 3.02 .78 MATHEMATICS VI2 Knows number facts 3.37 .56 V13 Uses computation 3.16 .53 V14 Shows knowledge of

other math concepts 3.11 .62 V15 Applies skills in problem

solving & statistics 2.82 .59 VI6 Demonstrates problem

solving skills 2.96 .63 SOCIAL STUDIES V17 Understands & interprets

information 3.25 .61 V18 Is aware of current events 3.18 .54 V19 Understands map & globe

skills 3.16 .44 V20 Learns use of reference

material 3.11 .50 SCIENCE V21 Knows science facts &

concepts 3.18 .64 V22 Understands & uses

scientific method 3.13 .45 MUSIC V23 Participates in classroom


& school art activities 3.18 .49 HEALTH V25 Understands basic health concepts 3.46 .50 PHYSICAL EDUCATION V26 Participates in


skills 3.45 .51 WORK HABITS V28 Follows directions 3.35 .80 V29 Completes work on time 3.32 .72 V30 Shows initiative 3.33 .74 V31 Works neatly 3.14 .80


55

Table 5 Continued

3.12 3 .29

3 .60 3 .58

3 .52 3 .47 3 . 5 1

. 7 9

. 7 6

. 5 2

. 5 2

. 5 9

. 6 0

. 5 4

VARIABLE MEAN SD

V32 Takes care of books & materials

V33 Homework PERSONAL & SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT V34 Gets along well with




Table 6

Overall Means Ratings Given by the White Teacher Sub-Sample

to Combined Student Groups and Related Standard Deviations

Across Thirty-Eight Variables.

VARIABLE MEAN SD

COMMUNICATIONS ARTS VI Learns new words V2 Reads with understanding V3 Shows an interest in


clearly WRITTEN LANGUAGE V7 Expresses thoughts clearly V8 Writes creatively V9 Uses correct sentence

structure V10 Uses correct spelling VII Writes legibly MATHEMATICS


56

2 .59 2 . 6 5

2 . 9 1 2 .74 2 . 9 6

2 . 9 1

2 .74 2 .74

2 . 6 5 2 .79 2 . 7 3

. 8 0

. 8 4

. 6 5

. 7 2

. 5 3

. 6 2

. 5 2

. 5 9

. 6 2

. 6 4

. 6 7

Table 6 Continued

VARIABLE MEAN SD

V12 Knows number facts 2.77 .67 V13 Uses computation 2.65 .61 V14 Shows knowledge of

other math concepts 2.74 .52 V15 Applies skills in problem

solving & statistics 2.80 .51 V16 Demonstrates problem

solving skills 2.69 .66 SOCIAL STUDIES V17 Understands & interprets

information 2.77 .59 V18 Is aware of current events 2.85 .52 V19 Understands map & globe

skills 2.82 .58 V20 Learns use of reference

material 2.84 .57 SCIENCE V21 Knows science facts &

concepts 2.76 .60 V22 Understands & uses

scientific method 2.87 .47 MUSIC V23 Participates in classroom



concepts 3.20 .40 PHYSICAL EDUCATION V26 Participates in


skills 3.25 .47 WORK HABITS V28 Follows directions 3.23 .70 V29 Completes work on tiiiio 3.15 .70 V30 Shows initiative 3.17 .71 V31 Works neatly 3.11 .78 V32 Takes care of books &

materials 3.17 .70 V33 Homework 3.17 .80


57

Table 6 Continued

VARIABLE MEAN S D

PERSONAL & SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT V34 Gets along well with




Principal Components Analysis

Because the number of variables employed in this study

was so large that it precluded careful review and analysis

of each variable, a reduction in the number of variables was

deemed appropriate. The reduction in variables was achieved

by the use of principal components analysis, a procedure

which is analogous to factor analysis.

Correlation coefficients were calculated for each of the

variables listed above. The matrix of the coefficients of

correlation are presented in Appendix B. The eigenvalues of

the correlation matrix derived by the principal components

factor method are presented in Appendix C.

Principal components analysis utilizing the varimax

rotational method was applied to yield a four factor

solution. This factor pattern is presented in Table 7.

From the factor loadings indicated in Table 7 and using

. 50 as the cutoff point for determining that a variable

loaded on a factor, four factor constructs or variable names

58

3.21 .76 3.26 .72

3.15 .81 3.18 .76 3.01 .83

were selected - Linguistics (comprised of variables 1 through

11) , Math/Science (comprised of variables 12 through 22) ,

Participation (comprised of variables 23 through 27) and

Adjustment (comprised of variables 28 through 38) . The

criterion of . 50 was chosen as the cutoff point because

inspection of the factor matrix indicates that use of this

criterion permitted the selection of four clusters which fill

into four distinct groups. Virtually all of the factor

loading of these groups were very substantial, ranging from

.50 to .80 in contrast to rather low or near .00 loading of

the factors in the same factor columns. On basis of .50

cutoff criterion each of the factors which compose the four

factor constructs though themselves substantially

intercorrelated, are not to any great extent correlated with

the constructs which compose the other factors variables.

Table 7

Rotated Factor Pattern Derived by The Varimax Rotation Method

Variable

COMMUNICATIONS ARTS VI Learns new words V2 Reads with understanding V3 Shown an xircerecc JU


clearly

Factorl

.71

.69

.65

.58

.63

.65

Factor2

.18

.22

.25

.33

.12

.10

Factor3

.25

.21

.20

.38

.27

.27

Factor4

.08

.03

.05

.10

.09

.05


59

Table 7 Continued


Variable Factorl Factor2 Factor3 Factor4

WRITTEN LANGUAGE V7 Expresses thoughts clearly .77 .04 .24 .01 V8 Writes creatively .79 .05 .17 .03 V9 Uses correct sentence

structure .73 .09 .26 .08 V10 Uses correct spelling .72 .14 .17 .06 Vll Writes legibly .61 .09 .32 .01 MATHEMATICS V12 Knows number facts .41 .24 .51 .01 V13 Uses computation .39 .15 .55 .17 V14 Shows knowledge of

other math concepts .39 .00 .70 .08 V15 Applies skills in problem

solving & statistics .25 .04 .69 .03 VI6 Demonstrates problem

solving skills .37 .14 .66 .03 SOCIAL STUDIES V17 Understands & interprets

information .30 .28 .67 .18 VI8 Is aware of current

events .36 .12 .59 .15 V19 Understands map & globe

skills .25 .14 .71 .09 V20 Learns use of reference

material .38 .11 .65 .13 SCIENCE V21 Knows science facts &

concepts .12 .22 .59 .10 V22 Understands & uses

scientific method .08 .12 .59 .14 MUSIC V23 Participates in classroom

& school music activities .02 .22 .05 .71 ART V24 Participates in classroom

& school art activities .02 .22 .05 .75 HEALTH V25 Understands basic health

concepts .10 .31 .06 .69 PHYSICAL EDUCATION V26 Participates in

activities .06 .29 .04 .80


60

Table 7 continued


Variable Factorl Factor2 Factor3 Factor4

V27 Performs required skills .03

WORK HABITS V28 Follows directions .16 V29 Completes work on time .14 V30 Shows initiative .28 V31 Works neatly .27 V32 Takes care of books &

materials .20 V33 Homework .10 PERSONAL & SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT V34 Gets along well with

others .09 V35 Shows respect .06 V36 Carries out

responsibilities .18 V37 Obeys rules &

regulations .10 V38 Shows self-control .17


Multivariate Analysis of Variance

To test the predictions of all the hypotheses relative

to each "factor" variable, a two-factor multivariate analysis

of variance (MANOVA) of the four factor variables

(Linguistics, Math/Sciences, Adjustment and Participation)

was performed. The multivariate analysis of variance was

utilized to analyze the differences between the teacher

groups and the student groups relative to each of the factor

variables.

.27

.75

.75

.65

.57

.49

.65

.68

.75

.85

.83

.79

.01

.16

.16

.14

.10

.06

.10

.23

.13

.10

.04

.13

.82

.24

.17

.34

.34

.47

.28

.21

.30

.11

.14

.07

61

The MANOVA was executed in spite of the fact that

initial student group mean differences on two pre-existing

variables (reading and math achievement test scores) might

have been theoretically responsible for the differences in

the mean ratings achieved by each ethnic student group. In

this instance, a multivariate analysis of covariance

(MANCOVA) would seem to have been more appropriate in order

to control statistically for initial group differences on the

covariates (reading and math achievement test scores) which,

could not be controlled experimentally. The MANOVA rather

than the MANCOVA was performed for the following reasons.

First, four one-way analyses of variance revealed no

statistically significant differences between the mean

reading and math achievement test scores attained by each

student group. Consequently, it seemed highly unlikely that

any statistically significant student group mean differences

on the factor variables could be attributed to initial

differences on the covariates, making a MANCOVA unnecessary.

The results of the one-way analyses of variance of the

overall mean reading and math achievement test scores

attained by each of the student groups is presented in Table

8. Second, except for Participation (R2=.ll, R=.33, 2,

120cb?, P<.01), Multiple reyj.-eysion analysis demonstrated no

significant correlations between the covariates and the

factor variables. A more detailed regression analysis was

( undertaken to determine the correlation, if any, between each

62

covariate with each factor variable. The analysis revealed

that there were no statistically significant correlations

between math achievement test scores and any of the four

factor variables (P<.05). There were no statistically

significant correlations (P<.05) between reading achievement

test scores and the traditionally academic variables,

Linguistics and Math/Science. However, there was a

statistically significant correlation but extremely modest

correlation between reading achievement and social adjustment

(R2=.03, R=18, 1, 125df, P<.05). Moreover, there was found

a statistically significant but modest positive correlation

between reading achievement and participation (R2=.12, R=.34,

1, 125df, P<.001). The latter two correlations suggest that

(1) there is a very modest if not negligible, correlation

between reading achievement and social adjustment, e.g., work

habits, personal and social competence; and (2) a rather

modest correlation between reading achievement and level of

participation in classroom activities pertaining to art,

music and physical education activities.

In light of the modest to very modest or negligible

correlation between reading achievement and adjustment and

participation respectively; the absence of significant

corralationo ha'cuacn math nchiovGiaGnt and any of the four

factor variables; the lack of significant correlations

between reading achievement and Linguistics and

Math/Sciences, it was concluded that adjusted values would

63

not differ significantly from unadjusted values. Results of

the relevant regression analyses are presented in Appendix C.

A multivariate analysis of variance utilizing the four

factor variables as dependent variables was performed for the

reasons discussed above. The results are presented in Table

9. Table 9 shows that for Linguistics, Math/Sciences, and

Participation at least one of the teacher groups evaluated

the mean performance of at least one of the student groups

significantly different from the others (P<.05).

Table 9 also presents the final multivariate analysis of

variance for each of the four factor variables. The lack of

statistically significant (P<.05) main effects for student

ethnicity indicates that the student groups did not differ

significantly across the factor variables. The absence of

statistically significant (P<.05) interaction effects between

the teacher and student ethnicity factors suggest that the

mean academic and social ratings received by either student

ethnic group were not related significantly to the ethnicity

of either of the teacher groups.

64

Table 8

Overall Means for Each Student Group's Reading and Math

Scores and the Final Analysis of Variance.

Student Groups Black Hispanic White

Group Mean (Reading) 55.30 59.85 57.49

Group Mean (Math) 56.75 61.67 56.94

Reading Scores

Source SS df ms F

Between Groups 531.74 2 265.87 .334

Within Groups 104997.25 132 795.43

Total 105528.99 134

Math Scores

Between Groups 695.94 2 347.97 .449

Within Groups 993307.35 128 775.84

Total 1000003.24 130

_____

65

Table 9

The Average Ratings Achieved by Black, Hispanic, and White

Students for Each Factor Variable as Determined by Teachers

as Separate Groups and Final Multivariate Analysis of

Variance Utilizing The Four Factor Variables as Dependent

Variables.

Student Groups

Black Linguistics Math/Sciences Adjustment Participation

Hispanic Linguistics Math/Sciences Adjustment Participation

White Linguistics Math/Sciences Adjustment Participation

Teacher Groups

Black Linguistics Math/Sciences Adjustment Participation

Hispanic Linguistics Math/Sciences Adjustment Participation

White Linguistics Math/Sciences Adjustment Participation

Black

2.73 2.73 3.14 3.26

2.74 2.76 3.14 3.31

2.85 2.86 3.23 3.23

Black

2.73 2.73 3.14 3.26

3.14 3.10 3.42 3.36

2 • 94 2.79 3.29 3.38

Teacher Groups Hispanic

3.14 3.10 3.42 3.36

3.09 3.11 3.40 3.27

3.04 3.20 3.36 3.36

Student Group Hispanic

2.74 2.76 3.14 3.31

3.09 3.11 3.40 3.27

2.77 2.92 3.26 3.44

White

2.94 2.79 3.29 3.38

2.77 2.92 3.26 3.44

2.77 2.98 3.30 3.47

s White

2.85 2.86 3.23 3.23

3.04 3.20 3.36 3.36

2.77 2.98 3.30 3.47

F

9.44*** 9.42*** 2.67 1.03

6.94*** 10.52*** 1.98 2.26

3.98* 12.12***

.69 3.97*

F

2.58 1.51 .07 .44

.53

.96

.20 1.01

.74 1.20 .28 .47


66

Table 9 Continued

Source

Teachers Linguistics Math/Science Adjustment Participation

Students Linguistics Math/Science Adjustment Participation

Teachers X Students Linguistics Math/Science Adjustment Participation

Error Linguistics Math/Science Adjustment Participation

*P<.05 **P<.01

SS

933.74 1111.60 396.13 45.41

45.45 91.57 6.85 .62

(Ethnicity) 135.61 41.80 38.56 14.08

10471.37 7218.13

15430.22 1655.42

***P<.001

df

2 2 2 2

2 2 2 2

2 2 2 2

396 396 396 396

ms

466.87 555.80 198.06 22.70

22.22 45.78 3.42 .31

33.90 10.45 9.64 3.52

26.44 18.22 38.96 4.18

Z

17.65*** 30.49*** 5.08*** 5.43***

.84 2.51 .08 .07

1.28 .57 .24 .84

Analysis of Hypotheses

Analyses of Hypotheses 1 and of Hypotheses 2a. 3a. and 4a

Hypothesis 1 proposed that in their ratings of their

students* academic and social performance, teachers as a

whole, would rate the performance of White students more

favorably than Black and Hispanic students, respectively.

Social performance is herein defined as the students'

performance as evaluated by their teachers in the areas of

participatory activities, e.g., music, physical education,

group activities; work habits, e.g., homework, initiative;

67

personal and social development, e.g., self-control.

Hypotheses 2a, 3a, and 4a (herein referred to as the

first predictions of Hypotheses 2, 3, and 4) collectively

maintained that each teacher group would rate the performance

of the student group which belonged to its own ethnic group,

more favorably than the other teacher groups.

Hypothesis I: The Comparative Ratings of White Students by

Teachers As a Whole. As discussed previously, a MANOVA was

executed in order to test Hypothesis 1 and the first

predictions of Hypotheses 2, 3, and 4. The mean ratings

achieved by each student group across the four factor

variables under each teacher group (i.e., student groups

across teacher groups), and the mean ratings across these

same variables assigned each student group by each teacher

group (i.e., teacher groups across student groups) were

analyzed and tested for statistical significance. The

results of the MANOVA are presented in Table 9.

Table 9 shows that there were no statistically

significant differences between the means achieved by the

three student groups across all four factor variables. Table

9 also indicates no statistically main effects for student

ethnicity. That is, no student group was found to have

attained a statistically significantly (P<.05) higher overall

mean rating from the teachers in their entirety. Thus, the

first hypothesis that White students would receive a (

significantly higher overall average rating of their academic

68

and social performance by the teachers as a whole than would

Black and Hispanic students, respectively, was not supported

by the results of the present investigation.

Hypothesis 2a: The Performance of Black Students As

Evaluated by Black, Hispanic and White Teachers. Hypothesis

2a proposed that Black teachers would rate the overall

performance of Black students significantly higher than would

Hispanic and White teachers respectively. As outlined in

Table 9, Black teachers did not rate the performance of Black

students across any of the four factor variables

statistically higher than Hispanic and White teachers

respectively. Thus, hypothesis 2a was not supported by the

results of this investigation.

Hypothesis 3a: The Performance of Hispanic Students As

Evaluated by Black. Hispanic and White Teachers. Hypothesis

3a proposed that Hispanic teachers would rate the academic

and social performance of Hispanic students significantly

higher than would Black and White teachers, respectively.

Observation of Table 9 reveals that Hispanic teachers did

rate the Linguistic and Math/Sciences performance of Hispanic

students statistically significantly higher than did Black

and White teachers respectively. Thus, it appears that

Hispanic teachers raced the academic, but not the social

performance of Hispanic students significantly higher than

did Black and White teachers, respectively. These results

appear to support hypothesis 3a.

69

Hypothes i s 4a: The Performance of White Students As

Evaluated by Black. Hispanic and White Teachers. Hypothesis

4a proposed that White teachers would rate the academic and

social performance of White students significantly higher

than would Black and Hispanic teachers, respectively. As

indicated by Table 9, except for Participation (which was not

of theoretical interest here), White teachers did not rate

the academic and social performance of White students

statistically significantly higher than Black and Hispanic

teachers, respectively. Thus, hypothesis 4a was not

supported by the results of this investigation.

Analysis of Hypotheses 2b. 3b. and 4b: Teacher Ethnicity Vs.

Student Ethnicity and The Rating of Student Performance.

Hypotheses 2b, 3b, and 4b (herein referred to as the second

predictions of Hypotheses 2, 3, and 4) collectively


of the student group which belonged to its own ethnic group

more favorably than the other two student groups.

To test the second predictions of Hypotheses 2, 3, and

4, a multiple analysis of variance of the four factor

variables was performed as discussed above.

Hypothesis 2b: The Comparative Performance of Black Students

As Evaluated by Black Teachers. Hypothesis 2b predicted that

Black teachers would rate the performance of Black students

significantly higher than that of White and Hispanic

students, respectively. Observation of Table 9 indicates

70

that Black teachers did not rate the mean academic and social

performance of Black students under their tutelage across any

of the four factor variables statistically significantly

higher than they did Hispanic and White students. T h u s ,

hypothesis 2b was not supported by the data analysis.

Hypothesis 3b: The Comparative Performance of Hispanic

Students As Evaluated by Hispanic Teachers. Hypothesis 3b

predicted that Hispanic teachers would rate the overall

performance of Hispanic students significantly higher than

that of White and Black students, respectively. Table 9

shows that within their classrooms Hispanic teachers did not

rate the performance of Hispanic students in any area

statistically significantly higher than Black and White

students, respectively.

Thus, hypothesis 3b was not supported by the results of

this investigation.

Hypothesis 4b; The Comparative Performance of White Students

As Evaluated by White Teachers. Hypothesis 4b proposed that

White teachers would rate the overall performance of White

students significantly higher than that of Black and Hispanic

students, respectively. As was the case with the Black and

Hispanic teachers, Table 9 shows that within their

classrooms, White teachers did not rate the performance of

White students statistically significantly higher than they

did Black and Hispanic students, respectively.

Table 9 also indicates that in no case were there

71

statistically significant interaction effects with regard to

teacher and student ethnicity. Thus, none of the predictions

of hypotheses 2b, 3b, and 4b were supported by the relevant

data analysis.

Supplementary Analysis

A review of Table 9 suggests that relative to

Linguistics and Math/Sciences Hispanic teachers tended to

rate the performance of their students as a whole

significantly higher than did Black and White teachers,

respectively. The three teachers groups did not rate the

overall performance of the three student groups under their

tutelage significantly different. To determine statistically

which teacher group or groups of teachers contributed to the

significance of the mean teacher differences noted in Table 9

post hoc tests utilizing the Scheffe procedure were executed.

The results of the analyses of variance of the four factor

variables combined as academic (Linguistics and

Math/Sciences) and social (Adjustment and Participation)

ratings are presented in Table 10. Table 10 indicates that

relative to the evaluation of the academic performance of all

the student groups only the Hispanic teachers as a group

rated its students statistically significantly different from

the other teacher groups. Wo statistically significant

differences between the mean social ratings given by the

three teacher groups were revealed. Thus, in regard to their

mean academic ratings of their students Hispanic teachers

72

appear to have been the most liberal graders followed by

Black and White teachers, respectively. Though not

statistically significant, this trend was followed in regard

to the teachers' mean social ratings.

Table 10

The Comparative Mean Academic and Social Ratings Assigned to

Their Students without Regard to Their Ethnicity by Black,

Hispanic, and White Teachers and the Final Analysis of

Variance

Student Groups Black Hispanic White Overall Means

Source Main Effects Teachers Students Interaction Teacher Ethnicity X

Student Groups Black Hispanic White Overall Means

Source Main Effects Teachers Students Interaction Teacher Ethnicity X

Academic Ratinas

Black 2.92 2.90 2.88 2.90

SS 3754.47 3709.97 44.50

df 4 2 2

Student Ethnicity 161.70 4

Social Ratincrs

Black 3.30 3.29 3.33 3.31

SS 590.73 582.58 8.15

df A

2 2

Student Ethnicity 30.81 4

Teacher Hispanic 3.13* 3.10* 3.13* 3.12*

IDS

938.62 1854.99 22.25

40.43

Teacher Hispanic 3.42 3.40 3.38 3.40

us 147.68 291.29 4.08

7.70

Groups : White

2.78 2.80 2.89 2.83

F 11.94*** 23.60**

.28

.51

Groups : White

3.17 3.18 3.23 3.20

F 2.97-v 5.87** .08

.16

*P<.05 - Scheffe Procedure. **P<.01. ***P<.001.

73

/ /

CHAPTER IV

DISCUSSION

One of the fundamental doctrines of American education

is that all students should be treated with equality by their

teachers. If two students behave or perform in the same way,

teachers are expected to respond in the same way to both of

them. Realistically, however, as clearly indicated by the

review of the literature, teachers respond to their students

on a number of subjective levels. That is, teachers not only

respond to their students' performance per se, but to other

student characteristics such as ethnicity, socioeconomic

status, speech patterns and gender. As noted previously, a

review of the literature reveals that there exist relatively

few studies which have investigated teachers' personality and

other characteristics as possible origins of non-objective

teacher evaluational attitudes toward their students. Such

characteristics might include teachers' ethnocultural

backgrounds.

This study was designed to determine if the average

academic and social performance ratings attained by Black,

Hispanic, and White students were related to their teachers'

ethnocultural backgrounds. The teachers were also grouped

( according to ethnicity - Black, Hispanic, and White. Four

hypothesized relationships between the teachers' ethnicity

74

and that of their students were proposed. The first

hypothesis proposed that the teachers as a whole would rate

the performance of White students more favorably than Black

and Hispanic students, respectively. Hypotheses 2a through

4a each proposed that each ethnic group of teachers would

rate the performance of students belonging to its own ethnic

group higher than would the other two groups of teachers.

Hypotheses 2b through 4b proposed that each teacher ethnic

group would rate the performance of students who were members

of its ethnic group higher than that of students who were not

members.

Analysis of the relevant data failed to support the

predictions of the four hypotheses. The lack of statistical

support for the predictions of the four hypotheses suggests

that, in general, there may exist little or no significant

relationship between teachers* ethnicity and a tendency to

rate their students' performance ethnocentrically: a very

positive outcome indeed.

The purpose of this investigation as suggested by its

hypotheses, was to determine if students' ethnic

characteristics were influential in how their performance was

rated by teachers (Hypothesis 1) and to determine if

teachers' ethnocultural backgrounds, in interaction with

their students' ethnicity, might be one source of their

evaluation of their students' performance (Hypotheses 2

through 4) . Based on the review of the literature which

75

c suggested that teachers' attitudes toward their students

differ relative to their and their students' ethnic

characteristics, this investigation indirectly tested the

consistency between presumed teacher attitudes and their

evaluative behavior toward their students as represented by

their recorded ratings of their students' academic and social

performance.

Teachers Comparative Evaluation of White Students'

Performance

A frequent and consistent research finding is that

teachers hold more positive attitudes and expectations for

White students than they do for Black and Hispanic students

(Jensen & Rosenfeld, 1974, Harms, 1961, Moe, 1972, Naremore,

1971, Williams et al., 1971, Karlins, et al., 1969). To test

whether such attitudes and expectations were actually present

in the teacher sample population, Hypothesis 1 predicted that

White students would be more favorably rated by the teachers

as a whole than would Black and Hispanic students,

respectively. The results of this investigation indicated

that White students did not receive significantly higher

academic and social ratings than did Black and Hispanic

students. No particular student group achieved a

statistically significant higher overall grade-point average

than another.

The most parsimonious explanation of these results (

appears to be that the teachers as a whole were not

76

significantly racially or ethnically prejudiced toward either

of the three student groups and, therefore, did not evaluate

their performance in ethnically biased ways. If the teachers

did not prejudicially evaluate the students then the results

relevant to Hypothesis 1 suggest that the three student

groups performed essentially equally well or poorly and that

their performance was objectively and unbiasedly evaluated by

the teachers as a whole. As noted above, the schools

utilized in this investigation fully engaged in the practice

of "ability grouping" or "tracking", wherein, students are

subdivided into high, average, and low achieving classes

according to academic achievement test score averages and

previous achievement. If the criteria and methods for

selecting students to such groupings were valid, thereby,

resulting in rather homogeneous groupings then it would be

expected that their performance would be fairly homogeneous

as well. (This appears to have been the case since the

overall grade-point averages of the student groups were not

significantly different). Relatively unbiased evaluators,

e.g. the teachers, would then be expected to grade their

performance on the whole with a degree of equality.

No measurement of the teachers * racial attitudes was

taken in this investigation. Therefore, the teachers'

assessed attitudes were unknown. Consequently, another

possible explanation for the results related to Hypothesis 1

which proposed that White students would be more favorably

77

rated by teachers as an entirety than would Black and

Hispanic students, may be put forth. It may be contended

that while the teachers may have held more favorable

attitudes and expectations toward the White students, they

did not permit those attitudes to bias the evaluation of

student performance. That is, regardless of what may have

been their more favorable personal attitudes toward White

students, they chose not to grade this student group any more

favorably than the other student groups when their

performance was objectively the same.

The findings of this investigation provide no support

for the proposition that teachers, in general, hold more

positive attitudes and expectations for White students than

they do for other ethnic groups of students and that such

attitudes and expectations may be reflected in White students

generally receiving higher grades for the same performance

than do other ethnic groups of students. The findings of

this investigation relative to Hypothesis 1 are also not in

agreement with those studies which suggest that teachers in

general rate the academic performance of White students

higher than Black and Hispanic students (Harms, 1961; Jensen

and Rosenfeld, 1974,; Marwit, Marwit and Walker, 1978; More,

1972; Naremore, 1971; Williams, et al., 1971). These

studies, however, did not involve either naturalistic

observation or analysis of teachers' actual evaluations of

their students academic and related behavior, but found that

78

teachers as a whole evince significantly more positive

attitudes toward White students relative to Black and

Hispanic students, respectively.

It is possible the teachers' usually more favorable

attitudes and expectations toward White students as suggested

by the studies just cited, have been modified by additional

information and related expectations and training. Such

information in this instance would have included knowledge of

the fact that their students had been selected and matched

according to achievement test scores and prior academic

achievement. The related or implied expectation could have

been that, based on their selection criteria, regardless of

ethnicity these students would perform essentially at the

same level. Consequently, in light of such knowledge and

implied expectations, the teachers as a whole were motivated

to fulfill those expectations and did so by either (1)

restructuring previously differential expectations based on

student ethnicity toward egalitarian expectations; (2) by

suppressing their ethnically biased expectations and

expressing evaluative behavior in line with the egalitarian

expectations implied by the selection criteria (and perhaps

gaining approval of the school administration as well)

and/or; (3) by choosing to ignore prior or personally biased

expectations and to evaluate more objectively the performance

of student groups who actually performed on the whole equally

well or poorly. Thus, the findings of this investigation may

79

suggest that when other mitigating factors and circumstances

exist, e.g., ability groups, teachers' presumably more

positive attitudes and expectations of White students may

tend to be neutralized or attenuated and those students not

rewarded with significantly higher grades than non-white

students. Another possible explanation may include the

possibility that in contrast to the geographical locations of

previous studies, this investigation, having taken place in

New York City, a city with a long tradition of racially

mixed classrooms, may have tapped a more egalitarian teacher

sample population than was the case with the previous

research studies. Finally, it is also possible that some

biasing factors were present in the students selected to

participate in this study. For example, it is possible that

the teachers selected their academically most advanced

students from each student ethnic group as participants in

this study. Alternatively, they may have selected students

of reasonably equal ability. If the teachers used either of

these procedures then the academic performance of the student

groups may have been artifactually equalized.

The findings relative to Hypothesis 1 indicate that

White students were not more favorably rated than Blaclc and

Hispanic students. These findings also imply that attitudes

and expectations regarding the behavior of any group, whether

positive or negative, may not be actualized under all

circumstances.

80

Finally, the general lack of statistically significant

differences between the means for the student groups may have

been an indication of essentially equal performance by the

student groups as well as the teachers. However, that the

apparent equality of the student groups performance and

apparent egalitarian evaluation by the teachers, may have

been the result or artifact of the recording instrument,

(i.e., the report card itself). The four evaluative

categories utilized by the report cards are not clearly

defined and may be over-inclusive when compared with other

ratings scales. For example, the category E (excellent) may

include performance rated as A, A-, B+, B, and possibly B-

under a letter-point grading system or the grades from 80 to

100 under a number grading system. Hence, the evaluative

categories utilized in the report cards may be only sensitive

to the relatively more gross student performance differences.

Consequently, significant differences in the ratings of

student academic and social performance which would have been

observed under a letter-point or number grading system may

not be detected by the rating system utilized by the report

cards analyzed herein. Therefore, the evaluative categories

of the report cards may have helped to create a greater sense

of equality between groups and individuals than actually

existed. Ability grouping, uniformity of ratings scales, and

relative consensus regarding how student performance is

evaluated, may be seen as providing substantial internal

81

validity of the report card ratings system. However, that

system's relative lack of correspondence with other more

refined systems used by other school systems such as

letter-point, number grading or more detailed rating scales,

may put in question its external validity and the

generalizability of findings based on the statistical

analysis of its contents.

Teachers Comparative Evaluation of Each Student Group

Relative To Their Own Ethnicity

Surveys of Black and White teachers' attitudes toward

students in general and Black and White students in

particular (Gottlieb, 1964; Washington, 1980, 1982) suggested

that teachers' attitudes toward their students may have been

ethnoculturally related. In general, the surveys as

discussed in the literature review section of this

investigation suggested that in regard to those student

characteristics relevant to successful learning experiences,

(e.g., ambitious and cooperative, brightest/highest achiever,

relative lack of academic problems), Black teachers tended to

perceive Black students more favorably than did White

teachers. It was also noted that Scott and Ntegeye (1978)

found that Black teachers, relative to White teachers,

demonstrated a significantly greater preference for and

acceptance of students manifesting traits characteristic of

minority students. The findings of the aforementioned

studies together seem to suggest that teachers, particularly

82

Black and White teachers, evaluate specific characteristics,

(e.g., academic and social potential), of students

differently and in accord with their ethnocultural

backgrounds. In general, Black teachers tended to view Black

students relatively more favorably than did White teachers.

(Studies comparing the attitudes of Black, Hispanic and White

teachers were not located.)

Research which has investigated the attitudes and

behavioral characteristics of Hispanic teachers compared to

Black, White and other teachers is virtually non-existent.

The situation may be in part due to the relatively small

percentage of Hispanic teachers working in the United States

(Gifford, 1986) . The size, distribution, historical

evolution, and socio-dynamics of the Black population in the

United States may have been such that research interests in

regard to ethnic relations, attitudes, etc., have been

heavily weighted toward the study of Black-White ethnic

interactions.

Studies cited above in our discussion of Hypothesis 2

(Gottlieb, 1964; Scott & Ntegeye, 1978; Washington, 1980;

1982) generally indicated that Black teachers held more

favorable attitudes toward Blade students compared to White

students. These studies also indicated that White teachers

generally held more positive attitudes and expectations for

White students than they did for Black students. Royer

(1984), in a survey of studies of teachers* expectations

83

about students relative to their sex, socioeconomic status,

ethnicity, and physical attractiveness, noted that "in many

instances even Black students who are performing well are

held in lower esteem than White students" by White teachers.

More specifically, studies dealing with attitudes related to

student ethnicity utilizing teachers samples which were

presumably predominantly White in composition consistently

rated Hispanic students less favorably than White and Black

students (Harms, 1961; Jackson & Cosca, 1974; Jensen &

Rosenfeld, 1974; Moe, 1972; Naremore, 1971; Williams, et al.,

1971).

Hypotheses 2 through 4. Based on the reviews above

Hypotheses 2 through 4 together predicted that, relative to

each other, each of the three teacher groups would rate the

academic and social performance of students who were members

of their own ethnocultural group significantly higher than

would the other two teacher groups. The hypotheses further

proposed that in their classrooms each of the teacher groups

would rate the academic and social performance of students

who were members of their own ethnocultural group

significantly higher than would students who were not members

of the relevant group.

However, as discussed in the Results chapter of this

investigation, only in one instance were the predictions of

the proposed hypotheses statistically supported. In this

case the first prediction of Hypothesis 3, that Hispanic

84

teachers would rate the academic and social performance of

Hispanic students significantly higher than would Black and

White teachers, respectively, appeared to have gained

statistical support. Table 10 shows that Hispanic teachers

did rate the overall performance of Hispanic students

significantly higher than did Black and White teachers,

respectively. This finding does provide prima facie evidence

which supports the first prediction of Hypothesis 3.

However, to interpret this finding as suggesting that

Hispanic teachers ethnocentrically favored Hispanic students

relative to Black and White students by rewarding Hispanic

students with higher grades for performance not objectively

superior to the other student groups, is unwarranted for the

following reasons: Hispanic teachers as a whole consistently

rated the performance of all the student groups significantly

higher than did the other two teacher groups. One

implication of this observation is that Hispanic teachers may

tend for reasons other than ethnic bias, rate student

performance, including the performance of Hispanic students,

higher than Black and White teachers in general. Therefore,

their significantly higher rating of Hispanic student

performance in this instance essentially reflects their

tendency to rate the performance of all student groups more

highly than do Black and White teachers, even the performance

of Black and White students, respectively. Additionally, in

their classes Hispanic teachers did not rate the performance

85

of Hispanic students significantly higher than that of Black

and White students. While not statistically significant,

Hispanic teachers tended to rate the performance of one or

the other of the two student groups slightly higher than that

of the Hispanic students. It would not be expected that this

tendency would be the case if Hispanic teachers rated the

performance of the student groups ethnocentrically. Finally,

in none of the analyses were significant teacher ethnicity x

student ethnicity interactions found. This finding suggests

that the ethnocentric rating of student performance by any of

the three teacher groups was either non-existent or not

sufficiently influential enough to make a significant

difference.

In light of the foregoing discussion it seems quite

reasonable to contend that in no instance were the hypotheses

statistically supported.

The more plausible reasons for the lack of statistical

support for the hypotheses are essentially the same ones

given for the lack of statistical support for hypothesis one

above. They were namely, (1) that the teachers in each

instance were relatively unbiased and evaluated their

students' performance objectively, including that of students

belonging to their own ethnocultural group; (2) that the

teachers' evaluations of their students; including those

belonging to their own ethnic group, were influenced by the

knowledge that the students had been grouped according to

86

their tested abilities and prior academic achievement and the

implicit expectation that they would perform at about the

same level; (3) that teachers may have chosen to ignore

personal and ethnocentric biases and therefore objectively

evaluated the performance of the student groups; (4) that the

New York City Board of Education, through its teacher

selection and preparatory procedures, or through

attributions, may have "weeded out" teachers who held

conspicuously active ethnocentric attitudes or who were not

sufficiently acculturated; and (5) that the evaluative

categories utilized in the report cards may have been only

sensitive to the more gross of student performance

differences.

The failure to achieve statistical significance by

Hypotheses 1 through 4, seems to suggest that neither

students' nor teachers' ethnocultural backgrounds

significantly influenced teachers' judgments of their

students' performance. These findings together would seem to

corroborate reasonably the argument that factors other than

teachers' or students' ethnicity may significantly influence

teachers' ratings of students• performance under actual

pedagogical conditions. Those other factors might include

students' socioeconomic and family backgrounds, motivational

strengths and orientations, cultural values and attitudes,

past academic performance and behavior, and some structural

characteristics of the school system itself. The functional

87

existence of those other factors may not be construed to mean

that teachers may not hold biased attitudes towards their

students of different ethnic backgrounds, but that such

teacher biases may be of relatively little significance when

judgments of students' academic performance are made under

naturalistic educational circumstances. However, relative to

this investigation, the apparently unbiased ratings of their

students* performance by the three teacher groups may have

been reflective of the fact that the three student groups

were relatively homogeneous in composition in that the

students were grouped according to ability as measured by

achievement test scores and prior performance. The

homogeneity of the student groups suggests that if the test

scores were fairly predictive of their performance, then the

average ratings they received under any teacher group would

have been relatively homogeneous across the student groups.

The fact that there was a rather negligible number of

student-ethnic-group main effects seems to support that

suggestion. Furthermore, the ability grouping of the

students might have influenced the teachers in ways which

motivated them to hold fairly uniform expectations regarding

the academic performance of their students„ As a possible

result thereof, the teachers possibly tended to rate the

performance of each of the student groups in ways not

significantly different from the other. In summary,

systematic and significant interactions between teachers* and

88

students• ethnicity were not found in this investigation as

were predicted by Hypotheses 2 through 4. These findings

may be utilized to corroborate the argument that the

teachers• average ratings of their students• performance

were neither related to their own or their students'

ethnicity. These findings may also suggest that the ability

grouping of the students may have attenuated or tended to

neutralize presumably pre-existent ethnically-based teachers'

biases which might have been revealed under different

circumstances. Thus, while teachers' prejudicial attitudes

may exist and influence their behavior under various

circumstances certain situational or other expectational

factors may intervene to accentuate, attenuate, neutralize or

reverse the implied behavioral output of those attitudes. In

either case, teachers' ratings of their students performance

in the instance of this investigation, appear to have been

relatively un-influenced by their presumed pre-existent

ethnically related biases.

Attitudes and Behavior

A major reason for studying attitudes is the expectation

by many social scientists that attitudes may predict

behavior. The assumption that a person's attitudes determine

or guide his or her behavior is historically ingrained in

social psychology. While some attitude constructs frequently

do predict behavior, there is evidence that there frequently

is no one-on-one correspondence between expressed attitudes

89

and subsequent behavior. That is, clearly expressed

attitudes frequently remain unmatched by corresponding or

presumably logically related behavior (Kaufman, 1973).

Behavior may be determined by many factors other than

attitudes, and these other factors affect attitude-behavior

consistency (Atkinson, et al., 1987).

Assumptions Regarding Attitude-Behavior Consistency. The

hypothetical predictions of this investigation rested on the

assumption of a direct, positive relationship between

attitudes and corresponding behavior. Based on a review of

the relevant literature it was assumed or at least presumed,

that the three teacher groups studied herein held

significantly differing amounts of ethnoculturally biased

attitudes toward each of three student ethnic groups under

their tutelage. It was further assumed that each group of

teachers would be measurably and subjectively more positive

toward students who were members of their own ethnic group.

The final general assumption was that these biased attitudes,

as suggested by the review of the literature, if actually

present in the teacher groups, would then be revealed by the

relative average ratings they would give each of the student

groups under their instruction. Students who belonged to

their teachers' own ethnic group were expected to receive

significantly higher average ratings than the other two

student groups than would apparently be warranted in light

of other more objective measures of student performance,

90

e.g., achievement test score averages.

Situational Constraints. Specificity and Attitude-Behavior

Consistency. Warner and DeFluer (1969) have presented

evidence which suggests that in some instances constraints

imposed by social norms inhibit the expression of

inappropriate attitudes. In the instance of this

investigation, the self-perceptions of teachers which may

have included the professional ideal of making objective,

unbiased evaluations of their students' performance, may have

inhibited the expression of inappropriate ethnoculturally

biased behavioral-evaluative tendencies, if present. It is

also possible that the expression of certain attitudes may be

inhibited by situational constraints or countervailing

attitudes or expectations. In this instance, the presumed

ethnoculturally biased attitudes of the teacher groups may

have been inhibited in their expression by the ability

grouping of the students and by the related expectation that

they would perform at essentially the same level.

Ajzen & Fishbein (1979) have suggested that if the

behavior one wants to predict is very specific, it is better

to predict for attitudes specifically related to that

behavior. Consequently, it is possible that because the

ethnoculturally-based attitudes utilized herein though

presumed to exist, were not specifically defined, their

possible relationship to the teachers' rating behavior could

not be discovered by the methods used in this investigation.

91

It is also possible, as suggested above that the evaluative

categories utilized in this investigation were too gross to

differentiate performance differences between the student

groups sensitively. In sum, the relationship between

attitudes and behavior may not be as simple and direct as one

would like to assume. Possible intervening variables and

other confounding factors should be given careful

consideration before research concerning the relationship

between attitudes and behavior is undertaken.

Limitations of This Investigation

In light of the above discussion the limitations of this

investigation included (1) its inability to have selected

heterogeneous student samples, i.e., to have avoided the use

of homogeneous ability-based student samples, which might

have controlled for the teacher samples' expectations based

on ability grouping which might have neutralized the

attitudinal effects under study; (2) its inability to

administer appropriate attitude scales, tests, or interviews

to determine what teachers held significant ethnoculturally

biased attitudes after their evaluation of the students; and

(3) its inability to utilize more sensitive and finely tuned

evaluative categories. In this last instance, while

internal validity may have been sacrificed, it was sacrificed

to the benefit of external validity, as these ratings are

actually made on school children in New York City. In the

case of the second point above, the following research

92

approach could be utilized. First, each group of teachers'

ratings of each student group would be collected. Second,

each teacher group would be administered an appropriate

attitude scale, test, or interview to determine their

attitude toward each of the student groups. The data from

the teachers' academic ratings of the students and from their

attitude measures would then be statistically analyzed to

reveal their attitudinal-behavioral relationships, if any.

These factors, in addition to providing a greater operational

specificity of conceptual definition regarding the attitudes

and related behaviors under study, would allow for a more

direct testing of the hypothesis that specific attitudes

guide specifically related behavior in future research. In

general, the main limitation of this investigation was that

it was ex post facto research, that is, there was no direct

control of independent variables because their effects had

already occurred or because they were inherently not subject

to systematic manipulation. Therefore, inferences about

relations among the variables studied herein, were made, not

from direct intervention, but from concomitant variation of

independent and dependent variables (Kelinger, 1973). As

such it was not possible to draw random samples of subjects,

to assign students to ethnic groups randomly and to

administer systematic treatments of those groups. The

criteria (reading, math achievement levels, prior academic

performance) used to place students into homogeneous classes

93

and the assignment of teachers to instruct those classes were

non-random. The teachers were assigned based on a rotation

schedule. Both the methods for assigning students to groups

and teachers to teach particular classes may have in effect,

led to significant "self-selection" of both student and

teacher samples. Self-selection implies that the groups

studied herein were in groups, in part, because they may have

possessed traits or characteristics extraneous to the problem

selected for investigation. Those characteristics may have

influenced the dependent variables in ways which could not be

experimentally or statistically controlled.

Because the assignment to the groups utilized by this

investigation was not random it was possible for variables

other than the ones of interest to this investigation to have

skewed the statistical outcomes of the study. Consequently,

the conclusions based on such outcomes would exhibit

reflective, undetected biases. They may also possibly be

unwarranted.

In sum, this investigation, as ex post facto research,

suffered three major weaknesses: (1) the inability to

manipulate independent variables, (2) the infeasibility of

randomly selecting the samples, and (3) the related problem

of uncertain, imprecise or the risk of improper

interpretation research findings. The absence of

experimental controls and the inability to select and test (

alternative hypotheses imply that the predicted (or

94

unpredicted) relations in this study be accepted with

caution. Causal inferences based on such relations would

therefore be somewhat tenuous or tentative. General

conclusions based on such relations can expressed with only

limited confidence and the generalizability of such

conclusions subject to careful qualifications.

Generally speaking, the explanations of ex post facto

research findings, being post factum. do not lend themselves

to falsification or nullifiability. That is, the

explanations of the observations of such research can be so

flexible that new or alternative interpretations can be found

to "explain the facts."

Despite the weaknesses of ex post facto research of the

kind utilized herein, its findings may often prove to be of

significant importance in psychological, sociological and

educational research. In a number of ways, ex post facto

research may be as important as experimental research,

especially in educational research, because some of the

important variables in such research—intelligence, aptitude,

home background, teacher or student personality—are

generally not manipulable (Kerlinger, 1973). While many of

the most important social scientific and educational problems

do not lend themselves to experimental manipulation, many of

them do lend themselves to carefully controlled, qualified

inquiry and observation of the kind ex post facto research is

capable of producing.

95

The findings from ex post facto investigations such as

those from the present research may be utilized to provide

information relevant to the consideration of many of the

social and educational problems which confront society today.

The findings of ex post facto research may also be utilized

to indicate areas whose investigation may possibly lead to

more productive and important findings or which variables

important to various social, psychological and educational

outcomes, lend themselves to experimental manipulation.

For example, the findings of the present research

suggest that the ethnocultural background of teachers may not

be an important variable related to student achievement. By

suggesting that teacher ethnocultural background may be of

relatively little importance in student academic performance,

this investigation implicitly suggests that variables such as

educational and school goals, school size, school leadership,

personnel characteristics, course work and classroom

characteristics—may be more productively investigated than

teacher cultural background and personality. These school

organizational and related variables are also apparently more

subject to experimental and administrative manipulation than

would be teacher ethnocultural background or personality.

The verifiable results of the manipulation of school

organizational variables could possibly be more immediately

and practically applied with measurable effects on student

academic achievement.

96

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

There is a substantial body of evidence which indicates

that teacher preferences and attitudes can affect teacher-

student interaction patterns resulting in the inhibition or

facilitation of student academic, intellectual, self-concept,

and social skill development (Brookover & Erikson, 1967;

1969; Crano & Mellon, 1978; Davidson & Lang, 1969; Dusek &

O'Connell, 1973; Glidewell, Kantor, Smith & Stringer, 1966;

Good & Brody, 1973; Parlardy, 1968; 1969; Phillips, 1965;

Rist, 1970; Seaver, 1973; Shore, 1973; Staines, 1958).

Teachers1 expectations for students1 classroom academic

performance and behavior are influenced by their perceptions

of different ethnic and social-class groups (Rosenfeld, 1973;

Rubovitz & Maehr, 1973; Washington, 1980; 1982; Whitehead &

Miller, 1972; Williams, Whitehead, & Miller, 1971;

Woodworth & Salzer, 1971). The communication of these

expectations through both verbal and nonverbal means is

likely to act as a subtle yet effective shaping mechanism for

student behavior (Brophy & Good, 1970; Good, Brophy, &

Mendosa, 1970; Jensen & Rosenfeld, 1974: Rosenshine, 1971;

Rothbart, 1970; Rowe, 1974; Scott, 1980). This shaping or

97

important variables in such research—intelligence, aptitude,

home background, teacher or student personality—are

generally not manipulable (Kerlinger, 1973). While many of

the most important social scientific and educational problems

do not lend themselves to experimental manipulation, many of

them do lend themselves to carefully controlled, qualified

inquiry and observation of the kind ex post facto research is

capable of producing.

The findings from ex post facto investigations such as

those from the present research may be utilized to provide

information relevant to the consideration of many of the

social and educational problems which confront society today.

The findings of ex post facto research may also be utilized

to indicate areas whose investigation may possibly lead to

more productive and important findings or which variables

important to various social, psychological and educational

outcomes, lend themselves to experimental manipulation.

For example, the findings of the present research

suggest that the ethnocultural background of teachers may not

be an important variable related to student achievement. By

suggesting that teacher ethnocultural background may be of

relatively little importance in student academic performance,

this investigation implicitly suggests that variables such as

educational and school goals, school size, school leadership,

personnel characteristics, course work and classroom

characteristics—may be more productively investigated than

98

perception of student behavior in terms of teacher

expectations may, in part, account for a large proportion of

the differences in educational attainment for different

ethnic groups.

Educational theorists and researchers have generally

noted that the academic performance, achievement motivation,

and self-perceptions of Black and Hispanic students generally

rank below that of their White counterparts (Coleman, 1975;

Gerard & Miller, 1975; Weikert, 1984). Moreover, a number of

theorists and researchers have contended that the relatively

lower achievement and self-concept of Black and Hispanic

children may be, in part, due to lower expectations for high

performance and less positive attitudes toward these students

by their teachers (Banks & Grambs, 1972; Clark, 1964;

Lanier & Wittmer, 1977; Rist, 1970; Tucker, 1980).

Relative to their apparent influence on the academic

achievement and social adjustment of students, a

determination of the relationship between teacher attitudes

and teacher evaluations of their students is of critical

importance. In addition, the determination of the origins of

teachers' attitudinal orientations toward their students is

of major importance if such orientations are biased and

should be remediated.

Some of the primary sources of differing teacher

attitudes toward students include their students1

ethnocultural, linguistic, social background, and gender.

99

One additional source of differing teacher attitudes toward

students of varying ethnocultural backgrounds may be the

ethnocultural background of the teachers themselves.

A review of the literature corroborated the following

propositions: (1) teachers' different attitudes toward each

of their students affect the performance of those students;

(2) students' perceptions of themselves are related to their

teachers' perception of them; and (3) teachers' expectations

in regard to students' academic performance are related to

and reflective of their students' ethnocultural, linguistic,

and social status backgrounds.

A number of studies were reviewed which suggest that

differential teacher attitudes regarding students' academic

behavior may well be actualized in the students' academic

achievement and intellectual growth (Crano & Mellon, 1978;

Dusek & O'Connell, 1973; Palardy, 1968; Seaver, 1973;

Sutherland & Goldschmid, 1974). The findings of Crano and

Mellon (1978) further suggested that teachers' expectations

influence students' performance more than students'

performances influence teachers' expectations.

A representative study by Davidson and Lang (1965)

suggested that differential teacher attitudes may influence

students' self-concepts as well as their classroom

performance. That is, pupils self-perceptions to a

significant degree are formed through interaction with their

teachers.

100

Finally, studies were reviewed which substantiated the

following contentions: (1) Disadvantaged, racial minority,

and lower class children are perceived differently by their

teachers, in contrast to their advantaged, racial majority,

and middle class counterparts (Jackson & Cosca, 1974;

(2) Student speech patterns may be associated by their

teachers with stereotypical attitudes regarding the personal

traits and abilities of the speakers. Nonstandard speakers

are consistently rated low in education, intelligence,

socioeconomic status, and speaking ability (Cohen &

Kimmerling, 1971; Gilberts, Guckin, & Leeds, 1972; Rosenfeld,

1973; Williams et al., 1971); (3) Teachers; ethnicity or

ethnocultural attributes may predispose them to behave

differentially toward their students. That is, teachers1

evaluative behavior toward the academic performance of their

students may be prejudiciously influenced by the teachers'

ethnocultural background (Gottlieb, 1964; Scott & Ntegeye,

1978; Washington, 1980; 1982).

Findings by Washington (1980; 1982) suggest that when

specific characterizations or evaluations of Black and White

students are noted, particularly those which are relevant to

academic performance, ethnocultural and perhaps ethnocentric

differences between Black and White teachers may exist.

Washington's (1980; 1982) findings along with those of

Gottlieb (1964), and Scott and Ntegeye (1978) generally

suggested that Black teachers more favorably regarded Black

101

students than White students and White teachers more

favorably regarded Black students than White students and

White teachers more favorably regarded White students than

Black students. Overall, the review studies just cited seem

to suggest that some of the non-objective attitudes held by

teachers may be ethnoculturally and ethnocentrically based.

In summary, the review of the literature indicated that

two major problems exist in the study of the relationship

between teachers' ethnocultural background and their

perception and evaluation of students. These problems

include: (1) the fact that few, if any, studies have

determined the relationship between ethnoculturally related

teacher attitudes toward their students and their actual

academic and social evaluation of their students, and (2) the

fact that few, if any, studies have determined the

relationship between teachers' ethnocultural background and

their students' academic and social performance.

The purpose of the present study was to above problems

(the first one indirectly) through an examination of

teachers' actual evaluation of their students' academic and

social performance as related to the ethnocultural

backgrounds of both the teachers and the students. More

specifically, this study was designed to determine if Black,

Hispanic, and White elementary school teachers, evaluate

their students' academic and social performance in ways

related to their ethnocultural backgrounds as well as those

102

their students.

Assuming, as was suggested by the last section of the

review of the literature, that teachers' attitudes toward

their students tend to be ethnoculturally and possibly

ethnocentrically related it was hypothesized that:

1. In their ratings of their students' academic and

social performance, Black, Hispanic, and White

teachers as a whole, would rate the academic and

social performance of White students more favorably

than Black and Hispanic students, respectively.

Social performance includes personal and social

conduct, work habits, homework, and health habits.

2. a. Black teachers would rate the academic and

academically related social performance of Black

students significantly higher than would White and

Hispanic teachers.

b. Black teachers would rate the academic and

social performance of Black students significantly

higher than that of White and Hispanic students,

producing a relative ranking of Black, White, and

Hispanic students.

3. a. Hispanic teachers would rate the academic and


significantly higher than would Black and White

teachers.

b, Hispanic teachers would rate the academic and

103


significantly higher than tnat of White and Black

students, producing a relative ranking of Hispanic,

White, and Black students.

4. a. White teachers would rate the academic and


higher than would Black and Hispanic teachers,

b. White teachers would rate the academic and


higher than that of Black and Hispanic students,

producing a relative ranking of White, Black, and

Hispanic students.

METHOD

The subjects of this investigation were 45 Black,

Hispanic, and White elementary school teachers and 405 of

their Black, Hispanic, and White students who teach in and

attend schools located in New York City. The 45 teachers

included 15 subjects from each ethnocultural group. The 405

students (nine subjects per teacher) included three from each

ethnocultural group of students per teacher.

Data relevant to this investigation, which included the

students' average grade in all courses, reading and math

achievement test scores, were collected from the "Report To

Parents" or the "Student Progress Report", commonly referred

to as a "report card."

104

The teachers were instructed to select randomly the

report cards of three students from each students ethnic

group. The teachers supplied the requisite number of report

cards to the investigator who recorded the relevant data.

The cards were then returned to the teachers.

RESULTS

Hypothesis 1 proposed that in their ratings of their

students' academic and social performance, teachers as a

whole, would rate the performance of White students more

favorably than Black and Hispanic students, respectively.

Hypotheses 2a, 3a, and 4a (herein referred to as the first

predictions of Hypotheses 2, 3, and 4) collectively


of the student group which belongs to its own ethnic group,

more favorably than the other teacher groups.

Statistically analysis demonstrated no statistically

significant differences between the means achieved by the

three student groups across all four factor variables. Thus,

the first hypothesis was not supported by the results of the

present investigation. Hypotheses 2a, 3a, and 4a also were

not supported by the statistically analyses of this

investigation.

Hypotheses 2b, 3b, and 4b (herein referred to as the

second predictions of Hypotheses 2, 3, and 4) collectively


105

of the student group which belonged to its own ethnic group

more favorably than the other two student groups. None of

these hypotheses were supported by statistical analyses.

A supplementary analysis utilizing the Schefee procedure

was executed to test all the differences between the mean

ratings of overall student performance demonstrated by each

the three teachers groups. Results of the procedure

indicated that relative to the evaluation of the academic

performance of the students as a whole only the Hispanic

teachers as a group rated its students statistically

significantly different from the other teacher groups. No

statistically significant differences between the mean social

ratings given by the three teacher groups were reveled.

DISCUSSION

This study was designed to determine if the average

academic and social performance ratings attained by Black

Hispanic, and White students were related to their teachers'

ethnocultural backgrounds. Four hypothesized relationships

between the teachers' ethnicity and that of their students

were proposed as enumerated above.

Statistical analysis of the relevant data failed to

support the predictions of the four hypotheses. The lack of

statistical support for the predictions of the four

hypotheses suggests that, in general, there may exist little

or no significant relationship between teachers1 ethnicity

106

and a tendency to rate their students* performance

ethnocentrically.

The most parsimonious explanation of these results

appears to be that the teachers as a whole were not

significantly racially or ethnically prejudiced toward either

of the three student groups and, therefore, did not evaluate

their performance in ethnically biased ways. That is, the

overall results suggest that the three student groups

performed essentially equally well or poorly and that their

performance was unbiasedly evaluated by the teachers as a

whole. It was noted that the student groups did not differ

significantly from one another on the basis of objective test

scores. Furthermore, the overall grade-point averages of the

student groups were not significantly different. Finally,

the schools utilized in this investigation fully engaged in

the practice of "ability grouping" or "tracking", wherein,

students are subdivided into high, average, and low achieving

classes according to academic achievement test score averages

and previous achievement. In light of these facts,

relatively unbiased evaluators, e.g. the teachers, would be

expected to grade the students' performance on the whole with

a degree of equality.

No measurement of the teachers' racial attitudes was

taken in this investigation. Therefore, the teachers'

assessed attitudes were unknown. Consequently, other

possible explanations for the results were proposed.

107

Other plausible reasons for the lack of statistical

support for the hypotheses included the possibility, (1) that

the teachers' evaluations of their students; including those

belonging to their own ethnic group, were influenced by the

knowledge that the students had been grouped according to

their tested abilities and prior academic achievement and the

implicit expectation that they would perform at about the

same level; (2) that teachers may have chosen to ignore

personal and ethnocentric biases and therefore objectively

evaluated the performance of the student groups; (3) that the

New York City Board of Education, through its teacher

selection and preparatory procedures, or through its teacher

selection and preparatory procedures, or through

attributions, may have "weeded out" teachers who held

conspicuously active ethnocentric attitudes or who were not

sufficiently acculturated; and (4) that the evaluative

categories utilized in the report cards may have been only

sensitive to the more gross of student performance

differences.

The findings of this investigation would seem to

corroborate reasonably the argument that factors other than

teachers' or students* ethnicity may significantly influence

teachers' ratings of students' performance under actual

pedagogical conditions, e.g., the students' socioeconomic and

family backgrounds. Thus, while teachers* prejudicial

attitudes may exist and influence their behavior under

108

various circumstances certain situational or other

expectational factors may intervene to accentuate, attenuate,

neutralize or reverse the implied behavioral output of those

attitudes. In sum, the relationship between attitudes and

behavior may not be as simple and direct as might be assumed.

Possible intervening variables and other confounding factors

should be given careful consideration before research

concerning the relationship between attitudes and behavior is

undertaken.

The limitations of this investigation included (1) its

inability to have selected heterogeneous student samples

which might have controlled for the teachers' expectations

based on ability grouping; (2) its inability to administer

appropriate attitude scales, tests, or interviews to

determine relevant teacher attitudes toward their students;

and (3) its inability to utilize more sensitive and finely

tuned evaluative categories.

In general, the main limitation of this study was that

it was ex post facto research, that is, there was no direct

control of independent variables because their effects had

already occurred or because they were inherently not subject

to systematic manipulation.

Despite the weaknesses of ex post facto research of the

kind utilized in this study, its findings may often prove to

be of significant importance in psychological research. For

example, the findings of the present research suggest that

109

the ethnocultural background of teachers may not be an

important variable related to student achievement; that

variables such as pedagogical approaches, school

organization, curricula, leadership, funding, and the like,

may be more productively investigated and subject to remedial

change than teacher cultural background and attitudes.

110

^

REFERENCES

Allport, G. W. (1935). Attitudes. In C. Murchison (Ed.), Handbook of Social Psychology, Worcester, Mass.: Clark University Press.

Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1979). Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin. 84. 888-918.

Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1982). Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, N. J. : Prentice-Hall.

Anisfeld, M. , Bogo, N., & Lambert, W. (1962). Evaluational reactions to accented English. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 65, 223-231.

Atkinson, R. , Atkinson, R., Smith, E. , and Hilgard, E. (1987). Introduction to Psychology. Ninth Edition. New York: Harcourt Brace & Vanovich.

Ausubel, D., (1958). Perceived parent attitudes as determinants of children's ego structure. Child Development. 25. 173-83.

Banks, J. & Grambs, J. (Editors) (1972). Black Self-concept: Implications for Education and Social Science. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Brookover, W., & Erikson, E. (1967). Self-concept of ability and school achievement. Ill: Relationship of self-concept to achievement in high school. U. S. Office of Education, Cooperative Research Project No. 2831. East Lansing; Michigan State University.

Brookover, W. , & Erikson, E. (1969). Society. Schools, and Learning. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Brophy, J., & Good, T. (1970). Teachers' Communication of Differential Expectations for Children's Classroom Performance: Some Behavioral Data. Journal of Educational Psychology, 6.1,, 3 65•-37'I.

Brophy, J. & Good, T. (1974). Teacher Student Relationships: Causes and Consequences. N. Y. Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Buck, J. (1968). The effects of Negro and White dialectal variations upon attitudes of college students. Speech Monographs, 25, 181-186.

Campbell, D. (1963). From Description to Experimentation:

111

Interpreting Trends as Quasi-experiments. In C. W. Harris (Ed.), Problems in Measuring Change. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Clark, K. (1964) . Clash of cultures in the classroom. In M. Weinberg (Ed.), Learning Together. Chicago: Integrated Education Associates.

Cohen, K., & Kimmerling, F. (1971). Attitudes based on English dialect differences: An analysis of current research. Cambridge, Mass.: Language, Research Foundation, (ED 056579).

Coleman, J. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office.

Crano, W. & Mellon, P. (1978). Causal influence of teachers' expectations on children's academic performance: A cross-lagged panel analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology. 70, 39-49.

Davidson, H. , & Lang, G. (1965). Children's perceptions of their teachers' feelings toward related to self-perception, school achievement, and behavior. In D. E. Hamacheck (Ed.), The self in growth, teaching, and learning. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 424-439.

Dusek, J., & O'Connell, E. (1973). Teacher expectancy effects on the achievement test performance of elementary school children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 65, 371-377.

Gerard, H., & Miller, N. (1975). School Desegregation: A Long Term Study. New York: Plenum Press.

Gifford, B. (1986) . Excellence and equity in teacher competency testing: A policy perspective. The Journal of Negro Education, 55(5): 251-271.

Gilberts, R. , Guckin, J., & Leeds, D. (1972). Teacher perception of race, socioeconomic status, and language characteristics. Whitewater, Wise: School of Education, Wisconsin State University (ED 052131).

Glidev/ell, J., Kantor, H. , Smith, L. , £ Stringer, L. (1973). Socialization and social structure in the classroom. In L. Hoffman & M. Hoffman, (Eds.), Review of Child Development Research (Vol. 2). N. Y.: Harper & Row.

Good, T. (1970). Which pupils do teachers call on? Elementary School Journal, 70, 190-198.

Good, T., & Brophy, J. (1973). Teacher's expectations as self-

112

fulfilling prophecies. In T. Good & J. E. Brophy (Eds.)/ Looking In Classrooms, New York: Harper & Row.

Good, T. , Brophy, J., & Mendosa, S. (1970). Who talks in the classroom. Austin, University of Texas, Research and Development Center for Teacher Education.

Gottlieb, D. (1964). Teaching and students: The views of Negro and White Teachers. Sociology and Education. 27, 345-353.

Haber, A., & Runyon, R. (1983). Fundamentals of Psychology. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley.

Harms, L. (1961). Listener's judgments of status cues in speech. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 47. 161-168.

Jackson, G., & Cosca, C. (1974). The inequality of educational opportunity in the southwest: An observational study of ethnically mixed classrooms. American Education Research Journal. 11. No. 3., 219-229.

Jensen, M., & Rosenfeld, L. (1974). Influence of Mode of Presentation, Ethnicity and Social Class on Teachers' Evaluations of Students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66. 540-547.

Jourard, S., & Remy, R. (1955). Perceived parental attitudes, the self, and security. Journal of Consulting Psychology. 19. 364-66.

Kaufman, H. (1973). Social Psychologv: The Study of Human Interaction. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Karlins M. Coffman, T., & Walters, G. (1969). On the fading of social stereotype: Studies in three generations of college students. Journal of Personality and Social Psychologv. 31. 1-16.

Kerlinger, F. (1973). Foundations of Behavioral Research. 2nd ed. New York: Holt, Rhinehart and Winston.

Lanier, J., & Wittmer, J. (1977). Teacher prejudice in referral of students to EMR programs. School Counselor, 24, 165-170

Marwit, K., & Marwit, S., & Walker, E. (1978). Effects of student race and physical attractiveness of teachers* judgments of transgressions. Journal of Educational Psychology. 70, 911-915.

Moe, J. (1972). Listener judgments of status cues in speech: A replication and extension. Speech Monographs. 39. 144-147.

113

Morse, W. (1964). Self concept data. National Association of Secondary Principals Bulletinf 48, 23-27.

Naremore, R. (1971). Teacher's judgments of children's speech: A factor analytic study of attitudes. Speech Monographs. 38, 17-27.

National Coalition of Advocates for Students. (1985). Barriers to Excellence: Our Children at Risk. Boston, Mass.: National Coalition of Advocates for Students.

National Urban League. (1984). The State of Black America. New York: National Urban League, Inc.

New York City Board of Education. Office of Educational Statistics. (1988). Reading and Mathematics Test Scores, District by District. New York: New York City Board of Education.

New York City Board of Education. Office of Educational Statistics. (1989). Race in New York City's Schools, District by District. N. Y. : New York City Board of Education.

Palardy, J. (1968). What teachers believe—what children achieve. Elementary School Journal, 69. 370-374.

Palardy, J. (1969). For Johnny's reading sake. The Reading Teacher, 8, 720-724.

Pelz, D., & Andrews, F. (1964). Detecting causal priorities in panel study data. American Sociological Review. 29, 836-848.

Perkins, H. (1958). Factors influencing change in children's self-concepts. Child Development. 19. 203-220.

Phillips, B. (1965). Sex, social class and anxiety as sources of variation in school achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology. 56. 316-322.

Rist, R. (1970). Student social class and teacher expectations: The self-fulfilling prophecy in ghetto education. Harvard Education Review, 40, 411-451.

Rosenfeld, L. (1973). An investigation of teachers" stereotyping behavior: The influence of presentation, ethnicity, and social class on teachers evaluations of students. Albuquerque, (ED 090172).

Rosenshine, B. (1971). Teaching behavior related pupil achievement: Review of research. In I. Westbury, & A. Bellack (Eds), Research into classroom processes: Recent

114

developments and next steps. N. Y. : Teachers1 College Press, 51-98.

Rothbart, M. , Dalfen, S., & Barrett, R. (1971). Effects of teacher's expectancy on student-teacher interaction. Journal of Educational Psychology. 1971, 62, 49-54.

Rowe, M. (1974). Wait-time and rewards as instructional variables, their influence on language logic and fate control: Part one-wait time. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 11, 81-94.

Royer, J. & Feldman, S. (1984). Educational Psychology: Applications and Theory. New York: A. Knopf.

Rubovitz, R., & Maehr, M. (1973). Pygmalion black and white. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 25. 210-218.

Scott, M. (1976). The effects of teacher perception of personality factors on the cognitive and affective learning of black students. Journal of Negro Education. 45.

Scott, M., & Ntegeye, M. (1980). Acceptance of minority student personality characteristics by black and white teachers. Integrated Education. 18, 110-112.

Seaver, B. (1973). Effect of naturally induced teacher expectancies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 28. 333-342.

Shore, A. (1973). The pygmalion effect lives. Psychology Today, September, 7, 56-60.

Slobetz, F., & Lund, A. (1956). Some effects of a personal development program at the fifth grade level. Journal of Educational Research. 49. 373-378.

Staines, J. (1958) . The self-picture as a factor in the classroom. British Journal of Education. 28, 97-111.

Stern, C , & Keislar, E. (1977). Teacher attitudes of attitude change: A Research Review. Journal of Research and Development in Education. 10. 63-76.

Sutherland, A., &. Goldschmid, M. (1974). Negative teacher expectation and I. Q. change in children with superior intellectual potential. Child Development, 45, 852-856.

Tucker, J. (1980). Ethnic proportions in classes for the learning disabled: Issues in nonbiased assessment. The Journal of Special Education. 14. 93-105.

Warner, L. & DeFleur, M. (1969). Attitude as an interactional concept: Social constraint and social distance as

115

intervening variables between attitudes and action. American Sociological Review. 34, 153-169.

Washburne, C. , & Weil, L. (1960). What characteristics of teachers affect children's growth? The School Review. 68. 420-428.

Washington, V. (1979). The role of teacher behavior in school desegregation. Educational Horizons. Spring, 145-151.

Washington, V. (1980). Teachers in integrated classrooms: Profiles of attitudes, perceptions, and behavior. The Elementary School Journal. 80. 192-201.

Washington, V. (1982). Racial differences in teacher perceptions of first and fourth grade pupils on selected characteristics. The Journal of Negro Education, 51. 60-72.

Watson, G., & Johnson, D. (1972). Social Psychology: Issues and Insights. New York: J. B. Lippincott.

Wattenberg, W., & Clifford, C. (1962). Relationship of the self-concept to beginning achievement in reading, (Cooperative Research Project No. 377), Washington, D. C.: U. S. Office of Education.

Weikart, D. (1984). Changed Lives. Ypsilanti, Mich.: High/Scope Press.

Weitz, S. (1972). Attitude, voice, and behavior: A repressed affect model of interracial interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 24., 14-21.

Whitehead, J., & Miller, L. (1972). Correspondence between evaluations of children's speech and speech anticipated upon the basis of stereotype. Southern Speech Communication Journal, 27, 375, 386.

Wicker, A. (1969). Attitudes versus actions: The relationship of verbal and overt behavioral responses to attitude objects. Journal of Social Issuer 25(4), 41-78.

Williams, F. , Whitehead, J., & Miller, L. (1971). Attitudinal correlates of children's speech characteristics, Austin; Center for Communication Research, University of Tessas (ED 052213).

116

APPENDIX A

REPORT TO PARENTS FORM

(

111

Name Pupil Pupil ID *

Ratings Used | Working Periods

I - Ucellenr N Needs improvement 1 ]

S Soi>sfOitOry 11 UniCJl'SfoClOfv

COMMUNICATION ARTS 1

'Bentl.'ig ipvrj

f | s | N | U

2 1 "Sfodrg lewri

. | S | N | . , |

3 " •Reading le*fl

( | -, 1 N I U

Reoding _ . , _ . I 1 1 1

fTrp'iyi s'omJn'd IngLsh

Written language

uses I C ' P C sen»e' ce s'ruf *u'e

isfs cwiec sped -.g

yVi.tes legDi/

Mil

MM

SCOW) tANGUAGf <-

Speaks with octirocy ar.1 c'ar »>

ReaJs wih understanding {Grades 3 6i

Wnips correctly (.Grades 3 M

MATHEMATICS

-x-uws nLmber tocts

Uses rampuroi'cn

Shows knowledge of other mathematical concepts

Applies skills m pfohobili'y nnd sto'is'-cs

De-nnrMrates problem solving skills

I

•Mclh Ifvpl

! « S S N | „

MM

*Maih lew - | •M.iit- h VP'

f J s | N l u l l s • • -

SOOAI STUDIES

i' «1r'\t-y.(J\ ,)"'' »V'p»e»s n)vir ••at'O"

IS Q*.l'p . I ( U f ' f " t f . f l ' S

L'-<1»f \lQnfl\ mop o"d globe Skills

learns t-se ol reference mo'i'ftQl

SCIENCE

Knows science facts and concepts

Understands or.d uses scientific method

T T ma

rm •p^nrt.na nml Mnth^mnt

Report to Parens Grades 2-6

Po't-opaies m classroom & school music oc'-wities

PortifipOies m classroom J school art activities

HEAITH EDUCATION

iinders'onds basic r-ec 'h eonrepn

PHYSICAL EDUCATION

Paf't raies -n ac'.v i.cs

P f f 'rms requ"ed skills

OTHER SUBJECTS

WORK HABITS l i 'lows O.rei ' cr*,

C.Ol~r|eV> work on lirre

$ho*<. f i ot.we

lAinl nca'iy

lukrs cnrp ut books and ma'enais

HOMEWORK

PERSONAL AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Opts along wril with o'hers

Shows respect

Comes out responsibilities

Obeys rules and regulations

Sfwws sell contial

Marking Periods

1

jJLLl'- A)

2

E | S I N | u

M M l

3 "

s | S | N | U

1 1 1

t n

SPECIAL HEALTH NEEDS i>.«>n hearing demoi n„i.

n

ffi

ZXJ_J_£ L±Lzt

n r_r̂ ^ , t trxn EEETn M M a •

c

in -

M l l h l l

DAYS ABSENT

DAYS LATE

I s

APPENDIX B

CONSENT LETTER

(

118

Now York City 110 Livingston Street Board of Education Brooklyn, New York 11201

Nathan Qulnonea Oflico oi Educational Acsocsmont Chancellor Richard Guttenberg

Director Louise Latty (718) 595-4045 Chief Executive for Instruction

January 28, 1986

Mr. Amos Wilson 1780 Davidson Avenue, #65 Bronx, New York 10453

Dear Mr. Wilson:

I am happy to inform you that your study on children's academic performance and social adjustment as related to teachers' ethnocultural background has been approved by the Office of Educational Assessment with the following conditions.

1. Approval by this office does not guarantee access to any particular school or child. It is your responsibility to make appropriate contacts and get the required permissions and consents before initiating the study. Participation in your research must, of course, be strictly voluntary. The following written consents are required.

a. Principals who agree to participate must sign the enclosed Research Application Form. In some districts, the superintendent must also sign. You should check with each principal to determine if the superintendent's signature is also required in that district. The signed form(s) should be returned to this office.

b. Before involving any child in your study or collecting student data, you must obtain written parental consent.

c. In addition to the above written consents, all participants (e.g., teachers, guidance counselors, children) must be informed that they are not required to participate in the study, and that there are no consequences for non-participation.

2. Your report of the study should not include the identification of any school, student, or staff member. The first procedure for protecting confidentiality that you described in your letter of January 15, 1986 is preferred by the Proposal Review Committee. A coding system should be used if necessary.

3. Please send a copy of your final report to this office; we are most interested in the results of your research„

Sincerely,

V^A^^MUXJ^^ RG:mo RICWRD GUTTENBERG Enclosure Director , O.E.A.

EVALUATION O R&D © TESTING O DATA ANALYSIS

APPENDIX C

RESEARCH APPLICATION FORM

/

119

NEW YORK CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION OFFICE OF EDUCATIONAL ASSESSMENT

RESEARCH APPLICATION FORM

To the Principal :

The researcher ident i f ied below has obtained preliminary clearance to conduct research in the New York City public schools, and is now seeking principals and community superintendents w i l l i ng to cooperate' in a research study. However, before beginning the study, the researcher must present you with a signed l e t t e r of aporovl f^c-i the * Director, Office of Educational Assessment. I i r e t j r n , the researcher must submit th is form to 3.E.A. with the signatures of cooperating pr inc ipa ls . * Please si/jn below i ' yju agree to have your school part ic ipate in this study.

Nana of Researcher

Mailing Address

Telephone

University or Professional Affiliation

Graduate Student Professor Other

If investigator is a candidate for a degree, which degree?

Department

T i t l e of Study

List tes ts , questionnaires, interview schedules and other evaluation instruments to be used. COPIES OF THESE INSTRUMENTS, A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THIS PROJECT AND A STEP-BY-STEP OUTLINE OF THE PROJECT MUST 3E ATTACHED TO THIS APPLICATION WHEN IT IS PRESENTED TO oRINCIPALS AND COMMUNITY SUPERINTENDENTS.

Estimated duration of study:

Cooperating School

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

D is t r i c t Research w i l l involve:

Grade(s) # of

Classes # of

Pupils # of Staff Members

Signature of Principal

- Scne j ' r . " C . i i i ; o i-equi' -• tin." •ii^rmt ,.-•- j t inc d i s t r i c t sjp'.- ' ^ c •:'•">"''. *i > ns form, jnqu i r j in each d i s t r i c t included in your study, and, i f nucoi j i ' -y, ha/a the superintendent(s) sign here:

Superintendent's signature

Superintendent's signature

D is t r i c t

D is t r i c t

Superintendent's signature D is t r i c t

i

APPENDIX D

EIGENVALUES OF CORRELATION MATRIX

120

VARIABLE E I G E N V A L U E

MUSIC V23 Participates in classroom

& school music activities 0.31 ART V24 Participates in classroom

& school art activities HEALTH V25 Understands basic health concepts PHYSICAL EDUCATION V26 Participates in activities V27 Performs required skills WORK HABITS V28 Follows directions V29 Completes work on time V30 Shows initiative V31 Works neatly V32 Takes care of books & materials V33 Homework PERSONAL & SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT V34 Gets along well with others V35 Shows respect V36 Carries out responsibilities V37 Obeys rules & regulations V38 Shows self-control

0.

0.

0. 0.

0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.

0. 0. 0. 0. 0.

.29

.28

.27 ,26

.24 ,22 ,20 ,20 ,18 ,17

,16 ,16 ,13 ,13 ,11

Note. N = 135.

APPENDIX E

RESULTS OF MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS

121

Results of Multiple Regression Analysis with Combined and

Separate Reading and Math Scores as Predictor Covariates and

The Four Variables as Criterion Variables

Predictor Variables

Linguistics Math/Sciences Adjustment Participation

R Squared

.0109

.0008

.0365

.1120

R

.1048

.0276

.1911

.3347

df

2,120 2,120 2,120 2,120

MS

18.54 .79

84.21 15.95

F

.67

.05 2.27 7.57*

Reading Scores


.0071

.0000

.0325

.1190

.1840

.0035

.1804

.3449

2,125 2,125 2,125 2,125

24.19 .00

152.22 37.14

.35

.10*

.04**

.00***

Math Scores


.0064

.0006

.0002

.0243

.0803

.0248

.0449

.1558

1,121 1,121 1,121 1,121

21.77 1.27 9.30 6.91

.37

.19

.62

.09

Note. *P<.05. **P<.001.

Amos N. Wilson

B.A., Morehouse College, 1963 M.A., Fordham University, 1986

A COMPARISON OF THE RATINGS OF BLACK, HISPANIC, AND WHITE

CHILDRENS' ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE AND SOCIAL ADJUSTMENT AS

RELATED TO TEACHERS' ETHNOCULTURAL BACKGROUND

Dissertation directed by Professor's Kurt Geisinger, Ph.D.

While the research literature consistently and clearly

delineates several student characteristics which may serve as

stimuli that evoke non-objective teacher attitudinal

orientations, it has to a substantial extent not attempted to

delineate the origins of such tendencies relative to the

personality and other characteristics of teachers themselves.

Studies were reviewed which seem to suggest that some of the

non-objective attitudes held by teachers may be ethnoculturally

and ethnocentrically based. That is, teachers' ethnocultural

background experiences tend to influence their perceptions and

evaluations of their students. A search of the relevant

literature failed to locate any literature which have

investigated the relationship between teachers' ethnocultural

background and their actual evaluation of their students'

academic and social performance, particularly when those students

belong to different ethnic groups.

This study was designed to determine if teachers,

specifically, Black, Hispanic, and White elementary teachers,

evaluate their students' academic and social performance in ways

related to their ethnocultural backgrounds as well as those of

their students. The subjects of this investigation were Black,

Hispanic, and White elementary school teachers and 405 of their

Black, Hispanic, and White students who taught and attended

school in New York City. The total teacher sample consisted of

45 persons. The teachers' academic ratings of the students and

the students' achievement test scores were taken from student

report cards. Univariate and multivariate analyses of the

collected data did not support the general hypotheses that the

academic performance of White students would be rated

significantly higher by the teachers as a whole than would Black

and Hispanic students; that each teacher group would rate the

performance of the student group which belonged to its own

ethnic group, more favorably than the other teacher groups.

The most parsimonious explanation of these results appears

to be that the teachers were not significantly racially

prejudiced toward either of the three student groups given the

ethnically unbiased ways they evaluated their students'

performance. Other plausible reasons for the lack of statistical

support for the hypotheses were also considered. The findings of

this investigation seem to suggest that factors other than

teachers' or students' ethnicity may significantly influence

teachers' ratings of students' performance under actual

pedagogical conditions. in general, there may e:cic;b little or no

significant relationship between teachers' ethnicity and a

tendency to rate their students' performance ethnocentrically.

2

Thus, the ethnocultural background of teachers may not be an

important variable related to student achievement.

3

VITA

Amos Nelson Wilson, son of Lugenia and Oscar Wilson, was

born on February 23, 1941, in Hattiesburg, Mississippi. He

attended Rowan High School in Hattiesburg, and was graduated in

May, 1959.

He entered Morehouse College in September, 1959 and

received the Bachelor of Arts degree in June, 1963.

He entered The New School for Social Research in September,

1968 and received the Master of Arts degree in June, 1971.

From September, 1971 to August, 1976 and September, 1981 to

August, 1986, he was Assistant Professor of Psychology at the

City University of New York. He served as Adjunct Professor of

Psychology at the New York Institute of Technology and The School

of New Resources, The College of New Rochelle (where he is

presently employed). He is author of the book, THE DEVELOPMENTAL

PSYCHOLOGY OF THE BLACK CHILD.

In September, 1976 he was accepted as a graduate student in

the Graduate School of Arts of Sciences of Fordham University,

where he majored in General Theoretical Psychology under the

mentorship of Professor Kurt Geisinger.

A Comparison of the Ratings of Black, Hispanic, And White Childrens' Academic Performance, Amos N....

Documents

Transcript of A Comparison of the Ratings of Black, Hispanic, And White Childrens' Academic Performance, Amos N....