Student Perceptions of Teacher Ethnic Bias: A Comparison of Mexican American and. Non-Latino White Dropouts and Students. Jeffrey C. Wayman, Ph.D.

Transcription

1 Student Perceptions of Teacher Ethnic Bias: A Comparison of Mexican American and Non-Latino White Dropouts and Students Jeffrey C. Wayman, Ph.D. Center for Social Organization of Schools Johns Hopkins University Article appeared in the February/March 2002 edition of The High School Journal. Full reference: Wayman, J. C. (2002). Student perceptions of teacher ethnic bias: A comparison of Mexican American and Non-Latino White dropouts and students. The High School Journal, 85 (1),

2 Abstract Student alienation from school is a major cause of dropping out of high school and poor teacher-student relationships are often cited in describing student alienation. An under-studied aspect of poor teacher-student relationships is student perception that teachers treat some students differently because of the student s ethnicity. Previous studies on this topic have been isolated to dropouts and minority students, and have been conducted using small numbers of participants. Thus, it is unknown what the prevalence of such perceptions in the overall student population are, as well as perception differences by dropout status and ethnicity. The present study addressed these issues by utilizing a large-scale dropout database to describe student perception of teacher ethnic bias in Mexican American and non-latino white dropouts, students at risk of dropping out, and students in the overall school population. Results indicated that although perceptions of teacher ethnic bias are not rampant, such perceptions exist, more so in dropouts, Mexican American adolescents, and males. Implications for future research, schools, teachers, and teacher preparation programs are discussed. 2

3 Introduction Dropping out of high school continues to draw attention in educational literature. Such attention is justified, as the problems which can result for an individual who drops out are well-documented (Ekstrom, Goertz, Pollack, & Rock, 1986; Rumberger, 1987; Wehlage and Rutter, 1986). Often, studies are focused specifically on dropout issues in the Latino population because of the high Latino dropout rate (Rumberger, 1993). Many causes and correlates of dropping out have been identified, one of which is the nature of the school-student relationship. School alienation is thought to be a significant factor when explaining dropout and low academic achievement, particularly so among minority students (Calabrese & Poe, 1990; Fine, 1991; Jordan, Lara, & McPartland, 1996). Quite simply, dropouts often leave school because they do not like school (Ekstrom et al., 1986; Jordan et al., 1996; Wehlage & Rutter, 1986). More specifically, poor teacher-student relationships can be expected to contribute to negative feelings toward school since these relationships are at the very heart of the educational process. Dropouts report poor relationships with teachers (Turner, Laria, Shapiro, & Perez, 1993), and poor teacher relationships are often cited as a reason for dropping out (Ekstrom et al., 1986; Jordan et al., 1996; Tidwell, 1988). It has been suggested that the teacher-student bond is particularly important for Mexican American students (Alva and Padilla, 1995). One aspect of poor teacher-student relationships results from student perceptions that teachers treat students differentially according to ethnic background. As Calabrese and Poe (1990) note, education is viewed as an equalizer in the United States, and recognition of bias in an institution which professes to offer equal opportunity creates a 3

4 sense of alienation and distance. Given Alva and Padilla s (1995) findings, this may be especially true for Mexican American students. Alton-Lee, Nuthall, and Patrick (1993) state that when presented with a school situation which is a cultural mismatch, some minority children may reject the situation as belonging to them, and not us. Thus, student perceptions of teacher ethnic bias are part of the constellation of experiences which make some students uncomfortable with school, often hindering academic achievement. In fact, Katz (1999) reported that discrimination was the primary cause of Latino student disengagement from school. Students report many different manifestations of perceived teacher ethnic bias. Some are less overt, such as low academic expectations of Latino students (Aviles, Guerrero, Howarth & Thomas, 1999; Katz, 1999). Participants in Aviles et al. reported that being of Mexican descent, they were often not part of the in-group in their school and felt that this often led to differential treatment by the faculty. More direct demonstrations of bias include minority students being told they were not capable of high school work, differential disciplinary tactics, and being told not to speak Spanish at school (Aviles et al., 1999; Fine, 1991; Katz, 1999). It is clear from these studies that student perceptions of teacher ethnic bias exist, but many issues surrounding the problem have not been adequately addressed. For instance, studies describing such perceptions have been conducted using low sample sizes of specifically targeted students, so it is not clear how widespread these perceptions are in the general adolescent population. Also, these studies are often focused on Latino students, so it is not known how non-latino white adolescents compare to Latino adolescents in perceptions of teacher ethnic bias. Further, no study has performed 4

5 comparisons of such perceptions for dropouts and non-dropouts, nor included data on students at-risk for dropping out. The present study will address these issues, providing measures of the extent of student perceptions of ethnic teacher bias, and comparing such perceptions by school status, ethnicity, and gender. Method Participants The data for this study were gathered as part of a longitudinal project designed to study substance use and other correlates of high school dropout among Mexican American and non-latino white youth (National Institute on Drug Abuse, grant R01 DA 04777). The participants were Mexican American and non-latino white adolescents from three communities in the southwestern United States: (1) a city with 400,000 people, (2) a mid-sized town with 90,000 people, and (3) a small town with 30,000 people. The sample included three groups of adolescents: school dropouts, students at risk of dropping out, and a control group of students. Dropouts were defined as students in grades 7 12 who had not attended school for at least 30 days, had not transferred to another school, were not being home-schooled, and had not contacted the school system about re-admission. This definition is more stringent than that recommended by Morrow (1986), whose definition of a dropout calls for a period of unexcused absence from school of two weeks or more. The adoption of a period of absence of one month or longer provides a sufficient period of time to ensure that youth are, in fact, high school dropouts. Students at-risk for dropping out were randomly selected from a group of 5

6 students from the dropout s school with the same grade, gender, ethnicity, age, and grade point average as the dropout (exact GPAs were not always possible because many dropouts had GPAs close to zero). Control students were randomly selected from a group of students from the dropout s school with the same grade, gender, ethnicity, and age as the dropout. Participants available for study were adolescents from dropout lists provided by school personnel in the aforementioned communities and students from the dropout s school. Procedure School dropouts were chosen randomly from monthly dropout lists provided by the school district. Once the dropout agreed to take the survey, a student at risk of dropping out was randomly chosen from a list provided by the school and a control student was selected in a similar fashion. To conduct the surveys, field workers, employed by the district and fluent in English and Spanish, first contacted potential participants. After the project was described, potential participants were asked if they wished to be involved. If they expressed interest and were over 18, they completed consent forms. If they were under 18, parents were contacted, the project was fully explained, and written parental consent was obtained. Those who refused were replaced in the sampling frame by another randomly sampled participant. Dropouts were oversampled to maintain balance for a follow-up component to this project. Following informed consent, arrangements were then made for an individual administration of the survey. The survey was completed at school or at another public building such as a library, and participants were given as much time as needed to 6

7 complete the survey. The survey administrator gave participants the survey, answered general questions, and helped participants with reading problems, but did not see participant responses. When the survey was complete, the participant put it in a large envelope and sealed it personally. Based on the participant's choice, the survey was mailed to the research office either by the survey administrator or was taken immediately to a mailbox by the participant and survey administrator. These steps assured confidentiality; at no time was an unsealed, completed survey out of the participant s sight. Participants received $10 $25 for completion of the survey, with higher amounts reflecting the greater travel and difficulty in arranging for the survey. These procedures led to low rates of refusal, as only 4-6% of dropout groups and 5-8% of student groups had either parent or child refusal. Those who refused were replaced in the sampling frame by others matching their characteristics. Consistency checks on the survey helped assure accuracy and reliability of data. The larger survey instrument contained extensive questioning about substance use, and consistency checks were designed into this portion of the survey to help identify participants who were prone to inconsistent or exaggerated responses. Data from this portion of the survey were subjected to over 60 checks for various problems such as endorsing a fake drug, claiming daily use of three or four drugs, and inconsistencies in lifetime and monthly use. Only 2% of initial surveys failed review and were eliminated from the sample. There were 2409 participants available for the present study. Table 1 describes the sample, by school status, ethnicity, gender, and location. 7

8 Measures The survey instrument used in this project encompassed a wide variety of selfreported psychosocial, school, family and peer items. All survey items used in this study were embedded in a larger survey which took approximately one and a half hours to complete. Participants were given a choice of an English or Spanish survey. Nearly all surveys were completed in English, with less than 1% completed in Spanish. Dependent variables. The participant s perception of teacher ethnic bias was assessed by analyzing responses to questions regarding teachers liking of Mexican American students and non-latino white students. In one set of survey items, participants were asked how much the teachers at their school liked students of Mexican American origin. This was asked in a block of three separate questions, regarding their teachers in elementary school, seventh grade, and during the last year (e.g., How much did the teachers at your school like the kids who were Spanish or Mexican-American when you were in seventh grade? ). Participants were similarly asked how much the teachers at their school liked students of non-latino white origin (e.g., How much did the teachers at your school like the kids who were Anglo or White-American during this last year? ). Each question offered a four-point Likert response scale, with choices not at all, not much, some and a lot ; responses were coded 1 4. For each pair of questions (elementary, seventh, last year), the response to the Mexican American question was subtracted from the response to the non-latino white question, producing three separate difference scores which evaluated the student s perception of teacher ethnic bias at different levels of schooling. Because the items were heavily skewed toward no bias, it was necessary to treat the bias measures as categorical. 8

9 Each measure was divided into high, mild and no bias thusly: participants who responded two or three points lower to the Mexican American question than the non- Latino white question were placed in the high bias group; participants who responded one point lower to the Mexican American question were placed in the mild bias group; participants who answered equally to both items were placed in the no bias group. For example, a participant who responded that seventh grade teachers liked the Mexican- American students not at all and the non-latino white students some would receive a 2. This response would be categorized as high bias. A very small amount of participants (approximately 4% per measure) responded lower on the non-latino white item than the Mexican American item and were not considered for analysis. Consequently, three categorical variables resulted, one regarding elementary school teachers, one regarding seventh grade teachers, and one regarding teachers of the previous year, such that participants evaluated their teachers ethnic bias favoring non- Latino white students as nonexistent, mild, or high. Table 2 gives the distribution of the three bias variables. Independent variables. Ethnicity, gender, and school status (dropout, at-risk, control) were used as independent variables in the present study. Gender was based on self-report items from the survey, ethnicity (Mexican American and non-latino white) was based on school records, and school status was determined by the sampling procedure. Variables explored as covariates. Socioeconomic status (SES), grade, and city location could possibly affect the relationships between the independent variables and perceptions of teacher ethnic bias, and thus were controlled in these analyses. 9

10 City location (small, mid-sized, urban) was determined by the sampling procedure. Grade (7-12) and SES were based on self-report items from the survey. SES was a composite measure involving the following items: highest education level of either mother or father (possible responses of 6 th 12 th grade, 1 4 years of college, or 5 or more years of college were coded as 6 17), do your parents have good jobs (possible responses they do not work, poor, not too good, good, or very good ), what is your parents income (possible responses were very low, low, average, high, or very high ) and does your family have enough money to buy the things you want (possible responses almost never, some of the time, yes, most of the time, or yes, all of the time ). Since these items were not uniform in range of possible answers, responses were standardized before being summed to create the composite. The Cronbach alpha reliability of this scale was.69. Data Analysis Logistic regression modeling. The research aims in the present study were reached through logistic regression analysis. For each measure of teacher ethnic bias, a model was estimated comparing those who perceived some bias (mild and high groups) to those who perceived no bias. Then, a model was estimated comparing those who perceived high bias to those who did not perceive high bias (low and none groups). Main effects of school status, ethnicity, and gender were included in the models. Two-way interactions were considered, but not included in the final models unless they were significant at the.05 level. After estimating models involving the independent variables, models were estimated to assess the effect of the covariates SES, grade and location on relationships found with bias measures. 10

11 Results Logistic Regression Analyses Logistic regression models were estimated to describe the relationship of ethnicity, gender and school status with perceptions of teacher ethnic bias. For each of the elementary, seventh, and last year measures, two models were estimated, one comparing perceptions of mild or high bias to perceptions of no bias, and the other comparing perceptions of high bias to perceptions of mild or no bias. Tables 3 and 4 describe these models. The factors involved in these analyses were more influential in predicting high bias versus mild or no bias than they were in predicting any form of bias versus no bias In fact, in the models distinguishing between bias versus no bias, ethnicity was the only factor which was found statistically significant. The models suggest that ethnic background is the strongest factor influencing perception of bias, as it is the only factor significant in all the models, and typically carries the highest odds ratio. Mexican American participants are more likely to perceive bias than are non-latino white participants. This ethnic difference is greater in distinguishing high bias, but is consistent whether the measure involves elementary, seventh grade or teachers of the last year. School status is a significant factor only in models predicting perception of high bias in teachers of older grades. Dropouts perceived high bias more than did students atrisk of dropping out, who perceived high bias more than did the control group of students. Further, these gaps widen as the students progress through schools, e.g., the 11

12 difference in bias perception between dropouts and the student groups is smaller when asked about their elementary school teachers than it is when asked about their teachers of the last year. No significant interactions were identified involving school status and ethnicity, (i.e., differences in perception between dropout, at-risk and control participants are similar regardless of ethnicity). Also, males were more likely than females to perceive high bias in their teachers, but in distinguishing any sort of bias, the two genders were nearly equal. Another set of models was estimated which controlled for location, SES and grade. SES and grade were determined to be non-significant covariates. Location, however, proved to be a significant covariate. To save space, models involving location are not presented in tabular form here, but are available from the author. Participants in the urban location were less likely to perceive bias than were participants from the midsized and small location, and it was found that ethnic differences described above are increased when controlling for location. Location also served as a moderator in these models, in that when comparing no bias to any bias, the relationships of school status, gender and ethnicity with bias typically varied by location. However, no consistent patterns were apparent. Discussion The aims of the present study were to utilize a large-scale dropout database to describe the extent of student perception of teacher ethnic bias, and to draw comparisons based on school status, gender, and ethnicity. Results indicated that although perceptions 12

13 of teacher ethnic bias are not rampant, such perceptions exist, more so in high school dropouts, Mexican American adolescents, and males. The good news from the present study is that the majority of the participants felt their teachers liked the Mexican American students as well as the non-latino white students. This is encouraging and useful information previous studies had shown that student perceptions of teacher ethnic bias existed, but no study had explored this issue across a wide range of students. The bad news from the present study is that over a quarter of the participants felt that teachers liked students of non-latino white descent better than students of Mexican American descent. Schools must address this issue, because correct or not, perceptions of teacher ethnic bias are real for these students, and are very possibly a hindrance to academic achievement. Discussion and interpretation of the results from the present study will follow the lead of other researchers who have stated that although many problems experienced by students are influenced by issues beyond the school s control, schools must still respond to these problems. Schools may not have control over aspects of students lives, but schools can influence educational policies and practices, and must ensure that these practices impact students positively. Wehlage and Rutter (1986) have stated that it is essential for educators to become knowledgeable about the manner in which school policies and practices are perceived differently by different groups of adolescents, and the impact these perceptions have. Further, Jordan et al. (1996) found that factors pushing students out of school (school-related factors which caused school disengagement) were more influential than those pulling students out of school (factors outside the school which make it attractive to leave), and interpreted these results to mean that schools 13

14 should be able to reduce the dropout problem by reforming such conditions. Understanding student perceptions of teacher ethnic bias gives education potential for more coherent explanation of and reaction to these situations, and the data presented in the present study are another piece to this puzzle. There is not yet enough research on student perceptions of teacher ethnic bias to describe specific solutions and remedies, and it should be stressed that the present study was not designed for causal inference that is, these data show perceptions of bias to be correlated with dropping out, but do not imply that such perceptions are responsible for dropping out. However, previous research can inform suggestions for possible actions and future study. The following discussion will briefly touch on ways in which two factors identified in this study ethnicity and dropout status might be considered in finding solutions and conducting future research. Ethnic Effects The present study found, not surprisingly, that Mexican American adolescents were more likely to perceive bias than were non-latino white adolescents. It is possible that these perceptions may be an indication of a school climate which is not inclusive of the culture to which many Mexican American students belong. Schools could respond to this problem by constructing curricula and practices which are more responsive to and inclusive of minority cultures. Rodriguez (1992), for instance, found that emphasis on cultural sensitivity, and the value schools place on the needs of the individual students, serve to counter the adverse effects of many factors contributing to Latino academic problems. Rodriguez advocated promoting cultural sensitivity, or at worst, a neutral climate, to promote achievement in minority populations. This view is consistent with 14

15 more general calls for expansion and redefinition of schoolwork in order to foster inclusion and identification, and to promote academic achievement in at-risk populations (Wayman, 2000; Wehlage and Rutter, 1986). As described in Wehlage and Rutter, diverse opportunities for success and development can change the view that many youth now have that school is not for me (p. 87). It is also possible that teachers give messages and indications of bias of which the Mexican American participants in this study were more aware. Schools and researchers could respond to this problem by identifying aspects of teacher-student interactions which promote perceptions of bias. Biased actions by teachers have been shown to manifest themselves in many ways, and are often unconscious. For example, Buriel (1983) showed that teachers gave less affirmation to Mexican American children following correct responses, and other studies (Aviles et al. 1999; Katz, 1999) have shown some teachers to have lower expectations of Mexican American students than non-latino white students. Thus, part of the solution to the problem of bias perception could lie in examination of the actions of teachers, and the reactions students have to such actions. Although it is recommended here that schools assume the responsibility for exploring reasons and causes of this problem, it is important to respond to the whole situation and discover how each facet of the relationship operates. Teachers and students frequently have different versions and interpretations of situations which cause such perceptions (Katz, 1999; Witty & DeBaryshe, 1994), and as Noguera (1995) points out, teachers who lack familiarity with their students are more likely to misunderstand and fear them. Conceivably, schools could explore the problem by examining situations 15

16 involving their teachers and students, producing recommendations and changes specific to their own climate. This could work concurrently with efforts to promote cultural sensitivity in the school climate. In addition, efforts should be enacted in the public schools and within teacher training programs which train teachers to be aware of their actions and how these actions are interpreted by students. Noguera (1995) stated that in the absence of knowledge about students and student actions, teachers often fill this void with stereotypes, an assertion that was supported by responses of participants in the Aviles et al. (1999) and Katz studies (1999). Conducting quality education in a diverse climate can be difficult to execute, and training programs should ensure that teachers are provided with the proper skills and support to do so. Dropout Effects The present study found that even after controlling for ethnic effects, dropouts perceived high ethnic bias from their teachers more so than did students in school. This is an important finding, as it may be used as an aid in identifying causes of teacher ethnic bias and in identifying and assisting potential dropouts. Further, this finding suggests that improving perceptions of bias will benefit academic issues involving all students, not just those of Mexican American descent. Although this issue was previously unexplored, the finding that dropouts perceive more bias than students is not unexpected, as it is in line with previous research. Dropouts often feel alienated and underappreciated by teachers and schools (Calabrese & Poe, 1990; Fine, 1991; Jordan et al, 1996; Tidwell, 1988; Valverde, 1987), and therefore are often the school s harshest critics, regardless of their ethnicity (Fine, 1991; Fine and Rosenberg, 1983; Wehlage and Rutter, 1986). Schools have not often utilized these 16

17 critical perspectives, in fact, Fine (1991) describes how the perceptions of dropouts and lower-achieving students are often marginalized or completely silenced. These points of view could well prove valuable to schools and researchers making honest efforts to improve perceptions of bias. To illustrate, Tidwell (1988) asked dropouts their opinions on how to improve schools, and the issues most often cited were issues involving improvement in attitudes, sensitivity and tolerance similar issues to those being set forth in current educational research. Culture may play a role in the degree of criticism from a Mexican American adolescent. Previous research on minority dropouts has suggested that more successful minority students tend to be less critical of their schools and teachers, and more easily adapt to the cultural values and ways of a school. In fact, some minority adolescents may see academic success as a rejection of their ethnic culture, feeling pressure to act white in order to gain favor from their teachers (Fine, 1991; Datnow & Cooper, 1997; Oakes, Wells, Jones & Datnow, 1997). Research which examines the role of culture and cultural identification in forming perceptions of bias would be helpful in explaining dropout/student differences within the Mexican American population. This finding can also aid in identification of potential dropouts. It has been hypothesized (Rumberger, 1987; Wehlage and Rutter, 1986) that dropping out is a culmination of dissatisfaction with schools and the school environment, and the findings of the present study support this claim. The gap between dropouts and in-school students widened for teachers of later grades, and students at risk of dropping out were more likely to perceive bias than were the general population of students. These findings suggest that perception of teacher ethnic bias contributes to the constellation of events which 17

18 contribute to student dissatisfaction with school, events which may conclude with the student leaving school for a period of time. Monitoring perceptions of bias, along with other factors contributing to school dissatisfaction, would be useful in keeping students in school. It is particularly enlightening to note that school status effects are consistent for both ethnicities, that is, no interaction was found involving ethnicity and school status. This finding suggests that regardless of whether adolescents believe the bias is directed at them, the mere presence of such bias perception contributes to the alienation and lack of comfort that adolescents often feel regarding the school climate. Thus, efforts to reduce perceptions of teacher ethnic bias should benefit all students, not just those of a particular minority group. Location effects One unexpected finding is worthy of brief note. In conducting the analyses for this study, effects of socioeconomic status, grade, and location were controlled for, and location proved to be a significant controlling factor. The data do not allow extensive interpretation of the effect of location, and thorough examination of the causes of this finding requires future study, beyond the scope of this paper. However, this finding is important to note, as the data argue for the importance of local knowledge in implementing programs to alleviate the adverse effects caused by student perception of bias. Conclusion Dropping out of high school is a result of the convergence of many events, and no one event is commonly the cause. Taking every opportunity to identify and understand 18

19 issues which are a part of this set of events serves to empower educators and researchers, offering more information to alleviate this problem and help students. The present study explored one issue which is associated with dropping out of high school, student perception of teacher ethnic bias. Little is known about causes and correlates of such perceptions, and this study represents one piece of the puzzle. Student perception of teacher ethnic bias is one component of student disengagement and alienation, yet little research exists on the topic. The information presented here suggests that schools should pay attention to student perceptions of teacher ethnic bias, and explore the factors responsible. These results imply that these perceptions are not just held by minority adolescents, but are held by many students, in particular, dropouts. Therefore, taking action to improve student perception of teacher bias should not only improve the school experience for Mexican American students, but also for potential dropouts and the school population as a whole. Researchers should use the information presented here to build a better knowledge base regarding student perceptions of teacher ethnic bias, as this is a sorely understudied issue. Hopefully, the information set forth in this article is worthwhile and helpful to the education community and can provide a stepping stone to improving conditions which contribute to the problem. 19

20 References Alton-Lee, A., Nuthall, G., & Patrick, J. (1993). Reframing classroom research: A lesson from the private world of children. Harvard Educational Review, 63 (1), Alva, S. A., & Padilla, A. M. (1995). Academic invulnerability among Mexican Americans: A conceptual framework. The Journal of Educational Issues of Language Minority Students, 15, Aviles, R. M. D., Guerrero, M. P., Howarth, H. B., & Thomas, G. (1999). Perceptions of Chicano/Latino students who have dropped out of school. Journal of Counseling and Development, 77 (4), Buriel, R. (1983). Teacher-student interactions and their relationship to student achievement: A comparison of Mexican-American and Anglo-American children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75 (6), Calabrese, R. L., & Poe, J. (1990). Alienation: An explanation of high dropout rates among African American and Latino students. Educational Research Quarterly, 14 (4), Datnow, A., & Cooper, R. (1997). Peer networks of African American students in independent schools: Affirming academic success and racial identity. Journal of Negro Education, 66 1, Ekstrom, R. B., Goertz, M. E., Pollack, J. M., & Rock, D. A. (1986). Who drops out and why? Findings from a national study. Teachers College Record, 87, Fine, M, & Rosenberg, P. (1983). Dropping out of high school: the ideology of school and work. Journal of Education, 165 (3),

21 Fine, M. (1991). Framing dropouts: Notes on the politics of an urban public high school. New York: State University of New York Press. Jordan, W. J., Lara, J., & McPartland, J. M. (1996). Exploring the causes of early dropout among Race-Ethnic and gender groups. Youth and Society, 28 (1), Katz, S. R. (1999). Teaching in tensions: Latino immigrant youth, their teachers and the structures of schooling. Teachers College Record, 100 (4), Noguera, P. A. (1995). Preventing and producing violence: A critical analysis of responses to school violence. Harvard Educational Review, 65 (2), Oakes, J., Wells, A. S., Jones, M., & Datnow, A. (1997). Detracking: The social construction of ability, cultural politics and resistance to reform. Teacher s College Record, 98 (3), Rodriguez, C. E. (1992). Student Voices: High School Students' Perspectives on the Latino Dropout Problem. Interim Report: Volume II. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED ). Rumberger, R. W. (1993). Chicano dropouts: A review of research and policy issues. In Chicano school failure and success: Research and policy agendas for the 1990s (chapter 3). California, USA. Rumberger, R. W. (1987). High school dropouts: A review of issues and evidence. Review of Educational Research, 57 (2), Tidwell, R. (1988). Dropouts speak out: Qualitative data on early school departures. Adolescence, 23 (92), Turner, C. B., Laria, A. J., Shapiro, E. R., & Perez, M. C. (1993). Poverty, resilience, and academic achievement among Latino college students and high school 21

22 dropouts. In R. Rivera & S. Nieto (Eds.), The education of Latino students in Massachusetts: Issues, research and policy implications ( ). Boston: University of Massachusetts Press. Valverde, S. A. (1987). A comparative study of Hispanic high school dropouts and graduates: Why do some leave school early and some finish? Education and Urban Society, 19 (3), Wayman, J. C. (2000). Educational resilience in dropouts who return to gain high school degrees. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO. Wehlage, G. G., & Rutter, R. A (1986). Dropping out: How much do schools contribute to the problem? Teachers College Record, 87, Witty, J. P., & DeBaryshe, B. D. (1994). Student and teacher perceptions of teachers communication of performance expectations in the classroom. Classroom Instruction, 29 (1),

23 Table 1 Summary of Sample by Ethnicity, Gender, School Status and Location Dropout At Risk Control Mexican American Male Small town Mid-sized town City Mexican American Female Small town Mid-sized town City Non-Latino White Male Small town Mid-sized town City Non-Latino White Female Small town Mid-sized town City Table 2 Distributions of Measures of Teacher Ethnic Bias Elementary Teachers Seventh Grade Teachers Teachers Last Year Perceives no bias 1748 (76%) 1732 (70%) 1730 (70%) Perceives mild bias 413 (18%) 453 (20%) 434 (19%) Perceives high bias 143 (6%) 224 (10%) 245 (11%) 23

24 Table 3 Models Describing Student Perception of Mild Teacher Ethnic Bias or Worse, Regarding Elementary, Seventh Grade and Last Year Teachers Factor Odds Ratio 95% Confidence Interval Lower Upper Bound Bound β se( β ) Wald df p Model for Elementary: Dropout Status Dropout/Control At-Risk/Control Gender Ethnicity Intercept Model for Seventh: Dropout Status Dropout/Control At-Risk/Control Gender Ethnicity Intercept Model for Last Year: Dropout Status Dropout/Control At-Risk/Control Gender Ethnicity Intercept Note. Dependent variable is Mild or High Bias/No Bias. Note. Gender is Male/Female. Note. Ethnicity is Mexican American/non-Latino white. 24

25 Table 4 Models Describing Student Perception of High Teacher Ethnic Bias, Regarding Elementary, Seventh Grade and Last Year Teachers Factor Odds Ratio 95% Confidence Interval Lower Upper Bound Bound β se( β ) Wald df p Model for Elementary: Dropout Status Dropout/Control At-Risk/Control Gender Ethnicity Intercept Model for Seventh: Dropout Status Dropout/Control At-Risk/Control Gender Dropout Status X Gender Dropout/Control At-Risk/Control Ethnicity Intercept Model for Last Year: Dropout Status Dropout/Control At-Risk/Control Gender Ethnicity Intercept Note. Dependent variable is High Bias/Mild or No Bias. Note. Gender is Male/Female. Note. Ethnicity is Mexican American/non-Latino white. 25