teacher expectations, classroom context, and the ......teacher expectations, classroom context, and...

Journal of School Psychology 46 (2008) 235–261

Teacher expectations, classroom context, and theachievement gap☆

Clark McKown a,⁎, Rhona S. Weinstein b

a University of Illinois, Chicago, Department of Psychology, United Statesb University of California, Berkeley Department of Psychology, United States

Received 10 August 2006; received in revised form 31 March 2007; accepted 4 May 2007

Abstract

In two independent datasets with 1872 elementary-aged children in 83 classrooms, Studies 1 and2 examined the role of classroom context in moderating the relationship between child ethnicity andteacher expectations. For Study 1 overall and Study 2 mixed-grade classrooms, in ethnically diverseclassrooms where students reported high levels of differential teacher treatment (PDT) towards highand low achieving students, teacher expectations of European American and Asian Americanstudents were between .75 and 1.00 standard deviations higher than teacher expectations of AfricanAmerican and Latino students with similar records of achievement. In highly diverse low-PDTclassrooms in Study 1 and highly diverse low-PDT mixed-grade classrooms in Study 2, teachers heldsimilar expectations for all students with similar records of achievement. Study 3 estimated thecontribution of teacher expectations to the year-end ethnic achievement gap in high- and low-biasclassrooms. In high-bias classrooms, teacher expectancy effects accounted for an average of .29 andup to .38 standard deviations of the year-end ethnic achievement gap.© 2007 Society for the Study of School Psychology. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Teacher expectations; Achievement gap; Social climate; Diversity

☆ This article was accepted under Dr. Pianta's editorship.⁎ Corresponding author. UIC Department of Psychology, 1009 Behavioral Sciences Building, MC 285, 1007

West Harrison Street, Chicago, IL 60607-7137, United States.E-mail address: [email protected] (C. McKown).

0022-4405/$ - see front matter © 2007 Society for the Study of School Psychology. Published by Elsevier Ltd.All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2007.05.001

mailto:[email protected]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2007.05.001

236 C. McKown, R.S. Weinstein / Journal of School Psychology 46 (2008) 235–261

Introduction

In the half century since the Supreme Court ruled that ethnically segregating schoolsfosters educational inequity, ethnic disparities in academic achievement have persisted(Jencks & Phillips, 1998; Lee, 2002; McKown& Strambler, in press; Weinstein, Gregory, &Strambler, 2004). In particular, African American and Latino students continue to scorelower on achievement tests than their European American and Asian American peers.Academic achievement is in turn related to broad indicators of status, such as educationaland occupational attainment and income, all of which are associated with a range offunctional and health outcomes (Adler, Boyce, Chesney, & Cohen, 1994). Thus, ethnicdisparities in academic achievement are critical both because they reflect ongoing socialinequity and because they have social and health consequences. Only with a keenunderstanding of the sources of ethnic disparities in academic achievement can socialpolicies be designed to promote greater equity and by extension, optimal youth developmentand a healthy society.

Teacher expectations and the achievement gap

Teacher expectations have been proposed as one contributor to the ethnic achievement gap(Ferguson, 1998; Rist, 1973; Weinstein et al., 2004). According to this account, teacherssometimes base their expectations for student achievement on student ethnicity, with teachersexpecting more from European American and Asian American students than from theirAfrican American and Latino peers (Baron, Tom, & Cooper, 1985). Expectations that aredifferentiated by ethnic group contribute to mean ethnic differences in children's achievementthrough three causal paths. First, teachers may provide higher quality instruction to studentsfrom whom they expect more. Children from groups who are the beneficiaries of higherexpectations will benefit from greater exposure to high-quality instruction. Second, studentsmay perceive cues about what the teacher expects, internalize the expectation, and becomemotivated and achieve consistent with the perceived expectation (Brophy & Good, 1970;Darley & Fazio, 1980; Weinstein & Middlestadt, 1979). Third, children from academicallystereotyped ethnic groups may, in the face of a low teacher expectation, become concernedabout being judged on the basis of the stereotype, increasing susceptibility to negativeexpectancy effects (McKown & Weinstein, 2002, 2003; Steele, 1997; Steele & Aronson,1995). Indeed, Jussim, Eccles, andMadon (1996) found that teacher expectations and studentachievement were more strongly linked for African American students than for EuropeanAmerican students. Similarly, McKown and Weinstein (2002) found that African Americanelementary school students were more vulnerable to negative expectancy effects than theirEuropean American peers. Those studies suggest that teacher expectancy effects may bestronger for African American students than for European American students.

Why might teacher expectations be related to child ethnicity? In the United States, racialattitudes favoring members of some ethnic groups over others have a long history. Althoughopenly acknowledged, behaviorally obvious prejudice appears to be on the wane, recentsociological surveys (Bobo, 2001) suggest that overt racial prejudice persists, with AfricanAmericans and Latinos the targets of negative stereotypes about intellectual ability whileEuropean Americans and Asian Americans are the beneficiaries of neutral or positive

237C. McKown, R.S. Weinstein / Journal of School Psychology 46 (2008) 235–261

stereotypes about intellectual ability. In addition, a growing body of experimental evidencesuggests that individuals may hold implicit stereotypes and prejudices that are largely out oftheir control even in the face of overtly egalitarian racial attitudes (Dovidio & Gaertner,1998; Greenwald, Banaji, Rudman, Farnham, Nosek, & Mellott, 2002). These bodies ofwork suggest that there remains a great deal of variation in adult racial stereotyping, evenamong people with egalitarian values. It is likely that teachers, like everyone else, vary inthe extent to which ethnic stereotypes about intellectual ability color their view of students.Sometimes, ethnic stereotypes may shape teacher expectations.

Only if teacher expectations are related to child ethnicity can teacher expectancy effectscontribute to the ethnic achievement gap. Experimental studies, such as those summarized inBaron et al. (1985) have found that when asked to rate the characteristics of a previouslyunknown child, teachers consistently rate European American children more positively thanAfrican American children, and the magnitude of this effect is moderate. These findings leaveopen the question of howmuch, in the natural setting of the school, teachers use child ethnicityas the basis of their expectations. Naturalistic studies examining the relationship between childethnicity and teacher expectations have yielded conflicting findings. Some have found thatteachers rate students fromdifferent ethnic groups differently (Moore& Johnson, 1983; Saft&Pianta, 2001; Skiba, Michael, Nardo, & Peterson, 2002). Others have found that whenchildren's record of achievement and other child characteristics are accounted for, teachershold unbiased views of children from different ethnic groups (Madon et al., 1998).

It is also important to examine the relationship between student age and teacher ethnicbias. How might the relationship between teacher expectations and child ethnicity changewith age and grade? We know that there are consistent age-related changes in children'sinterpretations of teacher expectations (Weinstein, Marshall, Sharp, & Botkin, 1987) andstereotypes (McKown & Weinstein, 2003). It remains an open question, however, whetherand how teacher's views of students change with student age. On the one hand, it may bethat teachers are equally likely to base their expectations of students on student ethnicityregardless of child age. On the other hand, because young children may seem less fullyformed than their older schoolmates, it may be that teachers are less likely to base theirexpectations of younger students on child ethnicity. The data reported in this paper permitan evaluation of these competing alternatives.

Classroom context and teacher ethnic bias

So far, studies have examined the relationship between child ethnicity and teacherexpectationswithout consideration of the contexts inwhich those expectations are formed (butsee Jones, 1989).Yet salient characteristics of the classroom environmentmay affect the extentto which teachers use child ethnicity as the basis of their expectations. What characteristics ofthe classroom environment might affect teacher ethnic bias? In a theoretical account of humansocial contexts, Moos (1973) distinguished between organizational “climate” characteristicsand “inhabitant” characteristics. He defined climate in terms of important social and relationalfeatures of the environment as perceived by setting participants. In contrast, he definedinhabitant characteristics as those characteristics or tendencies that setting participants bringinto a social setting. It is likely that both climate and inhabitant characteristics affect the degreeto which teacher expectations are related to child ethnicity.


In terms of climate factors that may influence teacher ethnic bias, prior research hasestablished that the extent to which children in a classroom perceive differential teachertreatment towards high and low achieving students (PDT) is consistently related to academicequity (Weinstein, 2002; Weinstein & McKown, 1998). For example, the more childrenperceive teachers treating high and low achieving students differently, the stronger thepredictive relationship between teacher expectations and year-end achievement, even whencontrolling for prior achievement (Brattesani, Weinstein, & Marshall, 1984; Kuklinski &Weinstein, 2001). PDTmay also be related to teacher ethnic bias. Previous research has foundthat teachers who treat high and low achievers very differently tend to hold more stable andrigid expectations for students (Kuklinski &Weinstein, 2000;Weinstein, 2002). Furthermore,experimental studies have shown that people often base their initial judgments of others onethnicity (Dovidio & Gaertner, 1998; Dusek & Joseph, 1983). If teachers, like others, basetheir initial expectations of their students on students' ethnicity, and if teachers in high PDTclassrooms holdmore stable expectations, then itmay be that teachers in high-PDTclassroomswill maintain biased expectations based on initial impressions. One of the hypothesesevaluated in this paper is that when children report that teachers favor high achievers over lowachievers, teachers expect more of European American and Asian American children than ofAfrican American and Latino students with similar records of achievement.

In terms of inhabitant characteristics, a classroom's student demographic compositionmay affect the degree to which teachers use child ethnicity as the basis for theirexpectations. When classrooms are ethnically mixed, the presence of different groups ofethnically similar children may lead teachers to see students in terms of groupcharacteristics rather than individual characteristics. In this context, teachers may bemore likely to apply stereotypes about ethnic groups to individuals rather than formjudgments about individual children based on individual child characteristics. Furthermore,the presence of salient groups in ethnically heterogeneous classrooms may create contrasteffects by which teachers perceive greater differences between members of different ethnicgroups because of their proximity. In contrast, when fewer ethnic groups are represented inthe classroom, lacking salient contrasts, teachers may base their expectations for students'future performance on individual student behavior and history. One of the hypothesesevaluated in this study is that the more ethnically mixed classrooms are, the stronger therelationship between child ethnicity and teacher expectations.

The standard of evidence for determining the magnitude of the relationship between childethnicity and teacher expectations has been a contested issue. Some have argued that anycorrelation between child ethnicity and teacher expectations reflects ethnic bias—Ferguson(1998) called this position “unconditional race neutrality.” Others have argued that anycorrelation between child ethnicity and teacher expectations for students with equal recordsof achievement is biased—a position Ferguson (1998) called “conditional race neutrality.”As a matter of principle, we contend that to realize student potential fully, all students shouldbe the targets of high expectations (Weinstein, 2002). However, to provide a conservativeestimate of teachers' use of ethnicity as the basis of expectations, these studies will adopt aconditional race neutrality definition. Ethnic bias will be inferred when teacher expectationsare correlated with child ethnicity for children with similar records of achievement.

Most research on the relationship between child ethnicity and teacher expectations hasfocused on the question of whether teachers expect more from European American children


than fromAfricanAmerican children. Stereotypes about intellectual ability are associatedwithother American ethnic groups. In a national survey of European American ethnic attitudes,Bobo (2001) found that African Americans and Latinos are the targets of negative stereotypesabout intellectual ability. In contrast, European Americans and Asian Americans are thetargets of neutral or positive stereotypes about intellectual ability. This study examines therelationship between being a member of a stereotyped or non-stereotyped ethnic group andteacher expectations. Given prevailing American stereotypes about intellectual ability, for thepresent purposes, African American and Latino students will be referred to as children fromnegatively stereotyped ethnic groups and European American and Asian American studentswill be referred to as children from positively stereotyped ethnic groups. Because childrenwillbe grouped in thisway, throughout the paper, “ethnicity”will refer to academically stereotypedor non-stereotyped ethnic group membership.

Overview of hypotheses and studies

This research will evaluate three hypotheses. The first hypothesis is that the morechildren report that teachers favor high achievers over low achievers, the more teachers willuse child ethnicity as the basis of their expectations, controlling for prior achievement. Thesecond hypothesis is that the more ethnically mixed a classrooms is, the more childethnicity will be related to teacher expectations, controlling for prior achievement. A thirdhypothesis is that classroom demographic mix and child-perceived differential teachertreatment are different classroom characteristics and that teacher bias will be greatest inhighly diverse, high-PDT classrooms. In addition, the study examines whether therelationship between context, child ethnicity, and teacher expectations is the same ordifferent in different grades. A final goal of this research is to estimate the contribution ofbiased teacher expectations to the year-end ethnic achievement gap.

Study 1 will evaluate these hypotheses with a dataset from a study of the ecology of teacherexpectations. That dataset includes 640 children in 30 urban classrooms—10 each in grades 1,3, and 5 (Weinstein et al., 1987). Study 2 will replicate Study 1 with data from a study ofmental health consultation. That dataset includes 1232 children from 53 urban classrooms ingrades 1, 3, and 5 (Goldman, Botkin, Tokunaga, & Kuklinski, 1997). Both datasets includemeasures of prior achievement, child ethnicity, teacher expectations in the fall, perceiveddifferential teacher treatment, and classroom demographic mix. The inclusion of all measuresin both datasets allows cross-dataset replication. There are differences between the samples inthe year the data were collected, the ethnic makeup of the student population, the inclusion ofmixed-grade classrooms in the Study 2 dataset, the measure of teacher expectations, and themethod of measuring perceived differential teacher treatment. These differences present anopportunity to evaluate how generalizable any findings are regarding the moderating role ofclassroom context on teacher bias. One possibility is that in samples that differ in these ways,different factors will be associated with teacher bias. Another possibility is that despitesubstantial differences in samples and methods, the climate and inhabitant characteristics thatare the focus of this research will be similarly related to teacher bias.

Study 3 will estimate the impact of teacher expectations in high-bias classrooms on theyear-end ethnic achievement gap. Findings from Study 1 and Study 2 will provide anestimate of the magnitude of the “expectations gap” in different classroom contexts between


children from stereotyped and non-stereotyped ethnic groups. Prior research using both ofthese datasets suggests that teacher expectations are predictive of year-end achievement,even when controlling for prior student achievement. Because there is a relationshipbetween fall teacher expectations and year-end achievement in these datasets (Weinsteinet al., 1987; Kuklinski & Weinstein, 2001), if teachers in some classrooms have ethnicallybiased expectations, those biased expectations may contribute to ethnic differences in year-end achievement. For all analyses in which classroom context moderates teacher ethnic biasin expectations, the contribution of teacher bias to the year-end achievement gap will beestimated for high- and low-bias classrooms.

In sum, the present research extends prior research on the relationship between childethnicity and teacher expectations in several ways. First, the research examines the role oftwo important dimensions of classroom context in moderating the strength of therelationship between child ethnicity and teacher expectations, after achievement differenceshave been controlled. Second, this study moves beyond an exclusive focus on Black–Whitecomparisons. Third, hypotheses are tested in two independent datasets and across grades.Finally, findings from Studies 1 and 2 will be used to estimate the contribution to theachievement gap of ethnically biased teacher expectations.

Study 1

The purpose of Study 1 was to test study hypotheses using archival data from a cross-sectional naturalistic sample of 640 first, third, and fifth grade children from 30 urbanelementary school classrooms. The total number of children in these classrooms was 880.The participation rate in this part of the study was thus 73%.

Methods

In the fall, data were collected on child ethnicity, teacher expectations, and classroomclimate. In addition, prior reading and math standardized achievement test performancedata were gathered from children's cumulative folders.

Measures

Ethnicity. Parent report of child ethnicity was obtained from record review in the fall. Asummary code was created to indicate whether children were from a stereotyped ethnicgroup (African American or Latino) or from a non-stereotyped ethnic group (EuropeanAmerican or Asian American).

Prior achievement. Scores from the Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills (CTBS) readingand math tests were collected for prior-year and year-end. Means and standard deviationsfor each grade are provided in Table 1.

Teacher expectations. In the fall, teachers were asked to rank order their students in orderof expected year-end achievement in reading and math. Because a low score reflects a highexpectation, for ease of interpretation, the measure was reverse coded so that a high score

Table 1Sample characteristics and descriptive statistics

Study 1 Dataset Study 2 Dataset

Grade 1 Grade 3 Grade 5 Grade 1 Grade 3 Grade 5

Frequencies n % n % n % n % n % n %

GenderGirl 111 (53.1) 99 (45.2) 119 (56.1) 165 (43.1) 174 (45.9) 211 (50.0)Boy 98 (46.9) 120 (54.8) 93 (43.9) 218 (56.9) 205 (54.1) 211 (50.0)

EthnicityAfrican American 112 (53.6) 113 (51.6) 80 (37.7) 78 (20.4) 85 (22.4) 91 (19.4)European American 79 (37.8) 91 (41.6) 110 (51.9) 65 (17.0) 56 (14.8) 62 (13.2)Latino 9 (4.3) 9 (4.1) 5 (2.4) 89 (23.2) 76 (20.1) 80 (17.0)Asian American 9 (4.3) 5 (2.3) 17 (8.0) 147 (38.4) 161 (42.5) 235 (50.0)American Indian 0 (0.0) 1 (b1.0) 0 (0.0) 4 (1.0) 1 (b1.0) 2 (b1.0)

Total 209 219 212 383 379 470

Means and standard deviations Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

Classroom levelClassroom diversity 3.3 (.7) 2.8 (.8) 3.1 (.8) 3.7 (1.2) 3.5 (.9) 3.6 (1.0)Differential teacher treatment 1.0 (.4) 1.3 (.5) 1.1 (.5) 1.6 (.4) 1.7 (.5) 2.0 (.7)

Individual levelReadingPrior achievement 67.7 a (25.6) 3.3 b (1.0) 6.6 b (2.2) 42.4 c (20.0) 40.4 c (20.5) 47.2 c (17.1)Teacher expectations 14.9 d (8.5) 14.6 d (8.3) 14.8 d (8.4) 3.3 e (1.2) 3.2 e (1.3) 3.5 e (1.1)

MathPrior achievement 65.9 a (27.4) 3.3 b (.8) 6.0 b (1.5) – – – – – –Teacher expectations 15.1 d (8.6) 14.9 d (9.3) 15.1 d (8.4) – – – – – –

a Percentile.b Grade equivalent.c Normal curve equivalent.d 30-point rank scale.e 5-point Likert scale. 241

C.McK

own,

R.S.

Weinstein

/Journal

ofSchool

Psychology

46(2008)

235–261


reflects a high expectation. The rank measure was used to capture the relative distinctionsmade by teachers within classrooms (see for example Brophy & Good, 1970; Cooper,Findley, & Good, 1982; Weinstein et al., 1987). Although the rank-order measure of teacherexpectations introduces dependencies in the data, Cooper et al. (1982) found that differentmeasures of teacher expectations, including rank measures, are highly correlated with oneanother and are similarly predictive of later student achievement.

Perceived differential teacher treatment (PDT). The Teacher Treatment Inventory or TTI(Weinstein &Middlestadt, 1979) was administered in the fall to measure classroom level ofperceived differential teacher treatment (PDT). In the TTI, children are asked to rate thefrequency of their teacher's behavior towards a hypothetical high- or low-achievingstudent. For the low achiever form, children were told to pretend that a child was “someonewho does not do very well in school. In fact, the child always gets the lowest grade in class.Everyone thinks the child is not very smart.” For the high achiever form, children were toldto pretend that a child was “someone who does really well in school. In fact, the child getsthe best grades in the class. Everyone thinks the child is smart.” Children were then asked torate on a 4-point scale (never, sometimes, often, or always), how often their teacher behavedin various ways towards the hypothetical child. Items load on three scales with 10 itemseach (Weinstein et al., 1987): “Negative Feedback and Teacher direction ” (e.g., “Theteacher scolds him/her for not trying.”), “Work and Rule Orientation” (e.g., “When he/she isworking on a project or assignment, the teacher tells him/her what to do.”), and “HighExpectations, Opportunity, and Choice” (e.g., “The teacher calls on him/her to explainthings to the class”). In the fall, children were randomly assigned to complete either the highor low achiever form of the TTI, with the TTI target child's gender matched to theparticipating child. The questionnaire was administered to children in small groups. In all,559 (84.7%) of the children in Study 1 completed the TTI.

Aggregating TTI scores at the classroom level. Children's responses to the TTI served asan index of child-perceived differential teacher treatment (PDT). For PDT to be used as aclassroom level variable, there must be substantial consensus among students within aclassroom about differential teacher treatment. To evaluate the appropriateness ofaggregating TTI scores as a classroom level variable, for each TTI scale and form, 2-level unconditional random effects models were estimated with individual student TTIscores as the dependent variable using Hierarchical Linear Models, version 6.04(Raudenbush, Bryk, & Congdon, 2007). Results from each run were used to computethe Intraclass Correlation (ICC), which reflects the proportion of variance in each measurethat lies between classrooms. In every model, the random effects coefficient associated withclassroom was statistically significant and the ICC was substantial (Mean ICC=.12,range= .02 to .29). These findings suggest sufficient agreement within classrooms aboutdifferential teacher treatment to aggregate individual student data into a classroom index ofPDT. Classroom PDT was computed as the absolute sum of the difference between classmeans for high and low achiever forms of the TTI on all three TTI scales.

Classroom diversity. The number of ethnic groups represented among the children ineach classrooms served as the index of classroom ethnic diversity. Ethnic groups


included European Americans, African Americans, Asian Americans, and Latinos. Werecognize the considerable ethnic heterogeneity within each of these broad categories.However, no data were available on more fine-grained ethnic distinctions. Furthermore,cultural stereotypes about the intellectual ability of different ethnic groups pertain tothese broad groupings. To the extent that teacher expectations may be colored by thosestereotypes, this broad distinction fits the aims of this paper. In the Study 1 dataset, themean number of ethnic groups per classroom was 3.3, 2.8, and 3.1 in first, third, and fifthgrades, respectively; the standard deviations were .7, .8, and .8, in first, third, and fifthgrades, respectively.

Data analytic strategyBecause the dependent variable, teacher expectations, was ranked, there were no

dependencies in the data introduced by classroom grouping. The intraclass correlations forteacher expectations of reading and math were both less than .01 and the random effectscoefficient associated with classroom was not statistically significant. Thus, ordinary leastsquares regression was appropriate for data analyses. To test hypotheses, hierarchicalregression models were estimated separately by subject (math and reading). Priorachievement scores for each subject were standardized within grade and the z-score wasentered as a covariate in all analyses. The ethnicity variable (stereotyped versus non-stereotyped ethnic group) was entered into the model next. The classroom context variables,diversity and PDT, were entered next. Finally, to evaluate whether the relationship betweenchild ethnicity and teacher expectations depended on diversity and PDT, child ethnicity bydiversity and child ethnicity by PDT interaction terms were entered into the modelsimultaneously. Support for the main hypotheses was inferred if the interaction terms wereboth significant and estimated means were in the predicted direction—that is, if the morediverse the classroom and the higher the level of PDT, the stronger the relationship betweenchild ethnicity and teacher expectations.

Results

Preliminary analysesDescriptive statistics were computed by grade and are reported in Table 1.Before examining classroom context moderators of teacher ethnic bias, the overall

magnitude of teacher bias was estimated. To do this, regression analyses evaluated thepredictive relationship between child ethnicity as the main independent variable and teacherexpectations as the dependent variable, with prior achievement as a covariate. Grade contrastcodes and grade by child ethnicity interaction terms were included to evaluate whether childethnicity predicts teacher expectations differently in different grades. With teacherexpectations of reading as the dependent variable, there was no evidence of a grade bychild ethnicity interaction predicting teacher expectations (ΔR2 = .00, F(2,633)=1.63, n.s. forthe grade by ethnicity interaction terms), suggesting that the relationship between childethnicity and teacher expectations of reading did not differ by grade. A second model wasestimated with students in all grades with teacher expectations of reading as the dependentvariable, child ethnicity as the independent variable, and prior reading achievement asa covariate. This model suggests that overall, child ethnicity is predictive of teacher


expectations of reading (ΔR2 = .01, F(1,637) =7.79, pb .05 for the ethnicity term).Specifically, overall, teachers rank European American and Asian American children alittle less than one place higher in the reading achievement hierarchy compared to AfricanAmerican and Latino students with identical records of achievement, representing an effectsize of .10 (Cohen's d).

With teacher expectations of math as the dependent variable, there was a significant gradeby child ethnicity interaction (ΔR2 = .01, F(2,633)=4.58, pb .05), suggesting that the effect ofchild ethnicity on teacher expectations of math differed by grade. Teacher expectations ofmath for children from non-stereotyped ethnic groups were .07, .19, and .36 standarddeviations higher than for children from stereotyped groups in first, third, and fifth grades,respectively.

To examine the suitability of modeling the two classroom context variables together asindependent moderators of teacher bias, we examined the correlation between PDT andclassroom ethnic diversity. Classroom level of PDT and ethnic diversity were uncorrelated(r=− .12, n.s.), suggesting that these are independent indexes of classroom context.

Evaluating the moderating role of diversity and perceived differential teacher treatmentHierarchical regression models were constructed, one with teacher expectations of

reading as the dependent variable and one with teacher expectations of math as thedependent variables. In each model, prior achievement was entered on the first step, childethnicity was entered on the second step, and PDTand diversity were entered together on thethird step. In the fourth step, ethnicity by diversity and ethnicity by PDT interaction termswere entered simultaneously. On a fifth step, we entered a child ethnicity by diversity byPDT interaction term (with all constituent 2-way interaction terms). The three-way

Table 2Hierarchical regression predicting teacher expectation, Study 1 dataset

Bmodel ΔR2 Fincrement

Model 1: teacher expectations of reading(1) Prior achievement 4.86 .38 382.62⁎

(2) Child ethnicity 9.43 .01 7.79⁎

(3) Diversity 2.96⁎

PDT 8.64⁎ .01 4.35⁎

(4) Ethnicity⁎diversity −1.37⁎Ethnicity⁎PDT −5.83⁎ .02 12.18⁎

Total R2 .41Model 2: teacher expectations of math

(1) Prior achievement 4.44 .30 270.94⁎

(2) Child ethnicity 10.39 .01 7.03⁎

(3) Diversity 2.05†PDT 8.80⁎ b .01 2.24 (n.s.)

(5) Ethnicity⁎diversity −1.32⁎Ethnicity⁎PDT −6.83⁎ .03 14.60⁎

Total R2 .34

⁎pb .05.†pb .10.


interaction term did not explain additional variance in teacher expectations of reading ormath and so this term was not included in the final model. In math and reading, the ethnicityby diversity and ethnicity by PDT interaction terms together predicted a significantincrement in the variance in teacher expectations (ΔR2 = .02, F(2,633)=12.18, pb .05 forreading; R2 = .03, F(2,633)=14 .60, pb .05 for math). Furthermore, in each model, theregression coefficient associated with the ethnicity by diversity and ethnicity by PDTinteraction terms were each statistically significant (see Table 2).1,2

High PDT was defined as PDT that was 1.5 standard deviations above the mean; lowPDT was defined as PDT that was 1.5 standard deviations below the mean. Similarly,high diversity was defined as diversity that was 1.5 standard deviations above the mean;low diversity was defined as diversity that was 1.5 standard deviations below the mean.Plotted estimated means in Fig. 1 reveal that in both reading and math, in ethnicallydiverse, high-PDT classrooms, teacher expectations favored European American andAsian American students over African American and Latino students with equal recordsof achievement and this discrepancy was greater than in any other combination ofclassroom diversity and PDT.

Discussion

Findings from Study 1 support the hypothesis that the higher the classroom diversity andthe higher the PDT, the more biased are teacher expectations. They also support thehypotheses that diversity and PDT are independent indexes of context, and that teacher biasis greatest in highly diverse, high-PDT classrooms. These findings were consistent acrossreading and math. In classrooms with ethnic diversity 1.5 standard deviation above themean that were also 1.5 standard deviations above the mean in classroom PDT, teachersranked European American and Asian American students almost 7 places higher on a 30-point reading hierarchy and more than 8 places higher on a 30-point math hierarchy thanequally-achieving African American and Latino students. These discrepancies in teacherexpectations of children from stereotyped and non-stereotyped ethnic groups reflectdifferences of .93 and 1.00 standard deviations in reading and math, respectively. Incontrast, in high-diversity classrooms with low PDT, teacher expectations of children fromall ethnic groups with similar achievement histories are very similar (d=− .07 and d=− .16in reading and math, respectively). In low diversity classrooms, high PDT was againassociated with teacher expectations that favored European American and Asian Americanstudents, but the discrepancy was not as great (d= .47 and .56 in reading and math,

1 Preliminary analyses suggested that the relationship between child ethnicity and teacher expectations of math(but not reading) depended on grade. When ethnicity by grade level interaction terms were added to the final mathmodel, the ethnicity by grade interaction terms no longer significantly accounted for teacher expectations, and sograde was omitted from the final model.2 We also evaluated whether teacher expectations were different for girls and boys, whether the relationship

between gender and teacher expectations depended on diversity and PDT, whether the relationship betweenethnicity and teacher expectations was different for boys and for girls, and whether the relationship betweenethnicity and teacher expectations was different for boys and for girls in different classroom contexts. Under nocircumstance was gender correlated with teacher expectations.

Fig. 1. Teacher expectations by academic subject, child ethnicity, classroom diversity, and classroom PDT.


respectively). Interestingly, in low diversity, low-PDT classrooms, teachers expected moreof African American and Latino students than their equally-achieving European Americanand Asian American peers, suggesting that in some contexts, teacher bias may run counterto prevailing stereotypes.

Study 2

The purpose of Study 2 was to test hypotheses using archival data from a cross-sectionalnaturalistic study of 1232 first, third, and fifth grade children from 53 urban elementaryschool classrooms. Students were recruited as part of a study of mental health consultationservices. The intervention involved weekly mental health consultation with teachers(Goldman et al., 1997). Data for the present study were collected before the interventionwas implemented. The 1232 students whose data are used for this study are from a


population of 1516 students from six urban public elementary schools, representing an 81%participation rate. The ethnic composition of the Study 2 sample differed from the ethniccomposition of the Study 1 sample (see Table 1). In addition, the teacher expectationmeasure in Study 2 was an absolute measure in contrast to the rank measure in Study 1.Finally, unlike in the Study 1 dataset, in the Study 2 dataset, students were assigned to eithersame-grade or mixed-grade classrooms.

Methods

In the fall, data were collected on child ethnicity, teacher expectations, and classroomclimate. In addition, prior reading and math standardized achievement test data weregathered from children's cumulative folders.

Measures

Ethnicity. Parent-reported child ethnicity was obtained from record review in the fall. Asin Study 1, child ethnicity was coded to reflect stereotyped ethnicity (African American andLatino) or non-stereotyped ethnicity (European American and Asian American).

Prior achievement. Second through fourth grade normal curve equivalent scores from theReading portion of the Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills were used as the measure ofprior achievement. For first graders, scores from the Metropolitan Reading Readiness Testwere used.

Teacher expectations. Teachers were asked to rate each student's expected year-endreading achievement on a five point scale (1= low; 2= low average; 3=average; 4=high;5=outstanding).

Perceived differential teacher treatment. In the fall, children completed the TTI, which isdescribed in full in the Study 1 Methods section. In contrast to Study 1, where childrencompleted either the high-achiever or the low-achiever form, in Study 2, childrencompleted both the high achiever and the low achiever forms. Of the total Study sample,740 children (60%) completed the TTI forms in the fall. TTI forms were administered insmall groups.

Aggregating TTI scores at the classroom level. As in Study 1, each scale of the high andlow achiever forms of the TTI was evaluated for its appropriateness as a classroom levelvariable. Specifically, two-level unconditional random effects models were estimated withindividual student scores on each TTI scale as the dependent variable and ICC's werecomputed. In every model, the random effects coefficient associated with classroom wasstatistically significant and the ICC was substantial (Mean ICC= .14, range= .06 to .22).Thus, there was sufficient agreement within classrooms about differential teacher treatmentto aggregate student data at the classroom level. Classroom level of perceived differentialteacher treatment was computed as the classroom average absolute sum of the differencebetween high and low achiever forms of the TTI on all three TTI scales.


Classroom diversity. As in Study 1, the number of ethnic groups represented among thechildren in each classrooms served as the index of classroom ethnic diversity. The sameethnic groupings used in Study 1 were used in Study 2. In the Study 2 dataset, the meannumber of ethnic groups per classroom was 3.7, 3.5, and 3.6 in first, third, and fifth grades,respectively; the standard deviations were 1.2, .9, and 1.0 in first, third, and fifth grades,respectively.

Data analytic strategyIn the Study 2 dataset, the dependent variable, teacher expectations of reading, was

arrayed on a continuum and students were nested within classroom. To evaluate whether theteacher expectation data violated the assumption of independence, HLM (Raudenbushet al., 2007) was used to estimate a fully unconditional two-level random effects model withteacher expectations as the dependent variable, and classroom as the level-2 unit. From thismodel, the intraclass correlation (ICC) was computed. The ICC for teacher expectationswas .17 and the random effects coefficient associated with classroom was statisticallysignificant, suggesting substantial dependencies in the data from the nesting of observationwithin classrooms.

In all subsequent data analyses, we evaluated hypotheses with 2-level HLM's usingmaximum likelihood estimation. In all models, fall teacher expectations of reading wereentered as the dependent variable. A base model included prior reading achievement andstudent ethnicity (stereotyped versus non-stereotyped ethnicity) as level-1 variables. Inthe next model, level-2 classroom context variables hypothesized to moderate teacheruse of child ethnicity as the basis of expectations were entered simultaneously asexplanatory variables for the relationship between child ethnicity and teacherexpectations. Support for the hypotheses was inferred if adding the level-2 variablessignificantly reduced model deviance, each level-2 variable explained the relationshipbetween child ethnicity and teacher expectations, and the level-2 coefficients were in thepredicted direction.

Results

Preliminary analysesDescriptive statistics were computed by grade and are reported in Table 1.Before examining classroom context moderators of teacher ethnic bias, the overall

magnitude of teacher bias was estimated. The base model was estimated first—a 2-levelHLM with teacher expectations as the dependent variable, and child ethnicity (stereotypedor non-stereotyped ethnicity) and prior achievement entered as level-1 variables. In thismodel, the random effects coefficients for the intercept and prior achievement, but not forethnicity, were statistically significant. Because the random effects coefficient for ethnicitywas not significant, subsequent models were constrained to include only the fixed effect forethnicity. This base model significantly improved model fit from the unconditional model(deviance score difference χ2(4)=346.0, pb .05). Inspection of the model coefficientssuggests that overall, child ethnicity is predictive of teacher expectations of reading (B=− .32, T=−4.60, pb .05 for ethnicity). On a 5-point scale, teachers rated EuropeanAmerican and Asian American children .32 points higher than African American and

Table 3Hierarchical linear models predicting teacher expectations of reading, Study 2 dataset

Unconditional model Base model Context Context interactions

Variable B SE T-ratio B SE T-ratio B SE T-ratio B SE T-ratio

Fixed effectsIntercept 3.36 .08 44.2⁎ 2.53 0.18 14.0⁎ 2.45 .18 13.8⁎ 2.42 .18 13.4⁎

Prior reading .03 b .01 11.2⁎ .03 b .01 11.3⁎ .03 b .01 11.1⁎

Child ethnicity − .32 .07 −4.6⁎Intercept .25 .25 1.0 2.01 .93 2.2⁎

PDT − .05 .08 − .6 −1.12 .54 −2.1⁎Diversity − .11 .05 −2.4⁎ − .53 .23 −2.3⁎Mixed −2.00 1.07 −1.9†Mixed⁎PDT 1.33 .61 2.2⁎

Mixed⁎diversity .55 .28 2.0†PDT⁎diversity .26 .13 2.0⁎aMixed⁎PDT⁎diversity − .37 .16 −2.3⁎

Random effects4SD Var

Compχ2 SD Var

Compχ2 SD Var

Compχ2 SD Var

Compχ2

Intercept .50 .25 286.1⁎ .82 .67 186.5⁎ .76 .58 175.6⁎ .77 .59 177.8⁎

Prior reading slope .01 b .01 156.6⁎ .01 b .001 156.3⁎ .01 b .001 156.2⁎

Level 1 R 1.10 1.21 .94 .88 .94 .88 .94 .88Deviance (df ) 3822.11 (3) 3476.08 (7) 3470.54 (10) 3465.67 (14)Model Δχ2 χ2(4)=346.0⁎ χ2(3)=5.6 (n.s.) χ2(5)=4.87 (n.s)

χ2(1)=2.94†a

⁎pb .05; †pb .10a Reflects improvement in model fit from 1df addition of Mixed⁎PDT⁎diversity interaction term to the rest of the model.

249C.McK

own,

R.S.

Weinstein

/Journal

ofSchool

Psychology

46(2008)

235–261


Latino students with identical records of achievement, representing an effect size of .27(Cohen's d) (Table 3).3

To evaluate whether it was appropriate to model the two classroom context variablestogether, we examined the correlation between PDT and classroom ethnic diversity. As inStudy 1, classroom level of PDT and ethnic diversity was uncorrelated (r=.14, n.s.),suggesting that diversity and PDT are independent indexes of classroom context.

Evaluating the moderating role of diversity and perceived differential teacher treatment

Initial test of hypotheses. To test hypotheses, level-2 classroom context variables wereadded to a base model in which teacher expectations was the dependent variable and priorachievement and child ethnicity were entered as level-1 predictors. Specifically, level-2variables reflecting classroom-level diversity and PDT were added to the base model asexplanatory terms for ethnicity. This model is referred to as the “context” model. Addingdiversity and PDT to the model did not significantly improve model fit (deviance scoredifference χ2(3)=5.6, n.s.). However, the coefficient associated with diversity wasstatistically significant. Inspection of estimated means suggests that the more diverse theclassroom, the more teacher expectations favor European American and Asian Americanstudents over their equally-achieving African American and Latino peers.

Post hoc analyses. The schools in Study 2 included a mix of single-grade and mixed-gradeclassrooms. Themeaning of diversity and differential teacher treatment may be different whenstudents in a class vary widely in age and associated competencies. One possibility is that thegreater diversity inmixed-grade classroomsmaymagnify the biasing effects of ethnic diversityand PDT. In that case, ethnic diversity and PDTwould bemore strongly associatedwith teacherbias in mixed-grade classrooms compared to single-grade classrooms. Alternatively, inmixed-grade classrooms, teachers may focus on age-level skill differences between children morethan student ethnicity. In that case, ethnic diversity and PDT may be more weakly associatedwith teacher bias in mixed-grade classrooms. We conducted further analyses to examinewhether the relationship between classroom ethnicity, PDT and teacher use of ethnicity as thebasis of their expectations was different in mixed-grade and single-grade classrooms.

To do so, we estimated a series of nested hierarchical linear models, beginning with the“context”model, in which teacher expectationswas the dependent variable, prior achievementand child ethnicity were level-1 predictors, and diversity and PDT were level-2 explanatoryvariables for the relationship between child ethnicity and teacher expectations. Next, level-2predictors were added as explanatory terms for the relationship between child ethnicity andteacher expectations, including a dummy code labeled “MIXED” indicating whether aclassroomwasmixed-grade, andMIXED by PDT,MIXED by diversity, and diversity by PDTinteraction terms.Next, we added a three-wayMIXEDby diversity by PDTinteraction term asan explanatory variable for the relationship between child ethnicity and teacher expectations.Adding the three-way, MIXED by diversity by PDT interaction term to the model marginally

3 Grade was entered as a level-2 variable explaining any relationship between child ethnicity and teacherexpectations. Grade did not affect the relationship between child ethnicity and teacher expectations and so wasomitted from subsequent analyses.

Fig. 2. Teacher expectations by child ethnicity, classroom diversity, classroom PDT, and grade-mix.


improved model fit (χ2(1)=2.94, p=.08) over a model without this interaction term. Inaddition, the coefficient associated with the three-way interaction was statistically significantand the constituent terms were all marginally significant or better.

To evaluate the direction of effects, estimated teacher expectationswere plotted for childrenfrom stereotyped- and non-stereotyped ethnic groupswhowere educated inmixed- and single-grade classrooms that were characterized as either high or low in PDTand either high or low indiversity (see Fig. 2). As in Study 1, high PDT was defined as PDT 1.5 standard deviationsabove the mean; low PDT was defined as PDT 1.5 standard deviations below the mean.Similarly, high diversity was defined as diversity 1.5 standard deviations above the mean; lowdiversity was defined as diversity 1.5 standard deviations below the mean. The plot ofestimated means suggests that in mixed-grade, highly diverse classrooms in which childrenreported high levels of PDT, teachers held higher expectations of European American andAsian American students than their equally-achieving African American and Latino peers andthat this discrepancy in teacher expectations towards children from different ethnic groupswas


greater than in classrooms with different levels of PDT and diversity, whether the classroomswere mixed- or single-grade. In addition, the plotted means suggested that in same-gradeclassrooms, with the exception of low-diversity, low-PDTsettings, teachers generally expectedmore of European American and Asian American students than their equally achievingAfrican American and Latino peers.4

Discussion

Findings from Study 2 partially supported our hypotheses. Findings supported thehypothesis that diversity and PDTare independent indexes of context. Furthermore classroomdiversity but not PDT independently predicted teacher bias. In addition, as with Study 1, inStudy 2, the findings support the conclusion that the effects of different classroom contextvariables together are more strongly predictive of bias than either alone. In contrast to Study 1,in which PDT and diversity were additive in their prediction of teacher bias, in Study 2,classroom diversity, PDT, and grade mix predicted teacher bias interactively. Specifically, therelationship between child ethnicity and teacher expectations was different at different levelsof PDT, this PDT effect varied with level of classroom diversity, and the interactiverelationships between PDT, diversity, and child ethnicity in predicting teacher expectationswere different in mixed-grade and single-grade classrooms.

Whenwe used the final model to plot mean teacher expectations for children from differentethnic groups in different contexts, we found that in mixed-grade, highly diverse, high-PDTclassrooms, teacher expectations of European American and Asian American students weremuch higher than teacher expectations of Black and Latino students with the same record ofachievement and this was different than in other combinations of diversity and PDT. Inmixed-grade classrooms that were 1.5 standard deviations above the mean in diversity and 1.5standard deviations above the mean in PDT, teachers rated students from stereotyped groupswith average prior achievement just below low average (1.9 on a scale where 2 means “lowaverage”). In these classrooms teachers rated students from non-stereotyped ethnic groups justabout average (2.8 on a scale where 3 means “average”). This reflects a .75 standard deviationdiscrepancy in teacher expectations towards children from stereotyped and non-stereotypedethnic groups.

The lowest level of bias occurred in mixed-grade classrooms that were 1.5 standarddeviations below the mean in diversity and 1.5 standard deviations below the mean in PDT.In these classrooms, teachers rated students with average achievement as above averagewith virtually no difference in teacher expectations towards children from different ethnicgroups. In same-grade classrooms, teachers tended to rate African American and Latinostudents lower than their equally-achieving European American and Asian American peersregardless of the level of diversity or PDT, except that in classrooms that were 1.5 standarddeviations below the mean in diversity and 1.5 standard deviations below the mean in PDT,

4 As in Study 1, we also examined whether teacher expectations were different for girls and boys, whether therelationship between gender and teacher expectations depended on diversity and PDT, whether the relationshipbetween ethnicity and teacher expectations was different for boys and for girls, and whether the relationshipbetween ethnicity and teacher expectations was different for boys and for girls in different classroom contexts.Gender was not related to teacher expectations.


teachers rated Black and Latino students slightly higher than their European American andAsian American peers. In this case, teachers rated all students with an average record ofachievement above average.

Study 3

Studies 1 and 2 suggest that under some conditions (i.e., high-PDT and high levels ofethnic diversity), teachers expect more of children from non-stereotyped ethnic groups thanchildren from stereotyped ethnic groups with similar records of achievement. These studiesalso suggest that under other conditions (i.e., low-PDT and low levels of ethnic diversity),teacher expectations are similar for children from stereotyped and non-stereotyped ethnicgroups who have a similar record of achievement. Prior research examining these datasets(Kuklinski & Weinstein, 2001; Weinstein et al., 1987) has found that teacher expectationsare predictive of year-end achievement for students with comparable records ofachievement, suggesting that teacher expectations contribute to children's year-endachievement. A natural question is how much teacher expectations, allocated differentlyto children from different ethnic groups in high-bias classrooms, contribute to the year-endachievement gap. The goal of Study 3 is to estimate the contribution of teacher expectationsto the year-end achievement gap in high- and low-bias classrooms. In each sample, year-endachievement data were available for a subset of participants (561 in Study 1; 376 in Study 2).

Methods

Measures

Student achievement. The same measures of prior achievement used in Study 1 and Study2 are used in Study 3. In addition, year-end achievement for students in both datasets wasgathered. CTBS grade-equivalents for reading and math were included in the Study 1dataset. CTBS normal-curve equivalents for reading were included in the Study 2 dataset.

Teacher expectations. The measures of teacher expectations described in Study 1 andStudy 2 are used in this study.

Classroom context. The measures of classroom context in Study 1 (PDT and diversity)and Study 2 (PDT, diversity and mixed- or single-grade) were used to define high- and low-bias classrooms.

Estimation ProceduresEstimating the contribution of teacher expectations to the one-year achievement gap in

high- and low-bias classrooms involves modeling several parameters and using rationalprocedures to combine them. First, the magnitude of teacher expectancy effects,represented by the HLM coefficient for the relationship between fall teacher expectationsand year-end achievement, controlling for prior achievement, must be estimated separatelyfor each dataset, subject, and grade. Second, high- and low-bias classrooms must be definedfor each dataset. Third, teacher expectations for similarly-achieving children from


stereotyped and non-stereotyped ethnic groups in high- and low-bias classrooms, estimatedin Study 1 and Study 2, must be combined with HLM expectancy coefficients in a way thatproduces estimated year-end achievement gap attributable to biased teacher expectations.

Results

Teacher expectations and the achievement gap in and high- and low-bias classroom

Preliminary analyses. We first tested for dependencies in year-end achievement databecause students were nested within classrooms. To do so, unconditional random effectsmodels were run and the findings were used to compute intraclass correlations. In Study 1, inreading and math, and in Study 2 in reading, the random effects coefficient associated withclassroom were statistically significant and ICC's were very high (.62, .67, and .33,respectively). Therefore, in all subsequent analyses, HLMwas used to estimate the relationshipbetween fall teacher expectations and year-end achievement, controlling for prior achievement.

Expectancy effect estimate. Because of likely grade-level differences in the magnitude ofthe relationship between teacher expectations and year-end achievement (Raudenbush,1984), expectancy effects were estimated separately by grade in each dataset. We estimatedthe magnitude of expectancy effects by running hierarchical linear models with year-endachievement as the dependent variable, teacher expectations as a level-1 predictor, and priorachievement as a level-1 covariate. The resulting equations are referred to as the“expectancy effects equations.” The general form of that equation is:

Spring Achievement ¼ g00 þ g10⁎ Prior Achievementij þ g20⁎ Teacher Expectationsþ u1j⁎ Prior Achievementþ u2j⁎ Teacher Expectations:

The unstandardized fixed effect coefficient associated with teacher expectations (γ20)reflected the magnitude of the relationship between teacher expectations and year-endachievement for students with similar prior achievement. This coefficient was used toestimate the achievement gap attributable to biased expectations. For reading, in Study 1,Grade 1 γ20= .04; Grade 3 γ20= .07; and Grade 5 γ20= .07. For math, in Study 1, Grade 1γ20= .02; Grade 3 γ20= .05; and Grade 5 γ20= .10. In Study 2, Grade 1 γ20=7.65; Grade 3γ20=4.13; and Grade 5 γ20=3.97. Differences in the magnitude of γ20 between Study 1 andStudy 2 are an artifact of scaling and reflect differences in the measures of teacherexpectations and year-end achievement.

Defining high- and low-bias. High- and low-bias classrooms were defined using thefindings from Study 1 and Study 2. In both datasets, high-bias classrooms were defined asclassrooms that were 1.5 standard deviation above the mean in PDT and 1.5 standarddeviations above the mean in ethnic diversity. In the Study 2 dataset, high-bias classroomswere also defined as including students from mixed grades. Low-bias classrooms weredefined as classrooms that were 1.5 standard deviations below the mean on PDT and 1.5standard deviations below the mean on diversity. Again, in the Study 2 dataset, thisdefinition of high and low bias applied to mixed-grade but not same-grade classrooms.


Expectations estimates. Study 1 and Study 2 findings regarding teacher expectationstowards children from academically stereotyped and non-stereotyped ethnic groups withaverage prior achievement in low- and high-bias classrooms were used as the estimates ofteacher expectations. Those estimates are summarized in Studies 1 and 2 and in Figs. 1 and 2.

Combining parameters. Third, the parameters from steps 1 and 2were combined to estimatethe contribution of teacher ethnic bias to the year-end achievement gap in high- and low-biasclassrooms. For each grade, subject, and classroom type (high-bias or low-bias), the estimatedlevel of teacher expectations for children from stereotyped and non-stereotyped classrooms inhigh- and low-bias classroomswas entered into the expectancy effects equation associatedwiththat grade. Mean prior achievement for each grade was entered in all expectancy equationscomputations. For each computation, the resulting value reflected estimated year-endachievement for children with an average record of achievement from either a stereotyped ornon-stereotyped ethnic group and from either a high- or a low-bias classroom. Estimated year-end achievement for children from stereotyped groups was then subtracted from estimatedyear-end achievement for children from non-stereotyped groups to compute the year-endachievement gap attributable to teacher expectations in each classroom type.

Final gap estimate. For the expectancy effects analyses, in all grades and subjects,teacher expectations significantly predicted year-end achievement, controlling for priorachievement. The procedures described above were followed to estimate the contributionof teacher expectations in high- and low-bias classrooms to the year-end achievementgap for children with average records of achievement (see Table 4). For the Study 1dataset, the gap is reported in Grade Equivalents (ΔGE). For the Study 2 dataset, the gapis reported in Normal Curve Equivalents (ΔNCE). In addition, for each grade andclassroom type (high- or low-bias), the difference between estimated year-end

Table 4Estimated year-end achievement gap attributable to biased expectations

Grade

Dataset 1 1 3 5

Reading ΔGE d ΔGE d ΔGE d

High bias .28 .32 .54 .28 .57 .25Low bias − .02 − .02 − .03 − .02 − .04 − .02

MathematicsHigh bias .17 .25 .43 .33 .81 .38Low bias − .03 − .04 − .07 − .05 − .13 − .06

Dataset 2 1 3 5

Reading ΔNCE d ΔNCE d ΔNCE d

High bias 6.89 .34 3.72 .23 3.57 .21Low bias 1.53 .08 .83 .05 .79 .05

Notes: Positive values of Δ reflect year-end achievement that is higher for European American and Asian Americanchildren than for African American and Latino children. GE = grade equivalent; d = Cohen's d; NCE = normal curveequivalents.


achievement for children from stereotyped and non-stereotyped ethnic groups wascalculated and divided by the standard deviation of year-end achievement. The result ofthis calculation is an effect size estimate (Cohen's d) which can be interpreted as thenumber of standard deviations discrepancy in year-end achievement between childrenfrom stereotyped and non-stereotyped ethnic groups with equal prior achievement that isattributable to biased teacher expectations.

Discussion

This study used empirical and rational procedures to estimate the contribution ofteacher expectations in high- and low-bias classrooms to the year-end ethnic achievementgap between children from stereotyped and non-stereotyped ethnic groups with equalrecords of achievement. Results from this study suggest that in high-bias classrooms,teacher expectations are associated with between .21 and .38 standard deviations year-end achievement discrepancy between children from stereotyped and non-stereotypedethnic groups, with an average effect size of d= .29. In low-bias classrooms, teacherexpectations make a negligible contribution to the year-end achievement gap, witheffect sizes ranging from − .06 to .08 standard deviations with an average effect sizeof d=− .003.

General discussion

Previous research has found conflicting evidence of teacher ethnic bias, defined asteacher expectations that are higher for children from some ethnic groups than for childrenfrom other ethnic groups who have similar records of achievement. Some studies report noevidence of bias. Others report evidence of bias. Meta-analytic reviews suggest that ifteachers are biased, the magnitude of the bias is small. However, no prior studies haveexamined the role of classroom context in moderating teacher ethnic bias. Studies 1 and 2suggest that classroom characteristics are associated with teacher ethnic bias such that inclassrooms characterized by high ethnic diversity, high differential teacher treatmenttowards high- and low-achievers, and, in Study 2, mixed-grade classrooms, teachers expectsubstantially more of European American and Asian American students than they do ofAfrican American and Latino students with similar records of achievement. In highlydiverse classrooms with low levels of PDT and, in Study 2, mixed-grade composition,teacher expectations were very similar for children from different ethnic groups with similarrecords of achievement. These findings suggest that ethnic diversity within classroomsenables teacher bias when teachers create climates characterized by high differentialtreatment of high and low achievers.

These findings highlight the importance of context in magnifying or attenuatingimportant social processes. When classrooms were not differentiated by these keycharacteristics, the relationship between child ethnicity and teacher expectations wasstatistically significant in both studies, but the magnitude of that relationship wassubstantially smaller. Mirroring prior research in this area, when examined overall, in Study1 and Study 2, the expectations gap between children from academically stereotyped andnon-stereotyped ethnic groups ranged from a Cohen's d of .05 to .27, with an average of


d=.14. Cohen (1988) characterized these as small effects. When classrooms weredifferentiated by climate and inhabitant characteristics, it became clear that in someclassrooms, the expectations gap is substantially greater, while in others it is much lower.Specifically, in highly diverse, high-PDT, and, for Study 2, mixed-grade classrooms, themagnitude of the difference in teacher expectations towards children from these differentethnic groups was large, ranging from .75 to 1.00 standard deviations. Withoutdifferentiating by important setting characteristics, it would be easy to come to themistaken conclusion that teacher ethnic bias, while present, is trivial in magnitude.

In addition to helping to identify high-bias classrooms, these findings also highlightcharacteristics of classrooms that are free of teacher ethnic bias. In general, classrooms inwhich children perceive teachers treating high and low achievers similarly are more likelyto be free of teacher ethnic bias, particularly when those low-PDT classrooms are ethnicallydiverse. This suggests that classroom diversity minimizes the development of teacher biaswhen teachers create classroom climates in which high- and low-achievers are treatedsimilarly. Teachers, parents, and administrators may use this information to monitorclassroom climate and intervene in ways that create a more equitable classroom climatecharacterized by high expectations, opportunity and choice, and constructive feedback forstudents at all points on the achievement hierarchy and from all ethnic groups.

Consistent with previous research, in Study 1 and Study 2, classroom level of child-perceived differential teacher treatment towards high- and low-achievers was anindicator of a classroom's climate of equity. Previous research has demonstrated thatwhen children report that their teacher favors high-achievers over low-achievers, teacherexpectations are more strongly linked to student achievement, potentially contributing togreater discrepancies between high- and low-achieving students. Similarly, this studysuggests that when children report that their teacher favors high-achievers over low-achievers, teachers expect more of children from academically non-stereotyped ethnicgroups than from children from academically stereotyped ethnic groups with similarrecords of achievement. These studies suggest that PDT is a particularly powerful indexof classroom equity in ethnically diverse classrooms and, in the case of the Study 2sample, ethnically diverse, mixed-grade classrooms.

Study 1 and Study 2 addressed the same questions in different datasets, collected10 years apart. The datasets differed substantially in the ethnic makeup of the samples, theinclusion of mixed-grade classrooms in Study 2, the decades when the data were collected,the measures of teacher expectations, and the method of calculating classroom-levelperceived differential teacher treatment. Despite these many differences, in Study 1 andStudy 2, we found similar relationships between child ethnicity, teacher expectations, andtwo indicators of classroom context, while controlling for achievement differences. Thissuggests that the overall finding that teacher expectations are the most biased in highlydiverse classrooms in which teachers treat high- and low-achievers very differently isrobust. Further replication in school districts different from those in these two studies willhelp determine the extent to which these findings generalize.

An important question is whether biased expectations matter. Study 3 provided anestimate of the magnitude of the year-end achievement gap that can be attributed to biasedteacher expectations in high- and low-bias classrooms. In high-bias classrooms, thedifferent expectations teachers hold for children from stereotyped ethnic groups and their


non-stereotyped peers with identical records of achievement may contribute up to .38standard deviations, or .8 grade equivalents, to the year-end achievement gap, with anaverage gap of .29 standard deviations, or about .6 grade equivalents. This is a substantialgap attributable to different expectations for equally-achieving children from differentethnic groups. Study 3 also suggests that in low-bias classrooms, teacher expectations playlittle role in the ethnic achievement gap. These findings further support the conclusion thatit is critical to identify those classrooms most likely to be characterized by teacher ethnicbias, and intervene to reduce the bias.

It is important to note that the Study 3 estimates of the contribution of teacherexpectations to the achievement gap in high-bias classrooms are probably conservative. Inearlier work, Brattesani et al. (1984) found that the magnitude of the relationship betweenteacher expectations and year-end achievement is greater in high-PDT classrooms. Theexpectancy effects coefficients used in Study 3 to estimate the year-end achievement gapattributable to biased teacher expectations were for the whole sample and did notdistinguish between classrooms by level of PDT. In other words, those expectancy effectscoefficients did not account for the likelihood that in high-PDT classrooms, not only didteachers expect substantially less of children from stereotyped ethnic groups, but thoseexpectations were more strongly related to achievement. It is likely that the achievementgap attributable to teacher expectations in high-bias classrooms is actually larger than whatwe reported.

Limitations and future directions

In Study 1 low diversity, low-PDTclassrooms, and in Study 2 same-grade, low diversity,low-PDT classrooms, teacher expectations reflected counter-bias—that is, teachersexpected more of African American and Latino students than their equally-achievingEuropean American and Asian American peers. It is likely that there are some teacherswhose biases are not consistent with prevailing stereotypes. Under no circumstances areteacher biases–regardless of who those biases favor–a desirable feature of the classroomsetting. It is important to note also that in most settings where teacher bias was evident inStudy 1 and Study 2, that bias favored European American and Asian American studentsover equally-achieving African American and Latino students. In addition, where itoccurred, the magnitude of counter-bias was substantially lower than the magnitude ofbiases that ran in the predicted direction.

The exact relationship between diversity, PDT, and bias was different in Study 1 andStudy 2. In the Study 1 dataset, PDT and diversity each predicted bias independently andtheir effects on bias were additive. Specifically, higher PDT in the context of higherdiversity predicted the greatest bias. In the Study 2 dataset, PDT, diversity, and the grade-level mix of the classroom predicted bias interactively. In other words, the relationshipbetween classroom diversity, PDT, and teacher bias depended on whether classrooms weresingle-grade or mixed-grade, with teacher bias most concentrated in highly diverse, highPDT, mixed-grade classrooms. Thus, the precise relationship between classroom contextand teacher bias was different in the two Studies. Furthermore, the age-mix of theclassroom was an important and unanticipated predictor of teacher bias in Study 2. Thesefindings highlight the complexity of context effects in schools. In addition, they suggest


the importance of factors beyond ethnic diversity and PDT in predicting teacher ethnicbias.

The more that is known about classroom characteristics in which ethnic bias is likely tooccur, the more resources can be targeted to prevent bias and its negative consequences.Future research should further examine contextual factors that affect where and when bias isconcentrated, specifically seeking to identify setting characteristics that may magnify orattenuate teacher ethnic bias. Future research should also identify the processes throughwhich classroom environments and student ethnic mix affect teacher use of child ethnicityas the basis of their expectations. Intervention studies focused on introducing high equitypractices in high-risk classrooms should be employed both to identify efficacious practicesin preventing the achievement gap and to test causal hypotheses about the relationshipbetween classroom characteristics and teacher ethnic bias.

At a time when tensions between groups around the country and the world are runninghigh, it is perhaps disquieting to learn of evidence of ethnic bias in a setting as critical to ourchildren's future as the American public school. One of the important lessons from thesestudies is that ethnic bias is not pervasive or inevitable: in two studies including 83classrooms and 1872 students, many teachers held unbiased expectations. Others expectedmore of children from non-stereotyped ethnic groups than their peers from stereotypedethnic groups with similar records of achievement. Much of the research on the ethnicachievement gap has focused on individual child vulnerabilities and strategies to intervene toreduce these vulnerabilities. The present studies suggest that it may be fruitful to identifysetting characteristics that magnify or attenuate the achievement gap. Doing so may createinsights into how we can shape those settings towards greater equity. Reducing ethnic biasand its negative consequences at a setting level, with attention paid to classroom populationdifferences and teaching practices, may prove more efficient and lasting than remedying theproblem one child at a time.

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by a William T. Grant Scholar's Award to Clark McKown.Thanks to Ruth Goldman and Margaret Kuklinki for permission to use Study 2 data.Thanks also to two anonymous reviewers who provided useful feedback on an earlier draft.

References

Adler, N. E., Boyce, T., Chesney, M. A., & Cohen, S. (1994). Socioeconomic status and heath: The challenge of thegradient. American Psychologist, 49(1), 15−24.

Baron, R. M., Tom, D. Y., & Cooper, H. M. (1985). Social class, race, and teacher expectations. In J. B. Dusek(Ed.), Teacher expectancies (pp. 251−270). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bobo, L. (2001). Racial attitudes and relations at the close of the twentieth century. In N. J. Smelser, W. J. Wilson,& F. Mitchell (Eds.), America becoming: Racial trends and heir consequences (pp. 264−301). Washington,DC: National Academy Press.

Brattesani, K. A., Weinstein, R. S., & Marshall, H. H. (1984). Student perceptions of differential teacher treatmentas moderators of teacher expectation effects. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(2), 236−247.

Brophy, J., & Good, T. (1970). Teachers' communication of differential expectations for children's classroomperformance: Some behavioral data. Journal of Educational Psychology, 61(5), 365−374.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd Edition). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.


Cooper, H., Findley, M., & Good, T. (1982). Relations between student achievement and various measures ofteacher expectations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 577−579.

Darley, J., & Fazio, R. (1980). Expectancy confirmation processes arising in the social interaction sequence.American Psychologist, 35, 867−881.

Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (1998). On the nature of contemporary prejudice: The causes, consequences, andchallenges of aversive racism. In J. L. Eberhardt & S. T. Fiske (Eds.), Confronting racism: The problem and theresponse. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dusek, J. B., & Joseph, G. (1983). The bases of teacher expectancies: A meta-analysis. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 75(3), 327−346.

Ferguson, R. F. (1998). Teachers' perceptions and expectations and the black–white test score gap. In C. Jencks &M. Phillips (Eds.), The black–white test score gap (pp. 273−317).Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Goldman, R. K., Botkin, M. J., Tokunaga, H., & Kuklinski, M. (1997). Teacher consultation: Impact on teachers'effectiveness and students' cognitive competence and achievement. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 67,374−384.

Greenwald, A. G., Banaji, M. R., Rudman, L. A., Farnham, S. D., Nosek, B. A., & Mellott, D. S. (2002). A unifiedtheory of implicit attitudes, stereotypes, self-esteem, and self-concept. Psychological Review, 109(1), 3−25.

Jencks, C., & Phillips, M. (Eds.). (1998). The black–white test score gap. Washington, DC, US: BrookingsInstitution.

Jones, L. (1989). Teacher expectations for black and white students in contrasting classroom environments.Unpublished master's thesis. University of California, Berkeley.

Jussim, L., Eccles, J. S., & Madon, S. (1996). Social perception, social stereotypes, and teacher expectations:Accuracy and the quest for the powerful self-fulfilling prophecy. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances inexperimental social psychology, Vol. 28 (pp. 281–388). New York, NY: Academic Press.

Kuklinski, M. R., & Weinstein, R. S. (2000). Classroom and grade level differences in the stability of teacherexpectations and perceived differential teacher treatment. Learning Environments Research, 3, 1−34.

Kuklinski, M. R., & Weinstein, R. S. (2001). Classroom and developmental differences in a path model of teacherexpectancy effects. Child Development, 72(5), 1554−1578.

Lee, J. (2002). Racial and ethnic achievement gap trends: Reversing the progress toward equity? EducationalResearcher, 31(1), 3−12.

Madon, S., Jussim, L., Keiper, S., Eccles, J., Smith, A., & Palumbo, P. (1998). The accuracy and power of sex,social class, and ethnic stereotypes: A naturalistic study in person perception. Personality and SocialPsychology Bulletin, 24(12), 1304−1318.

McKown,C., Strambler,M. J. (in press). Social influences on the ethnic achievement gap. In S.Quintana&C.McKown(Eds.), Handbook of Race, Racism, and the Developing Child. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

McKown, C., & Weinstein, R. S. (2002). Modeling the role of child ethnicity and gender in children's differentialresponse to teacher expectations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 159−184.

McKown, C., & Weinstein, R. S. (2003). The development and consequences of stereotype-consciousness inmiddle childhood. Child Development, 74(2), 498−515.

Moore, H. A., & Johnson, D. R. (1983). A re-examination of elementary school teachers' expectations: Evidenceof sex and ethnic segmentation. Social Science Quarterly, 63, 460−475.

Moos, R. H. (1973). Conceptualizations of human environments. American Psychologist, 73, 652−665.Raudenbush, S. W. (1984). Magnitude of teacher expectancy effects on pupil IQ as a function of the credibility of

expectancy induction: A synthesis of findings from 18 studies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(1),86−97.

Raudenbush, S. W., Bryk, A., & Congdon, R. (2007). Hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling. Lincolnwood,IL: Scientific Software International.

Rist, R. C. (1973). The urban school: A factory for failure: A study of education in American society. Cambridge:MIT Press.

Saft, E. W., & Pianta, R. C. (2001). Teachers' perceptions of their relationships with students: Effects of child age,gender, and ethnicity of teachers and children. School Psychology Quarterly, 16(2), 125−141.

Skiba, R., Michael, R. S., Nardo, A. C., & Peterson, R. (2002). The color of discipline: Sources of racial and genderdisproportionality in school punishment. Urban Review, 34, 317−342.

Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. AmericanPsychologist, 52, 613−629.


Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 797−811.

Weinstein, R. S. (2002). Reaching higher: The power of expectations in schooling. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.

Weinstein, R. S., Gregory, A., & Strambler, M. J. (2004). Intractable self-fulfilling prophecies fifty years afterBrown v. Board of Education. American Psychologist, 59(6), 511−520.

Weinstein, R. S., Marshall, H., Sharp, L., & Botkin, M. (1987). Pygmalion and the student: Age and classroomdifferences in children's awareness of teacher expectations. Child Development, 58, 1079−1093.

Weinstein, R. S., & McKown, C. (1998). Expectancy effects in context: Listening to the voices of students andteachers. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Advances in research on teaching, Vol. 7 (pp. 215−242). Greenwich, CT: JAIPress.

Weinstein, R. S., & Middlestadt, S. E. (1979). Student perceptions of teacher interactions with male high and lowachievers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(4), 421−431.

teacher expectations, classroom context, and the ......teacher expectations, classroom context, and...

Documents