Noah Gentry

Professor Reimers

Applied Econometrics

Final Paper

9 December 2016

INTRODUCTION

In 1954, the issue of education inequality was brought to the forefront of the American

consciousness with the Supreme Court ruling Brown v. Board of Ed. The landmark ruling

declared separation inherently unequal and forbade the segregation of schools based upon race.

Overruling Plessy v. Ferguson, the Brown ruling found that it was impossible to forcibly

segregate people by race and still provide equal treatment. While the Brown decision was huge,

it focused very specifically on the legal aspect of segregation, alleging that it was the legal

exclusion of blacks that created the inequality, not necessarily the disparity in conditions that

followed legal racial segregation. The issue with this view of the subject is that legal segregation

in this country did not fall under the umbrella of separate but equal as stipulated in Plessy v.

Ferguson, but in fact a large number of inequalities came about as a result of the combination of

forced segregation and lack economic opportunities for black Americans, in addition to the

neglect of public facilities designated for blacks. The end of formal school segregation policies

was by no means an end to school segregation, nor an end to unequal conditions in schools for

different races. As a result, there exist significant disparities in academic performance between

black and white school children today.

Because education is such an integral part of ones human capital stock, eliminating

disparities in academic performance between black and white students may be one of the most
important steps toward eliminating many other racial disparities that exist in this country. While

many studies have been done analyzing the black-white achievement gap and its causes, the gap

has remained significant since it was first measured in 1965. The goal of this paper is to analyze

the black-white achievement gap in Massachusetts, using data from the 2016 PARCC exam in

addition to other school data from the Massachusetts Department of Educations statewide

reports.

LITERATURE REVIEW

The first major inquiry into race-based inequities in education is known as the Coleman

Report, and was conducted in 1965. By conducting a survey of public schools around the nation,

Coleman found that black students were systematically underperforming compared to white

students, in addition to finding evidence of extreme racial segregation in the school system. He

found that minority scores were as much as 1 standard deviation lower than those of white

children. He also discovered 65% of black children grades 1-12 attended a school that was 90-

100% black, as well as 80% of white students attended a school that was 90-100% white. These

numbers tended to increase with age, and in the South many students attended schools that were

completely racially homogenous. In addition, he found that black children were more likely to

have larger class sizes, attend schools with less robust facilities, have unenthusiastic teachers,

and be missing useful educational resources, like an encyclopedia in the home. Based on his

findings, Coleman attributed much of the cause of the gap to the effects of segregation, and

inequities in school quality between black and white children (Coleman, 1965).

Since Colemans study, the gap has remained but the size of the gap has fluctuated,

experiencing a decline throughout the 1970s and 80s, but becoming stagnant in the 90s and

possibly starting to increase again. There have been a variety of different studies aimed at
identifying and understanding the causes, to varying degrees of success. In 2004, using the

ECLS-K data, Fryer and Levitt found no gap at the kindergarten level when controlling for a

small amount of variables related to socioeconomic status. They found that the gap returned by

3rd grade, however, and continued to get worse as school progressed. As with Coleman, they

found that the gap seems to consistently grow as students age. They explored different reasons

for the increase in the gaps over time, and found that large amounts of segregation and inequality

between schools attended by whites and blacks were still present, however they could not find

any conclusive evidence as to what exactly was driving the gap in achievement to widen over

time, given that even when controlling for these factors black children still underperform as

compared to white children (Fryer and Levitt, 2004).

A 2015 study by Sean Reardon looked at different measures of segregation, in order to

determine the ways in which segregation influences the academic achievement gap, particularly

looking at whether it was the racial or socioeconomic composition of schools that tended to

affect minority children. He analyzed standardized testing data from the National Center for

Education Statistics (NCES), along with data on school segregation from the Common Core of

Data (CCD), and data on residential segregation from the American Community Survey (ACS).

Ultimately he found the disparity in average poverty rates between schools attended by blacks

and whites to have the strongest correlation to the academic achievement gap (Reardon, 2015).

The goal of this paper is to use some of the previous techniques for analysis, and apply

them to data from schools throughout Massachusetts in order to get an idea of the size of the

achievement gap in Massachusetts, as well as identify some of the factors most strongly

correlated with the achievement gap.

DESCRIPTION OF DATA
 The data used for this study comes from the Massachusetts Department of Educations

yearly statewide reports. They provide data on a number of school, teacher, and student related

variables, broken down at either the school or district level. For this paper, data on PARCC

achievement results were used as measures of students academic performance. The PARCC

(Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers) is a yearly standardized test

for English/Language Arts and Mathematics that is designed to accommodate for more rigorous

education standards that have been adopted by many states in recent years. The Massachusetts

statewide reports provide the average scaled scores for students in each racial category, and these

are used as the dependent variable in the model. The lowest possible score is a 650, while the

highest is an 850, and the score is a measure of how prepared a student is for the next grade

level, an 850 representing a student who well exceeds expectations, while a 650 represents a

student who is not prepared for the next grade. In addition to the average scaled PARCC scores,

school level data on several different school and student related variables was used for the

independent variables. The percentage of full-time equivalent (FTE) black, Asian, and Hispanic

teachers, percentage of teachers at each evaluation level, and average class size at each school

were used as measures of school quality. The percentage of black, white, and economically

disadvantaged students in each class was used to see how the racial and socioeconomic balance

of the class affected students of different races.

Below are the descriptive statistics for the data used. Not all schools reported average

scaled scores for both black and white students, so two tables are shown, the first with the

average scaled scores for black students and school data from the schools that reported them, and

the second with the averaged scaled scores for white students and the school data for the schools
that reported them. Ill refer to the first set of data as the black student dataset and the second as

the white student dataset.

Black Average Scaled Scores & School data

Black Average Avg Class % %W %Disadvanta

Statistic Scaled Score size Black hite ged
Nbr. of
observations 127 127 127 127 127
Nbr. of missing
values 0 0 0 0 0
0.50
Minimum 684.000 6.700 2.300 0 4.200
87.4
Maximum 782.000 41.100 73.500 00 77.200
86.9
Range 98.000 34.400 71.200 00 73.000
28.1
Median 729.000 19.300 20.500 00 43.300
34.8
Mean 730.425 19.731 25.258 57 41.663
Standard 25.9
deviation (n-1) 18.006 4.022 19.531 69 19.874
% %
% Black % Hispanic % Asian Exemplar % % Needs Unsatisfac
Teachers Teachers Teachers y Proficient Improvement tory
127 127 127 127 127 127 127
23 23 23 29 29 29 29
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 40.000 0.000 0.000
22.388 15.737 19.556 52.000 99.500 35.700 13.600
22.388 15.737 19.556 52.000 59.500 35.700 13.600
2.016 2.227 1.337 9.000 84.600 3.100 0.000
4.146 3.323 2.074 11.307 81.976 5.531 1.191
5.528 3.867 2.959 11.497 12.431 6.183 2.201
White Average Scaled Scores & School Data

Avg
Average Class
Statistic Scaled Score size % Black %White %Disadvantaged
Nbr. of
observations 191 191 191 191 191
Nbr. of missing
values 0 0 0 0 0
Minimum 709.000 10.300 0.000 8.800 3.500
Maximum 796.000 25.400 73.500 97.400 77.200
Range 87.000 15.100 73.500 88.600 73.700
Median 753.000 18.700 3.800 71.200 24.900
Mean 752.848 18.626 8.377 64.705 28.841
Standard
deviation (n-1) 16.396 2.891 12.042 25.761 18.486
% Black
Teachers % Hispanic % Asian % % Needs %
Teachers Teachers Exemplary % Proficient Improvement Unsatisfactory
191 191 191 191 191 191 191
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 40.000 0.000 0.000
22.388 13.492 8.451 52.300 99.500 36.100 13.600
22.388 13.492 8.451 52.300 59.500 36.100 13.600
0.000 0.000 0.000 7.900 87.500 3.200 0.000
1.350 1.773 1.204 9.951 84.702 4.666 0.683
2.963 2.782 1.873 9.282 10.493 5.140 1.661
 As shown in the tables above, the means of the Average Scaled Scores for black and

white students are 730.425 and 752.848 respectively, meaning that the overall difference in

Average Scaled Score between black and white students in these samples is 22.423. It is worth

noting that the white mean Average Scaled Score of 752.848 is just past the level 4 cutoff of 750,

while the black mean Average Scaled Score is solidly in the level 3 range. According to the

PARCCs scoring guide, a level 4 student is meeting expectations, while a level 3 student is

approaching expectations. The white students scores also had slightly less variation than the

black students. The mean average class size was similar for each of the datasets, but for the

black student data set the range and standard deviation were larger showing that there was more

inconsistency in the average class sizes for black students. The two datasets were very different

when it came to the percentages of black, white, and economically disadvantaged students. The

white student dataset shows had a mean black percentage of 8.337, mean white percentage of

64.705, and mean economically disadvantaged percentage of 28.441, compared to 25.26, 34.86,

and 41.66 respectively for the black student dataset. This shows that white students attend more

racially homogenous schools in general, and on average are around wealthier classmates than

black students. The mean percentages of FTE black, Asian, and Hispanic teachers were very low

for both datasets, indicating that in general there is a severe lack of diversity among teachers, and

that white teachers are extremely overrepresented throughout the state. Despite this, the black

student dataset had higher means for all minority teacher percentages, particularly black teachers.

The percentages of teachers at each evaluation level was about the same for each dataset.

MODEL

The dependent variables for this model will be the Average Scaled Scores for both black

and white students. In order to determine what factors might affect the black-white score gap I
will analyze the effect of each of the independent variables on the Average Scaled Score for both

black and white students, and compare the different coefficients to determine which areas might

best be targeted by policy makers. The independent variables include the percentage of FTE

black, Asian, and Hispanic teachers, the percentage of teachers at each evaluation level, the

percentage of black, white, and economically disadvantaged students, and the average class size

for each school.

Based upon economic theory, and the relevant literature, I would predict that for the

black student dataset, the percentages of FTE minority teachers, particularly black teachers,

would have positive coefficients. Because teachers represent positive role models, having more

identifiable role models in the classroom might improve performance. For white students, while

the positive minority role model theory would not apply to them, I also would not predict the

percentages of FTE minority teachers to have a negative impact, therefore Im predicting that for

the white student dataset these variables will be insignificant. For the percentages of teachers at

each evaluation level, coefficients should be positive for both exemplary and proficient

categories, and negative for needs improvement and unsatisfactory categories. These should

be the same for both the white and black student datasets. For the black student dataset, I predict

that the % of Black students in the classroom should have a positive coefficient, as students

would feel more comfortable when around more students of the same racial group, that the % of

white and economically disadvantaged students should have negative coefficients. For the white

student dataset, I would predict that the % of white students in the classroom should have a

positive coefficient, while the % of black and economically disadvantaged students would both

have negative coefficients. Average class size should have a negative coefficient for both

datasets.
 Estimating The Model

1st Regression Results Black Student dataset White Student dataset

R2 0.255 0.425

Adj. R2 0.125 0.390

Average Class Size 0.013 -0.294

% Black -0.210 -0.337**

% White -0.457*** -0.481***

% Economically Disadvantaged -0.613*** -0.896***

% FTE Black Teachers 0.527 0.852*

% FTE Asian Teachers 0.388 -0.256

% FTE Hispanic Teachers -0.923 0.365

% Exemplary 11.418 -0.220

% Proficient 11.434 -0.189

% Needs Improvement 11.380 -0.328

% Unsatisfactory 11.077 -1.022

2nd Regression Results Black Student dataset White Student dataset

R2 0.147 0.306

Adj. R2 0.072 0.283

Average Class Size 0.580 0.396

% Black 0.039 0.031

% Economically Disadvantaged -0.249*** -0.494***

% FTE Black Teachers 0.200 0.441

% FTE Asian Teachers -0.174 0.798

% FTE Hispanic Teachers 0.681 0.785*

*= significant at 5% **= significant at 1% ***= significant at 0.5%

 I ran two sets of regressions, the results of which are displayed in the table above. For the

first set of regressions, coefficients for all of the independent variables were calculated using

OLS regression for the Average Scaled Scores of each dataset. As shown, the model was only

able to explain about 12.5% of the variation in Average Scaled Score for the black student

dataset, compared to 39% for the white student dataset. The white student dataset contained more

data due to the fact that there were more schools reporting White Average Scaled Scores, which

is likely why the results were better. There were only two coefficients that were significant for

the black student dataset, the percentages of white and economically disadvantaged students, -

0.457 and -0.613 respectively, but they were both highly significant. They also are both negative

as hypothesized. These coefficients mean that for a 1% increase in the percentage of white or

economically disadvantaged kids in the average class, the Average Scaled Score for black

students decreases by 0.457 points and 0.613 points respectively, holding all else equal.

Considering that the mean % white is 34.86 and the mean % economically disadvantaged is

41.67 for schools reporting Black Average Scaled Scores, it seems the average black student is

heavily affected by these factors. For the white student dataset, there were more significant

coefficients, in addition to the % white and % economically disadvantaged which were still

highly significant. The % Black students was significant at the 1% level, and had a negative

coefficient as expected, but the % white also had a negative coefficient, which was surprising.

The % economically disadvantaged students had a negative coefficient as expected. The percent

of FTE Black teachers was also surprisingly significant at the 0.5% level, and even more

confusingly had a positive coefficient of 0.852, meaning that a 1% increase in the percentage of

FTE Black teachers would actually lead to an increase in the Average Scaled Scores of white

students by nearly a whole point holding all else equal. This relationship was not expected, and is

hard to interpret as none of the relevant literature or theory seems to suggest that the amount of
Black teachers a white student is exposed to would improve their academic performance, but

potential reasons for this result will be discussed later.

Because the variables for the percentages of teachers at each evaluation level were all

insignificant, I decided to omit them from the second model, as they were likely redundant. In

order to test for heteroskedasticity, the Breusch-Pagan test was done. For both datasets the P-

value obtained was larger than the critical alpha of 0.05, meaning that we fail to reject the null

hypothesis of homoskedastic residuals. In addition to the Breusch-Pagan test, I looked at the VIF

for each independent variable to determine if there was significant multicollinearity present. For

each dataset, the % White students had a very high VIF, and was very highly correlated with the

% of Black students and the % of Economically disadvantaged students. Omitting the % of

White students resulted in normal VIFs for all variables, so it was also omitted from the final

model.

After running OLS regressions with the discussed changes to the model, the R2 and the

adjusted R2 fell for both equations, meaning that overall it explained less variation in students

Average Scaled Scores. The % of Economically Disadvantaged students in the classroom was

still significant at the 0.05% level for both datasets, however for the black student dataset it is

now the only significant variable. The % of FTE Hispanic teachers is now significant at the 5%

level and is positive. Notably, while the coefficient for % Economically Disadvantaged is

negative for both the black and white student dataset, it is almost twice as large for the white

student dataset, meaning that a 1% increase in the percentage of economically disadvantaged

students in the classroom causes the Average Scaled Scores of white students to decrease nearly

twice as much as black students. The positive coefficient for the % of FTE Hispanic teachers is

hard to interpret, similar to the previously positive coefficient for % of FTE Black teachers,

because theres not much theoretical basis behind that relationship.

 Concerns & Policy Recommendations

Because not many of the variables were not significantly correlated with the Average

Scaled Scores for either black or white students, I would prefer to attempt another study using a

larger dataset. Provided more time and access, using the NAEP restricted dataset would allow for

a much larger sample of students from high schools across the country, as well as a richer set of

data describing those students. The explanatory variables used in this model were to a certain

extent used because they were the only available pieces of data, in addition to the fact that my

review of the related literature led me to believe that they might have an effect on the black-

white score gap. In addition to the fact that higher quality data could improve the study, I also

believe that using PARCC data could have had a negative impact on the results. I was unaware

when I began my study, but it seems that students have the option to opt-out of the test, thus as a

result my data may not be as useful as I had thought because the Average Scaled Scores are

based on smaller samples of students from each school. Because of the source of my data, and

the fact that the only information I saw about opting out was on websites operated by parent

advocate groups, it was hard to determine the degree to which this affected the results reported.

However, it seems as though the participation in the MCAS test is generally higher, so it likely

would have been better to use MCAS scores. This is an additional reason why a more detailed

dataset would have made for a much more effective study, though participation and quality

reporting of data are always an issue.

Despite the issues and poor fit of the models, some of the results could help to steer

future studies. In particular, the fact that white students were impacted much more by the

percentage of economically disadvantaged students in the classroom stood out as an interesting

result. While the data shows that black students are much more likely to be in classrooms with a

larger percentage of economically disadvantaged students, it appears that reducing this

percentage would likely increase the gap between white and black students economic

performance. Including dummy variables for the type of school students attend might provide

more insight, as it is possible that wealthier white students are able to economically segregate

themselves more by attending private or charter schools while wealthier black students are not,

thus resulting in a greater gap between wealthy white students and economically disadvantaged

students in general. The unexpectedly positive coefficients for % of FTE Black teachers, and %

of FTE Hispanic teachers in the 1st and 2nd regressions respectively were hard to interpret since

there was no theoretical relationship from the literature. Its hard to understand why either of

these variables would have a positive impact on white students Average Scaled Scores,

especially given that the other minority teacher variables were insignificant in both cases. With

access to data related to the racial makeup of students residential areas in addition to the makeup

of their schools, its likely I would get better results, as my current model was based upon the

effect of representation in the classroom, but residential factors definitely have an effect on

students performance.

Lastly, because of the issue I discovered with students opting out of the PARCC test,

which was a movement that seemed to be driven by parent groups, I would suggest that some

effort be made to rebrand these tests so that they can be useful data collection tools that would

help improve education instead of infuriate parents. In particular, the link between school test

results and school funding seemed to be an issue for many parents because of the perception that

it forced teachers to tailor curriculums to the tests, rather than focusing on providing the highest

quality education. Changing public attitudes towards these types of data gathering tools could

help improve the quality of the data available, allowing researchers to provide useful analysis

that could improve education outcomes.

 Works Cited

Coleman, James S. "Equality of Educational Opportunity." (n.d.): n. pag. US Department of

Health, Education, and Welfare. Web. 30 Sept. 2016.

<http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED012275.pdf>.

Mcdonough, Ian K. "Dynamics of the Blackwhite Gap in Academic Achievement." Economics of

Education Review 47 (2015): 17-33. Web.

Roland Fryer, and Steven Levitt. "Understanding the Black-White Test Score Gap in the First Two

Years of School." Review of Economics and Statistics (2002): n. pag. Web.

<http://cseweb.ucsd.edu/~ddahlstr/misc/test-score-gap.pdf>.

Reardon, Sean F. "School Segregation and Racial Achievement Gaps." CEPA Working Paper No.

15-12 (2015): n. pag. School Segregation and Racial Achievement Gaps. Center for

Education Policy Analysis, Oct. 2015. Web. 30 Sept. 2016.

<https://cepa.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/wp15-12v201510.pdf>.

"Score Results." PARCC. Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers, n.d.

Web. 10 Dec. 2016. <http://parcconline.org/assessments/score-results>.

"Fact Sheet on Opting Out of MCAS/PARCC Testing." Citizens for Public Schools. Citizens for

Public Schools, n.d. Web. 10 Dec. 2016. <http://www.citizensforpublicschools.org/the-

facts-on-opting-out-of-mcas-or-parcc/>.