University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Who’s teaching whom: a micropolitical examination of teacher placement practices in Milwaukee County high schools

(USC Thesis Other)

Who’s teaching whom: a micropolitical examination of teacher placement practices in Milwaukee County high schools

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Who’s Teaching Whom: A Micropolitical Examination of Teacher Placement Practices in
Milwaukee County High Schools
by
Lita Mallett

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education

May 2022

© Copyright by Lita Mallett 2021
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Lita Mallett certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Dr. John Roach
Dr. Cathy Krop
Dr. David Cash, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2022

Abstract
A significant amount of research has supported assertions that teachers generally tend to prefer
teaching advanced courses. While this tends to be a true generalization for all teachers, previous
research has not fully examined whether this preference is held by all races of teachers. Teacher
preferences and teacher abilities to influence class placement is largely a function of the
micropolitical power teachers have within their school sites. These power dynamics are
microcosms of the same power dynamics that exist within most US social and political systems,
which benefit white people and males. This study examines the relationships among teacher race,
student race, teacher preferences, and teacher influence.

Dedication
To my dearest son Ace, you are the reason I do the hard work that I do

Acknowledgements
First, I would like to thank my support system- my mother, father, grandma, sister, and
brothers. Your continued support has been priceless in this journey. I could not have done this
without you. I would also like to acknowledge the USC Rosier faculty and staff and my cohort
members who have been mentors and guides every step of the way, especially my chair- Dr.
Cash.
Lita Mallett is the Founding Principal of Milwaukee Excellence Charter school, and a
community leader in Milwaukee, WI serving and leading on various boards and organizations
throughout the city. Lita obtained her Bachelor of Science of Biomedical Engineering and
Masters in Teaching Secondary Mathematics and Special Education from the University of
Southern California, and is pursuing her Doctorate in Educational Leadership. Lita currently
serves as the Director of Virtual accessibility at the University of Southern California and is the
most recent recipient of the Deans Superintendents Advisory Group (DSAG) Scholarship award
recipient.

Contents
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. x
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ xi
Chapter One: Overview of the Study .............................................................................................. 1
Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1
Background of the Problem ................................................................................................ 1
Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................... 4
Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................................... 4
Significance of the Study .................................................................................................... 5
Conceptual Framework ....................................................................................................... 5
Limitation and Delimitations .............................................................................................. 6
Definition of Terms ............................................................................................................. 6
Organization of the Study ................................................................................................... 9
Teacher Quality, Student Achievement and Advantage Statuses ..................................... 10
Teacher Characteristics and Teacher Sorting ................................................................... 12
Teacher Quality and Teacher Sorting ............................................................................... 13
Teacher Preference ............................................................................................................ 15
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 19
Sample and Population ..................................................................................................... 20
Instrumentation ................................................................................................................. 20
Data Collection ................................................................................................................. 22
Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 23
Statistical Techniques and Programs ................................................................................ 23

Validity and Reliability ..................................................................................................... 25
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 26
Background ....................................................................................................................... 27
Demographics of Survey and Interview Participants (Teachers) ..................................... 29
Teacher Survey Data ......................................................................................................... 31
Document Analysis Data .................................................................................................. 36
Interview Data ................................................................................................................... 37
Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 37
Purpose of the Study ......................................................................................................... 38
Coding of the Data ............................................................................................................ 38
Findings ............................................................................................................................ 39
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 52
Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 53
Purpose of the Study ......................................................................................................... 53
Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 54
Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 54
Results and Findings ......................................................................................................... 55
Implications of the Study .................................................................................................. 58
Recommendations for Future Research ............................................................................ 60
Concluding Remarks ......................................................................................................... 61
Appendix A Interview Protocol .................................................................................................... 62
Appendix B Teacher Survey Instrument ....................................................................................... 72
Appendix C Administrator Survey Instrument ............................................................................. 77

References ..................................................................................................................................... 62

List of Tables
Table 1: Race of Teachers From Survey Results .......................................................................... 29
Table 2: Gender of Teachers From Survey Results ....................................................................... 30
Table 3: Race of Teachers by School Site ..................................................................................... 31
Table 4: Primary Grade Level Taught by Teacher Respondents ................................................... 32
Table 5: Number of Advanced Courses Taught by Grade Level .................................................. 32
Table 6: Involvement in and Influence Over Teacher Class Placements ...................................... 34
Table 7: Teacher Class Assignment Preferences ........................................................................... 35
Table 8: Teacher Placements and Teacher Characteristics (N=171) ............................................. 36
Table 9: Teacher Placements and Teacher Race From Survey Participants .................................. 39
Table 10: Involvement in and Influence Over Teacher Class Placements and Teacher Race ....... 41
Table 11: Teacher Class Assignment Preferences ......................................................................... 44
Table 12: Racial Demographics of Teachers at Each School Site ................................................ 47
Table 13: Milwaukee Excellence Teacher Class Assignment Preferences ................................... 48
Table 14: Shorewood Teacher Class Assignment Preferences ...................................................... 49
Table 15: Brown Deer Teacher Class Assignment Preferences .................................................... 50

List of Figures
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework ................................................................................................... 6
Figure 2: Convergent Triangulation Mixed Methods Methodology ............................................. 19
Figure 3: Triangulation of the Data ............................................................................................... 25
Figure 4 Percent of White Students at School vs the Preference to Teach an AP Class ............... 51

1

Chapter One: Overview of the Study
Introduction
Inequities exist across many facets of the education sector, including who teaches whom.
Research has shown that teachers develop certain preferences for certain students. They usually
prefer students who are motivated, responsive to a traditional college preparatory curriculum,
and who they perceive as being college bound (Finley, 1984). These tend to be children from
more privileged backgrounds and non-minority students (Finley, 1984). Advanced classes are
disproportionately assigned to “high status” teachers, who are usually white teachers(Curran &
Farley-Ripple, 2008; Grissom et al., 2015). In addition to teacher preferences, these advanced
classes are primarily taught by white teachers. Studies have found that students of color perform
better when taught by teachers of the same race (Clotfelter et al., 2006a; Dee, 2004; Egalite et al.,
2015; Joshi et al., 2018; Penney, 2017; Yarnell & Bohrnstedt, 2017). However, while 52% of
students nationwide were non-white, only 21% of teachers were non-white (NCES, 2018). This
underrepresentation of teachers of color is even starker in advanced classes. Teachers of color
have been disproportionately assigned to teach students with lower levels of prior achievement
(Clofelter et al, 2006). This presents a problem regarding the inequitable distribution of both high
quality and effective teachers overall and teachers of color more specifically (Clofelter et al,
2006).
Background of the Problem
It has been over 20 years since the passing of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB),
which has sought to ensure that all children have equal opportunities to be taught by high-quality
teachers (HQTs) and has established criteria for highly qualified teachers. Effective teachers
improve student learning; however, poor students and students of color are still less likely to
2

have effective teachers than their white and more advantaged counterparts (Partee, 2014).
Despite this knowledge, consistent findings show an inequitable distribution of the strongest
teachers (i.e., those capable of improving student achievement) (Hannaway & Finglio et al,
2012). Many studies have found that teachers prefer teaching courses with higher achieving
students and fewer minority students (Boyd et al. 2005b; Clotfelteret al. 2006; Hanushek et al.
2004; Horng 2009; Jackson 2009; Lankford et al. 2002; Scafidi, Sjoquist, and Stinebrickner
2008; Smith and Ingersoll 2004). This research supports similar studies showing that
disadvantaged rather than advantaged students are more likely to have “low quality” teachers,
which is measured by experience, credentials, and education level (Clotfelter, Ladd, & Vigdor,
2005; Kalogrides & Loeb, 2013; Lankford, Loeb, &Wyckoff, 2002). The problems that exist
within teacher sorting further perpetuate the wide achievement gap, while also perpetuating the
quality teacher gap in urban schools (Goldhaber et al., 2015; Kalogrides et al., 2013a). The
students who need access to our most qualified teachers continue to be left with ineffective
teachers who have not demonstrated an ability to increase student learning.
Relatively less favorable and “more challenging” classes are disproportionately taught by
teachers of color, and these teachers have fewer promotion opportunities and lower evaluations
on average as compared with their white counterparts (Greenhaus, Parasuraman, and Wormley
1990; Kanter 1977;Tsui and O’Reilly 1989). Some teachers systematically receive lower
achieving students in their classes as compared with their collogues. Women and teachers of
color are assigned lower achieving students relative to their white or male colleagues within the
same school (Kalogrides et al., 2013a), and Black and Hispanic teachers tend to be assigned
more minority and poor students than their white counterparts (Kalogrides et al., 2013a).
Furthermore, there is an inequitable distribution of teachers of color teaching advanced courses,
3

such as honors, AP, and IB (Clofelter et al, 2006). Research has shown that the widest disparities
exist when schools are led by a white principal or contain more white teachers (Addonizio et al.,
2015; Curran & Farley-Ripple, 2008; Grissom et al., 2015; Kalogrides et al., 2013a).
Micropolitical dynamics exist within schools and districts, and these dynamics greatly
influence the implementation of school policies (Malen & Cochran, 2008). Formal and informal
power is unequally distributed within schools. Teachers with more power tend to be able to
influence not only the composition of their classrooms (race, ability, etc.) but also have larger
influence on their class assignments as compared with other teachers (Curran & Farley-Ripple,
2008; Grissom et al., 2015). These influences and power dynamics are less prevalent in non-
urban and affluent schools (Boyd et al., 2005b; Curran & Farley-Ripple, 2008).
School site and district administrators take several measures into consideration when
assigning teachers to courses and school sites. These measures include teacher experience,
education, seniority, evaluations, teacher preferences, and parental pressures (Boyd et al., 2005b;
Goldhaber et al., 2018; Jackson, 2009a; Loeb et al., 2012). Additionally, educational systems
such as rigid teacher compensation structures can lead school site principals to reserve
“favorable” classes for teachers with high licensure exams scores and levels of seniority (Player,
2010). Moreover, superintendents and district leaders also feel pressure to retain teachers and
appease their desired school site placements, which are often school sites with fewer
disadvantaged and minority students (Boyd et al., 2005b).
The purpose of this study is to identify how teachers are selected to teach advanced
courses and examine whether this differs depending on teacher race. Teacher status is an
indicator of the amount of influence teachers possess, and this influence increases in urban
schools and districts. Additionally, teachers of color are disproportionately assigned to classes
4

with more disadvantaged and underachieving students as compared with white teachers.
However, little to no research has been conducted on whether Black teachers and other teachers
of color actually prefer high achieving class assignments nor whether these placements are a
result of choice or preference.
Statement of the Problem
Many high schools face the challenge of the inequitable distribution of our most qualified
teachers. Students of color are less likely to take advanced classes, and teachers of color are less
likely to teach these advanced classes. There is a scarcity of research that has identified the links
to these problems and has examined the relationships among teacher race, teacher placement,
and teacher choice of placement. There is also limited research on the relationships among
teacher placement, teacher preference, and teacher race. This study examines the links between
teacher and student race and how schools and districts determine school and classroom
assignments.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to provide insights regarding how teachers are assigned to
courses in high schools. This study examines the race of teachers, their ability to influence their
placements, and how often these teachers choose to be placed advanced classes. Information
about the demographics of the school site was collected to determine trends in teacher
placements. The following research questions guide this study:
1) What is the relationship between teacher race and class assignments?
2) Do white teachers and teachers of color have the same influence over the classes in which
they are placed?
5

3) What is the relationship between teacher race and teacher preference to teach an
advanced course?
4) What is the relationship between student race and teacher class preferences?
Significance of the Study
This research study highlights the factors that affect teacher placement and suggests how
K-12 high school administrators and school leaders can improve their placement practices to
make them more equitable. This study also provides school leaders insights into how the race of
both teachers and students affects teacher class preferences at their schools. The results of this
study thus contributes to gaps in current research regarding the relationship between teacher race
and teacher classroom preference at the high school level.
Conceptual Framework
My research is organized through the conceptual framework shown below (Figure 1).
One of the many facets that affects micropolitical power and influences race (in addition to
gender, sexuality, education, etc.), and my study examines how micropolitics (specifically
teacher race) impact a teacher’s ability to influence course placements and administrator
decisions. I also examine the relationship between teacher race and teacher course preference and
how teacher course preference is influenced by student race.

6

Figure 1
Conceptual Framework

Limitation and Delimitations
This study’s scope is limited to high schools in the greater Milwaukee metropolitan area.
As there are cultural differences among states and regions, the data in this study may not be
applicable to other areas. This study is also limited to high school classrooms specifically, the
number of participants surveyed, and the data collected (years of experience, gender, and race).
Definition of Terms
• Advanced courses (ACs): For the purpose of this study, advanced courses (ACs) refer to
high school courses that are AP, IB, Pre-AP, Pre-IB, or honors courses.
• Advanced Placement (AP) courses: Advanced Placement (AP) is a program of classes
developed by the college board to give high school students an introduction to college-
level classes and gain college credit before even graduating high school.
• Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA): This is a US congressional act that
was passed in 1965. This act provides federal funding to primary and secondary
education, with funds authorized for professional development, instructional materials,
7

resources to support educational programs, and parental involvement promotion. The act
also emphasizes equal access to education, aiming to shorten the achievement gap
between students by providing federal funding to support schools with children from
impoverished families (Standerfer, 2006).
• CRT (Critical race theory):
• Equitable: This refers to an action or idea that is fair and impartial.
• High quality teacher: This term encompasses the many aspects of assessing a teacher’s
performance and status, such as teacher qualifications, degrees, experiences, instruction,
and school or student performance.
• Highly effective teacher: This refers to teachers’ ratings from an evaluation system,
which involves proportions of scores from instruction observations, growth on student
achievement assessments, and other measures that might contribute to student outcomes
or school performance. The federal Race to the Top competition has defined an effective
teacher as one whose styles achieve acceptable rates, such as at least one grade level in an
academic year, or student growth.
• Highly qualified Teachers (HQTs): As defined in NCLB, highly qualified teachers are
fully credentialed by the state, hold a bachelor’s degree, and demonstrate content-area
expertise in the subjects or subjects they teach.
• International Baccalaureate (IB) classes: International Baccalaureate (IB) is a
worldwide, nonprofit education program founded to give all students the opportunity to
receive an education fit for a globalizing world. An IB class is an advanced class that
follows the curriculum mandated by the International Baccalaureate Organization in
Cardiff, Wales.
8

• Individualized Education Program/Plan (IEP): This is a written document that
describes the educational plan for students with disabilities. The IEP discusses students’
disabilities, what skills they need to learn, what the students are doing in the school for
the respective year, what services the school provides, and where the learning is taking
place.
• No Child Left Behind (NCLB): A US act of congress in 2001 that reauthorized the
ESEA (Hursh, 2004). The policy includes the following key components:
1. Closing the achievement gap: Accountability and high standards, annual
academic assessments, and consequences for schools that fail to educate
disadvantaged students.
2. Improving literacy by putting reading first: Focus on reading in early grades,
early childhood reading instruction.
3. Expanding flexibility, reducing Bureaucracy: Title I funding, increased funds
to schools for technology, reduction in bureaucracy, and new state and local
flexibility options
4. Rewarding success and sanctioning failure: Rewards for closing the
achievement gap, accountability bonus for states, “No Child Left Behind: school
rewards, consequences for failure.
5. Promoting informed parental choice: School reports to parents, charter schools,
innovative school choice programs and research.
6. Improving teacher quality: All students taught by quality teachers, funding that
works, strengthening math and science education
9

7. Making schools safer for the 21
st
century: Teacher protection, promoting
school safety, rescuing students from unsafe schools, and supporting character
education.
• Status Hierarchy
• Teacher Placement: This refers to the class (subject and grade) that a teacher is assigned
to teach for any given school year.
Organization of the Study
The current study is organized into five chapters. Chapter 1 provides an overview of the
study and introduces the background of the issue with historical references and data regarding
what is currently known about high quality teacher placement, teacher classroom preference, and
the efforts that have been taken to address these inequities. Chapter 2 presents a literature review
in the following four areas: the relationships among teacher quality, student achievement, and
advantage statuses; teacher characteristics and teacher sorting; teacher quality and sorting; and
teacher preference. Chapter 3 describes the methodology selected for this research study,
including the sample population selection, data collection, and data analysis. Chapter 4 reports
the research findings. Chapter 5 presents a summary of the findings and presents practical
implications, conclusions, and recommendations for the work.

10

CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Teacher Quality, Student Achievement and Advantage Statuses
The issue of the achievement gap between advantaged and disadvantaged students has
been well documented and has led to increased attention on teacher quality. Research has
demonstrated that teachers are inequitably distributed across student subgroups.
High quality teachers are disproportionately assigned classes with advantaged students
within schools and districts as compared with their counterparts. Patterns in teacher sorting
across districts, within districts, and within schools all contribute to teacher quality gaps
(Kalogrides & Loeb, 2013). Research has shown that every measure of teacher quality
(experience, licensure exam score, and value-added estimates of effectiveness) is inequitably
distributed across every indicator of student disadvantage (free/reduced lunch eligibility,
underrepresented ethnic minority groups (URMs), and low prior academic performance;
Goldhaber et al., 2015). Black, Hispanic, poor, and low-achieving students are more likely to be
in classes taught by novice teachers and to have lower achieving and less advantaged classmates
as compared with white and non-poor students in their grade at their school. Sorting by student’s
race, ethnicity, poverty status, and achievement is larger among different schools than within
them, but some level of sorting within schools occurs at all grade levels (Kalogrides & Loeb,
2013). Additionally, within-school sorting is greater in middle and high schools, though it is still
evident in elementary schools (Kalogrides & Loeb, 2013).
There are many explanations for the within-school inequities. It has been shown that
principals reserve “favorable” classroom assignments for teachers with the greatest classroom
success and highest exam licensure scores (Player, 2010). This might be due to rigidities in
teacher compensation structures as well as principal evaluations heavily considering teacher
11

retention rates. In schools that track students by performance level, this might be due in part to
more qualified teachers being assigned to teach more “advanced” courses (Kalogrides & Loeb,
2013). Additionally, several studies have found that teachers prefer teaching high-achieving
students and advanced course content (Kalogrides et al., 2013; Monk, 1987; Neild & Farley-
Ripple, 2008).
The teacher quality gap does not just happen in one year in a child’s life; disadvantaged
students have historically been more likely to be exposed to low quality teachers every year of
their K-12 education (Goldhaber et al., 2018). Teacher quality gaps (TQGs) are therefore a
persistent feature of public schools that only exacerbate well-documented achievement gaps
between advantaged and disadvantaged students (Goldhaber et al., 2018). Additionally, while
TQGs exist across all indicators of student disadvantage, they have historically been larger when
student disadvantage is defined by race rather than poverty level. For example, the difference in
the exposure rate to novice teachers between underrepresented minority groups (URMs) NAD
and non-URM students has been typically about twice as large as the corresponding difference
between economically disadvantaged (ED) groups and non-ED students (Goldhaber et al., 2018).
Moreover, research has shown that this “novice teacher gap” between URM and non-URM
students has grown, which, contrary to evidence that racial gaps in student performance have
been decreasing in past decades (e.g., Reardon, 2011), suggests that racial gaps regarding
exposure to inexperienced teachers have only grown over time (Goldhaber et al., 2018).
In summary, teacher quality gaps continue to widen. Our most underserved student
populations continue to be placed with low-quality teacher as compared with their advantaged
counterparts. This gap becomes even wider when we consider student race. These findings open
12

questions regarding what factors and processes in public schools contribute to TQGs and their
evolution.
Teacher Characteristics and Teacher Sorting
Various teacher characteristics, such as gender and race, have an influence on teacher
sorting within school districts as well as individual schools. There is clear evidence that some
teachers systematically receive low-achieving students in their classes as compared with their
colleagues (Kalogrides et al., 2013b). For example, relative to their colleagues in the same
school, female and minority teachers have been routinely assigned low-achieving students.
Additionally, there is a tendency for Black and Hispanic teachers to be assigned more minority
and poor students as compared with their white colleagues (Kalogrides et al., 2013b). There are
several explanations for these within-school inequities. There is evidence that principals reserve
“favorable” classroom assignments for teachers with the greatest classroom success and highest
exam licensure scores (Player, 2010). Moreover, when schools are led by white principals or
have a majority of white teachers, inequities in teacher placements increase (Kalogrides et al.,
2013b).
Other characteristics also play a role in teaching sorting practices at school sites.
Teaching experience and the competitive status of the colleges from which teachers graduated
are also consistently associated with the types of students to which teachers are assigned
(Kalogrides et al., 2013b). Furthermore, teachers who have held leadership positions in schools
also consistently receive high-achieving students as compared with their colleagues who have
not held such positions. These teachers may hold more power within the school and more
influence over achieving their own desires for the student compositions of their classrooms. For
example, teachers who provided more advice and information to their colleagues and who
13

occupied formal leadership positions were assigned higher achieving students (Kalogrides et al.,
2013b). Additionally, teachers who occupied formal leadership positions were less likely to be
assigned students who received free or reduced-price lunch (Kalogrides et al., 2013b). Thus,
there is strong evidence that teachers who have more prominent positions in the formal
organization of the school and informal networks are assigned the greatest number of high-
achieving students (Kalogrides et al., 2013b; Min Kim et al., 2018). Although less experienced
teachers receive more challenging classes in all types of schools, the relationship between
experience and the prior achievement of students is stronger in schools with more senior
teachers. This is consistent with the argument that relations within schools may work to the
detriment of those with less experience and therefore less power (Min Kim et al., 2018).
In summary, there are many teacher characteristics that influence teacher sorting
practices within school districts and within school sites. Research has shown that teacher
characteristics such as gender, race, years of teaching experience, leadership positions, and
college alma maters all influence placement and sorting practices. Black and Hispanic teachers
are more likely to be assigned to classes with low-achieving students. Teachers who have more
influence within their school buildings also tend to have more influence over the classes to which
they are assigned. Teacher influence has been shown to increase depending on the teacher’s race,
gender, and leadership positions. Principals have great influences from senior teachers has also
bee show to be a large factor in teacher placement decisions within school sites, and these
influences are larger when schools are led by white principals.
Teacher Quality and Teacher Sorting
Teachers are systematically sorted across schools and districts such that some schools
employ substantially more qualified teachers than others. Non-white, poor, and low performing
14

students, particularly those in urban areas, attend schools with comparatively less qualified
teachers (Lankford et al., 2002; Mansfield, 2010). Research shows that teacher experience—
particularly increased experience in the same school—is associated with a greater likelihood of
involvement in the process that assigns students to classrooms and more influence in that
process, relative to other school-level actors, such as other teachers and members of the school
leadership team (Grissom et al., 2015). Teachers can exercise their influence to affect the
composition of their classrooms by characteristics such as race, poverty, and prior achievement
(Grissom et al., 2015). In particular, highly experienced teachers are assigned fewer Black or
low-income students, more students with high incoming math and reading achievement, and
fewer students with prior year absences or days out due to suspension as compared with other
teachers (Grissom et al., 2015).
These systemic inequities in the assignment of students with low achievement and high
disadvantage to inexperienced teachers may be indicative of long-standing dynamics of
principals rewarding years of service with more advanced classes or wanting to retain teachers
(Grissom et al., 2015). This may also be due to high teacher turnover in schools that serve high
numbers of disadvantaged students, where low achievement classes are often staffed by new
teachers (Grissom et al., 2015).
There are other plausible explanations for variations in teacher qualifications and
experience across districts and within schools. First, these differences may be driven simply by
differences in the preferences of residents. For instance, one school may strive to hire one type of
teacher, and another may strive to hire a different type of teacher (Lankford et al., 2002;
Mansfield, 2010). Even if both schools are choosing from the same pool of potential teachers,
they ultimately have teaching staffs that differ systematically (Lankford et al., 2002; Mansfield,
15

2010). A second plausible explanation for variation in average teacher qualifications across
schools is that districts may differ in the efficiency of their hiring practices. Inefficiencies in
hiring lead to systematic differences in teachers across districts. Districts with effective hiring
practices (aggressive recruiting, spring job offers, etc.) ultimately have higher quality teaching
staffs as compared with other districts even though they are initially faced with the same pool of
potential teachers (Lankford et al., 2002; Mansfield, 2010). Third, school sites vary in the
internal political power they exert, which may lead to differences in teacher qualifications. For
example, schools with strong parental input and large numbers of senior teachers may not accept
low-quality teachers.
In summary, quality teachers tend to be inequitably distributed across school sites. Within
the same school district, some schools have substantially larger numbers of highly qualified
teachers as compared with other schools. These differences in teacher quality at school sites can
be explained by factors such as high teacher turnover in schools with more disadvantaged
students, which results in schools hiring more novice teachers. Other factors include parental
involvement variations at each school site, inefficiencies within hiring practices at school sites,
and resident preference differences. Regardless of these different explanations, the key idea is
that schools serving higher numbers of disadvantaged students tend to employ larger numbers of
low quality teachers as compared with other schools.
Teacher Preference
Teachers systemically prefer to be placed in classes with more advantaged students and
more non-minority students. It has been show the differences exist in assignments of lower
achieving students to teachers of different gender and racial backgrounds are driven by
preferences of the teacher and biases of administrators in assignment process (Addonizio et al.,
16

2015). These patterns might be a result of the low status position of minorities and women in
society (Addonizio et al., 2015). Research in organizational demography argues that people tend
to develop better relationships and feelings of liking with in-group members rather than out-
group ones (Brewer and Kramer 1985; Elliot and Smith 2001; Stewman 1988; Tsui and
O’Reilly1989). If white principals tend to develop better relationships with white teachers than
Black or Hispanic teachers, then a desire to reward their friends with desired classes may
contribute to the racial differences in class assignments observed in schools led by white
principals (Addonizio et al., 2015).
Research has shown that highly qualified teachers sort themselves by choosing higher
property wealth over lower property wealth school districts (Addonizio et al., 2015). This trend
can be partially explained by the teacher’s hometown and the characteristics of this town (urban,
suburban, rural, wealthy, etc.). The number of teacher recruits with urban hometowns is smaller
than the number of positions being filled in urban districts, requiring these districts to attract
teachers from other regions. Teacher candidates coming from suburban or rural hometowns
strongly prefer to remain in these areas rather than teach in the urban districts. This is both
because of the importance of distance and because teachers have preferences with respect to
urbanicity(Boyd et al., 2003).
The preference for proximity presents an enormous obstacle for urban districts to
overcome, as urban districts must both combat these preferences and address the considerations
typically identified with recruiting teachers to difficult- to-staff urban schools. These issues
include salary, working conditions, and the characteristics of the student population. In general,
urban schools must have salaries, working conditions, or student populations that are more
attractive than those of the surrounding suburban districts to induce sufficiently qualified
17

candidates whose hometowns are in suburban regions to take jobs further from home and in a
different type of region. Therefore, if experienced teachers—in particular, white experienced
teachers—tend to live in suburban neighborhoods, they may prefer to teach in those areas and
move from an inner-city school to a suburban school if given the opportunity. They may also
prefer to teach in their neighborhoods due to the opportunity costs of the time it takes to
commute (Boyd et al., 2003).
Spatial preferences are unlikely to serve as a complete explanation for differential teacher
sorting, however. It has been found that white and high value-added teachers were relatively
more likely than other teachers to leave schools that experienced substantial in-flows of Black
students. Since the neighborhoods and school locations themselves did not change, this result
suggests that teachers have preferences for student attributes that are correlated with race. This
includes race itself, independent of school location. Schools that experience an increase in the
Black enrollment share see a decrease in the proportion of experienced teachers, a decrease in the
proportion of teachers with high scores on their licensure exams, and a decrease in teacher value
added (Jackson, 2009b). There is also strong evidence that non-Black, non-Hispanic teachers
systematically prefer non-Black, non-Hispanic students, while the opposite appears to be the case
for Black and Hispanic teachers. These findings conform to the widely publicized teacher
shortages plaguing many of the nation’s inner city schools (Hanushek et al., 2001).
The variation in teacher preferences to teacher “higher track” and more academically
advantaged students is not prevalent in schools with low annual teacher turnover, and all of the
teachers are certified in their subject areas. This is often the case in schools in more affluent
residential areas. In urban schools with higher teacher turnover and severe shortages of teachers
in certain subject areas, have emphasized teachers’ preferences for high-track versus low-track
18

classes. This is not true for schools with more affluent and white students (Curran & Farley-
Ripple, 2008).
The micropolitical teacher influence in placement decisions is also an important factor to
consider. Teacher experience (especially more experience within the same school) is associated
with a greater likelihood of involvement in the process of class assignments (Grissom et al.,
2015). It has also been shown that more experienced teachers are assigned fewer Black or low-
income students (Grissom et al., 2015). These findings match another study that has found that
non-Black, non-Hispanic teachers systematically prefer non-Black, non-Hispanic students, while
the opposite appears to be the case for Black and Hispanic teachers (Hanushek et al., 2001).
In summary, teachers tend to prefer to teach more advanced classes and classes with
fewer students of color. Teacher preference can be a result of proximity to school sites or biases
to teach in schools with similar demographics as the schools in which they grew up. This can
also be explained by the biases of administrators who give teachers whom they have better
relationships with or share common racial backgrounds with the classes of their choice. Since
teachers of color have been shown to have smaller amounts of micropolitical influence, their
preferences can be overshadowed by their white counterparts.

19

Chapter Three: Methodology
To gain a greater understanding of the chain of evidence that links teacher race, student
race, teacher class preference, and teacher ability to choose, I conducted a mixed-methods
convergence triangulation study as shown in Figure 2 below. This involves the collection of both
qualitative and quantitative data, followed by comparative analysis and interpretations(Creswell
et al., 2003).
Figure 2
Research Methodology

Figure 2
Convergent Triangulation Mixed Methods Methodology

Quantitative
Data Collection

Quantitative
Data Analysis

Quantitative
Data Results

Interpretation
(Quantitative +
Qualitative)
Compare and
Contrast
Qualitative Data
Collection

Qualitative Data
Analysis

Qualitative Data
Results

20

Sample and Population
To gain a better understanding of how teacher placement decisions were made, I
interviewed and surveyed high school teachers and administrators responsible for master
scheduling from three different school districts in Milwaukee county: Milwaukee, Shorewood,
and Brown Deer. Convenience sampling was used because I specifically needed only high school
teachers and administrators within these school districts (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam, 2009). There
are a total of 44 high schools within the three districts of analysis. Of the 44 potential high
schools, I chose three of them. These three were chosen because they were representative of the
average student demographics of the districts at large and because the principal from the school
site agreed to complete an interview with me. At each of the chosen high schools, I surveyed all
teachers and administrators. I also interviewed four teachers who taught math or English and the
administrator responsible for teacher course placement through the master schedule. Two of the
teachers at each school were white, and two were teachers of color. Furthermore, two of the
teachers were men, and two were women.
Since this research focuses on high school teachers and administrators overall, I sought a
strong representative number of races (Black, white, and other). The selected interview
participants represented varied racial and ethnic backgrounds, experiences, and educational
backgrounds. At least four teachers from each district were interviewed, and at least one
administrator from each district was interviewed.
Instrumentation
For this study, it was important to conduct both qualitative and quantitative research as
well as document analysis. First, I needed to analyze and interpret the master schedule data of
classroom assignments. Analysis of this data along with quantitative analysis of surveys from the
21

teachers and administrators allows the researcher to apply statistical analyses to answer many of
the research questions. Interviews were also important, as this qualitative data allowed the
researcher to interact with the participants and interpret how the participants made sense of the
structures and systems in place at their respective school sites (Merriam, 2009).
Quantitative Instrument
The survey instrument for teachers (Appendix B) consisted of a total 14 questions
divided into four parts. Part I gathered demographic data, and part II asked teacher status
questions (leadership roles, relationships with administrators, parents, and other teachers, etc.).
Part III asked questions to determine who they perceived as making the class placement
decisions. Part IV asked questions about their current class placements and their preferred class
placements. The survey instrument for administrators (Appendix C) consisted of six total
questions. Questions related to teacher status, teacher preference, and current class placements
(Parts II and IV from the teacher survey) were removed. What remained was administrator
demographic information, school site information, and their perception of which people
influenced the decisions for class placements. For both surveys, all items are aligned with at least
one of my research questions (Appendix B and C).
Qualitative Instrument
The qualitative data was gathered through use of interviews of both teachers and school
site Administrators who oversee teacher placements. The interviews were conducted via the
zoom video conferencing platform, and were open ended and semi structured (Creswell, 2009).
The interview was recorded, and notes were taken during the process. For teachers, the survey
(Appendix A) contained a total of nine questions. For administrators, the survey contained a total
of 10 questions. The questions differed between teachers and administrators because I either
22

asked about class placement preferences (teachers) or about how class placement decisions were
made (administrators). All of the questions in the survey focused on my four research questions,
as seen in Appendix A.
Data Collection
To examine the patterns of class assignments, I used data from administrative files on all
staff, students, and schools in the five largest districts within Milwaukee county from the 2010
through 2020-2021 school years. The data used for my analysis came from master schedule files
and teacher demographic information from the principal. I also used public data on school test
scores and basic demographic information for the high schools within the schools. Data
collection was adapted from the methodology of Kalogrides et al. (2013b).
To collect my qualitative data, I followed Merriam’s (2009) data collection steps: (1)
locate the individuals (2), gain access and create relationships, (3) purposeful sampling, (4)
collect the data, and (5) store the data. Individuals were located through the use of social media
posts and found emails directly from the school and district websites. I created familiarity and
quick relationships by explaining my longtime experience as an educator in the community. I
ensured them that my samples for interviewees represented a wide range of experiences, races,
genders, and quality levels for both teachers and administrators. For my qualitative data
collection, I used school districts’ IRB processes to access their teacher placement data from the
past 10 years. My surveys were accessible to all educators within the five sample districts in this
student. The surveyed was publicized through social media, direct mail, and school site
communications (e.g., newsletters or weekly memos).
Interviews were scheduled a month ahead of time to ensure the date and time were
convenient for the interviewee. The researcher fully disclosed that the interview would be
23

recorded and asked permission before scheduling the interview. This was also restated to the
participants at the time of the interview. Each interview took approximately 20 minutes to
complete. Follow-up emails were sent to thank all participants, and phone calls were made if any
clarification was necessary. I transcribed all interviews.
Data Analysis
My analysis has three primary components. First, I examine the relationship between
teacher race and class assignments. I use data from administrative files on all staff, students, and
schools in the three largest school districts in Milwaukee county as well as the information
gathered from both teacher and administrator interviews. Second, I investigate whether there is
variation in the magnitude of this relationship in different types of schools. Lastly, I examine the
relationship between teacher race and teacher preferences using the information gathered from
my interviews and surveys. I record my interviews and transcribe and code them to identify
themes of class preference, perceived ability to choose and influence decisions on classroom
placement, and beliefs of how race impacts teacher placement. I also compile my survey results
and data from school sites to run frequencies.
Statistical Techniques and Programs
Research Question 1: What is the relationship between teacher race and class assignments?
Qualitative: In my interviews, I ask three questions to administrators and one question to
teachers specifically meant to gather data on this question.
Quantitative: In my survey instrument, I collect information about teacher race and their
current class assignments. I also gather this data at the school level from principals and their
master schedules.
24

Research Question 2: Do white teachers and teachers of color have the same influence over the
classes that they teach?
Qualitative: In my interviews, I ask six questions to administrators and two question to
teachers specifically meant to gather data on this question.
Quantitative: In my survey instrument, I collect information about teacher race and their
perceived knowledge of the people involved in their current class assignments.
Research Question 3: What is the relationship between teacher race and teacher preference to
teach an advanced course?
Qualitative: In my interviews, I ask one question to administrators and five question to
teachers specifically meant to gather data on this question.
Quantitative: In my survey instrument, I collect information about teacher race and their
current class assignments. I also collect information on their preferences regarding grade levels
and class types.
Research Question 4: What is the relationship between the race of students at a school and
teachers’ class preferences?
Qualitative: In my interviews, I ask one question to administrators and three questions to
teachers specifically meant to gather data on this question.
Quantitative: In my survey instrument, I collect information about teachers’ class and
grade level preferences, and I also gather data about the demographics of students at their school
site. I am able to math their responses with the students’ demographics of their school to analyze
this relationship.
My data analysis may include certain flaws. As seen in the literature review, many
studies have analyzed data at the district level which in turn lends itself to more robust data and
25

analyses. I have purposely limited the scope of my study to only five high schools and a handful
of participants from each location.
Validity and Reliability
Throughout the study, I followed multiple steps to ensure proper validity and reliability
throughout the study, such as the following: triangulation of the data, member checking,
adequate time spent on collecting data, researcher self-reflection regarding assumptions,
worldviews, and/or biases, peer review, an audit trail, and purposefully seeking variation in the
sample selection (Merriam, 2009).
Figure 3
Triangulation of the Data

Qualitative
Data:
Interviews
Theory:
Micropolitics
Research
Findings
Quantitative Data
+ Document
Analysis:
Surveys + Master
Schedule Data
26

Summary
My use of a mixed method study, data collection, and analysis allow me to provide valid
and well substantiated conclusions despite the work’s limitations. Each of my research questions
is addressed in both a qualitative and quantitative manner, and the data that I gather from the
master schedules provides the subjectivity that this study requires. I analyze the data collected
from administrators and teachers in three Milwaukee county high school districts to target four
research questions: the relationships between teacher race and class assignments; whether white
teachers and teachers of color have the same influence over the classes in which they are placed;
the relationships between teacher race and teacher preference to teach advanced courses; and the
relationship between student race and teacher preferences. Chapter four presents this study’s
findings, and chapter discusses these findings in further detail.

27

CHAPTER FOUR: Findings
Background
This chapter presents an analysis of the data collected for this study, which aims to
provide insights into how teachers are placed in high school classrooms and teacher placement
preferences. Specifically, this study compares the race of teachers with teacher placement
assignments and teacher placement preferences. I analyze the placement choices and preferences
with respect to the socio-economic demographics of each school site studied. Micropolitical
dynamics exist within schools and districts, and these dynamics largely influence the
implementation of school policies and placement practices (Malen & Cochran, 2008). The
findings from this study provide an understanding of how and why teacher placement decisions
are made.
Quantitative data was collected from a survey using electronic questionnaires that were
distributed to fifty-three teachers at three Milwaukee county high schools with student
populations ranging from 400 to 1500 students. Forty-seven of the 53 surveys were answered
using the electronic questionnaire, providing a response rate of 88.6%. Additional quantitative
28

data was collected from a survey using electronic questionnaires that were distributed to nine
administrators in charge of scheduling and teacher placement. All nine administrators completed
the survey, providing a response rate of 100%.
Document analysis data was gathered from each of the three high schools using the
master schedules of all teachers and placements from the last ten years at each school. Complete
data was able to be retrieved from all school sites for all ten years, except for Milwaukee
Excellence Charter School, which had only been open for three years; the full three years of data
was able to be retrieved. The data used from this document analysis was classes taught and the
race and gender of the teacher.
Qualitative data was gathered using one-on-one interviews with four teachers and three
administrators in charge of master scheduling and teacher placement. All participants of these
interview were also participants of the survey. The researcher ensured that the confidentiality of
each participant was preserved throughout the entire process.
When conducting this research, a semi-structured approach was used during the
interviews, which consisted of ten questions for administrators on the interview protocol and
nine questions for teachers. The semi-structured protocol allowed the researcher the flexibility to
probe and ask additional follow-up questions as needed. The interview protocol that was
established captured the behaviors and feelings that could not be observed (Merriam, 2009).
A mixed-method data approach was conducted using data from the surveys, interviews,
and document analysis. The data was then interpreted and analyzed using the process of
triangulation where multiple sources of information were applied to support the findings. All
data collected was maintained and protected to ensure the confidentiality of all teachers and
administrators surveyed and/or interviewed.
29

Demographics of Survey and Interview Participants (Teachers)
Race and Gender of Surveyed Participants
Of the 47 teachers that responded to the electronic questionnaires, 31 identified as white
(65.9%), 10 identified as Black (21.2%), 2 identified as Asian (4.25%), and 4 identified as
Hispanic/Latino (8.5%). Additionally, 35 identified as female (74.5%), and 12 identified as male
(24.5%). The data from this survey aligns with the findings from a 2020 study conducted by the
U.S. Department of Education and the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). In 2019,
79% of teachers identified as non-Hispanic white, 7% identified as Black, 9% identified as
Hispanic, and 2% identified as Asian (USDOE, 2020). Table 1 below shows the data for race
compiled for all school sites, and Table 2 shows the data for gender compiled for all school sites.
Lastly, Table 3 shows racial data distributed by school site.

Table 1
Race of Teachers From Survey Results
Total number of teacher respondents, n=47
Race Frequency Percent
Black 10 21.2
White 31 65.9
Asian 2 4.35
Hispanic/Latino 4 8.5

30

Table 2
Gender of Teachers From Survey Results
Total number of teacher respondents, n=47
Gender Frequency Percent
Female 35 75.5
Male 12 24.5

31

Table 3
Race of Teachers by School Site
School site Race
Number of
respondents
Percentage of
total
respondents
(n=47)
Percentage from
total number of
sub-group
Brown Deer High
School
Black 3 6.4% 30%
n=10
White 11 23.4% 35.5%
n=31
Asian 1 2.12% 50%
n=2
Hispanic/Latino 3 6.38% 75%
n=4
Totals 18 38.3%
Milwaukee
Excellence High
School
Black 5 10.6% 50%
n=10
White 5 10.6% 16.1%
n=31
Asian 0 0% 0%
n=2
Hispanic/Latino 0 0% 0%
n=4
Totals 10 21.3%
Shorewood High
School
Black 2 4.25% 20%
n=10
White 15 31.9% 48.4%
n=31
Asian 1 2.1% 50%
n=2
Hispanic/Latino 1 2.1% 75%
n=4
Totals 19 40.4%

Teacher Survey Data
Class/Course Assignment Information of Participants
Table 4 and Table 5 display the results of the 47 teachers’ class assignments. Teachers
indicated which grade level they primarily taught and whether their course was an advanced
32

course ( e.g., honors, AP, or IB) or not. Of the 47 teachers surveyed, 21 taught an advanced
course (44.7%). Table 4 provides the breakdown of the primary grade taught, and Table 5
displays the results of how many respondents taught an advanced course for which grade level.
Table 4
Primary Grade Level Taught by Teacher Respondents
Total number of teacher respondents, n=47
Primary grade taught Frequency Percent
9
th
17 36.2
10
th
7 14.9
11
th
4 8.5
12
th
19 40.4

Table 5
Number of Advanced Courses Taught by Grade Level
Total number of teacher respondents, n=47
Primary grade taught Number of advanced courses Percent
9
th
3 17.6
n=17
10
th
3 42.9
n=7
11
th
1 25
n=4
12
th
14 73.7
n=19

33

Information on Respondents’ Micropolitical Influence
In this survey, micropolitical influence was based on years of experience, leadership
position(s) held within the school, and certification status. Questions were also asked to gather
data on perceptions of influence on placement practices at each school site. These measures are
congruent with measures used by Grissom et al. (2015). First, teachers were asked which actors
were involved in the assignment of students to their classrooms. A list of actors including
themselves, other teachers, the principal, and parents was provided. Teachers responded either
“yes” or “no” for each actor. Following this, teachers were given the same set of actors and
asked how much influence each one has over their classroom assignments on a scale of 0 to 4 (0
being no influence or involvement, and 4 being significant influence and involvement). The
results of these questions are summarized in Table 6.

34

Table 6
Involvement in and Influence Over Teacher Class Placements
Total number of teacher respondents, n=47
Mean SD
Involvement in class placements

Me 0.61 0.49
Other teachers 0.29 0.46
Principal 0.87 0.34
Assistant principal 0.70 0.46
Other admin 0.34 0.48
Parents 0.08 0.28
Students 0.06 0.25
Influence over class placements (0=Not involved/no influence; 4=Significant influence)
Me 2.02 1.18
Other teachers 2.04 0.99
Principal 3.47 0.69
Assistant principal 2.98 0.71
Other admin 1.96 0.86
Parents 0.55 0.65
Students 0.47 0.50

Teachers’ responses indicate that principals are the most likely actors to participate in
classroom placement decisions (87% involvement) and have the greatest influence. This is
followed by the assistant principal (70% involvement) and other administrators (34%
involvement). While other teachers were only shown to have 29% involvement, they had the
35

highest influence after principals and assistant principals. Parents and students had the least
amount of involvement and influence, on average.
Teacher Class Placement Preferences
Teachers were asked to indicate their preferences of class placements in the survey by
ranking their preferences (1 being the lowest preferred, and 4 being the highest) for grade levels
9-12. They also ranked their preferences for class types (intervention/remedial, general, pre-
AP/IB, AP/IB). Table 7 summarizes the data from these responses. Teachers most preferred to
teach 11
th
grade classes, followed by 12
th
grade classes, with 9
th
grade classes being the least
preferred. Additionally, there was a strong preference for teachers to teach AP/IB classes, and
the least desired classes were intervention/remedial classes.

Table 7
Teacher Class Assignment Preferences
Total number of teacher respondents, n=47
Mean SD
Grade level preferences (1 being the lowest preferred, and 4 being the highest)

9
th
1.73 0.85
10
th
1.93 1.00
11
th
3.43 0.61
12
th
2.91 1.02
Class type preferences (1 being the lowest preferred, and 4 being the highest)
Intervention/remedial (any content) 1.36 0.53
General (any content) 2.40 1.14
Pre-AP/IB (including honors) 3.09 0.69
AP/IB 3.15 0.98
36

Document Analysis Data
Master schedule data was gathered from each of the three high schools with a focus on the
schedules of all teachers and placements from the last ten years at each school (with the
exception of Milwaukee Excellence High School, as previously stated). Table 8 summarizes
teacher class placements with respect to gender, race, grade level, and class type. The mean
represents the percentage of that subgroup. For example, of the 131 white teachers, 21% of them
taught 9
th
grade and 28% of white teachers taught AP/IB courses.

Table 8
Teacher Placements and Teacher Characteristics (N=171)

White
(N=131)
Non-white
(N=40)
Male
(N=76)
Female
(N= 95)
Sample
Mean
(percent)
SD
Mean
(percent)
SD
Mean
(percent)
SD
Mean
(percent)
SD
Grade level
9
th
21 0.44 36 0.83 22 0.37 32 0.67
10
th
18 0.65 32 0.39 23 0.56 28 0.23
11
th
30 0.32 18 0.34 29 0.48 19 0.35
12
th
31 0.27 14 0.37 26 0.37 21 0.46
Class type
Intervention/remedial
(any content)
15 0.74 31 0.57 19 0.35 26 0.23
General (any content) 25 0.53 34 0.29 22 0.63 27 0.64
Pre-AP/IB (including
honors)
32 0.26 19 0.59 30 0.75 24 0.12
AP/IB 28 0.37 16 0.57 29 0.12 23 0.42

37

Interview Data
The qualitative data was gathered through interviews with both teachers and school site
administrators who oversee teacher placements. For teachers, the survey (Appendix A) contained
a total of nine questions. For administrators, the survey (Appendix B) contained a total of 10
questions. Questions differed between teachers and administrators regarding whether they were
about class placement preferences (teachers) or how class placement decisions were made
(administrators). Of the four teachers interviewed for this study, two were men, and two were
women. Furthermore, two were white, and two were non-white. Two teachers taught an English
subject, and two taught a math subject. Of the four administrators interviewed for this study, two
were men, two were women, two were white, and two were non-white.
Studies have shown that teachers show a preference for classes that contain more
advanced students (Boyd et al., 2005a). These classes also typically contain a disproportionate
number of white students and fewer Black and brown students (Boyd et al., 2003). The
interviewed teachers all shared preferences for more honors classes, regardless of gender.
Interestingly, the administrators interviewed did not believe that they showed any racial or
gendered preferences when considering teacher placement. They did, however, show preferences
related to the micropolitical influences a teacher had within their school site (leadership,
seniority, etc.).
Research Questions
The findings in this study have been guided by the following research questions:
1. What is the relationship between teacher race and class assignments?
2. Do white teachers and teachers of color have the same influence over the classes that
they teach?
38

3. What is the relationship between teacher race and teacher preference to teach and
advanced course?
4. What is the relationship between the race of students at a school, and teachers’ class
preference?
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to provide insights into how teachers are assigned to courses
to teach in high schools. The analysis examines the race of teachers, the ability of these teachers
to influence their placements, and how often these teachers choose to be placed in advanced
classes.
Coding of the Data
For the purpose of data analysis, it was important for the researcher to consolidate and
interpret participant statements in the interviews, survey answers, historical placement data at
each school site, and demographics of each school site (Merriam, 2009). Following Maxwell
(2013), the first step for the researcher was to re-read the interview transcripts. The researcher
then reviewed the notes taken during the interview and developed categories for the data. The
researcher identified recurring theses in the data that aligned with the research questions
(Merriam, 2009). Open coding (Merriam, 2009) was used to assign codes to pieces of data that
supported the research questions of this study, which allowed for categories to be constructed.
After reviewing the document analysis data, demographic data, interview data, and
survey data, the research then finalized the categories and coded all information. As the
researcher reviewed these categories, connections were made to the literature review. A formal
analysis was conducted to create the findings from the study that were directly related to the
research questions.
39

Findings
Research Question #1: What Is the Relationship Between Teacher Race and Class
Assignments?
Teachers of color have been shown to be disproportionately assigned to remedial classes
with less advanced students as compared with their white counterparts (Kalogrides et al., 2013a;
Miller et al., 2009) The document analysis from teacher class placements for three school sites in
metropolitan Milwaukee shows that 15% of white teachers and 31% of teachers of colors were
assigned to remedial classes. Thus, a teacher of color is twice as likely to be assigned to teach a
remedial class. Table 8 displays the results of the survey aggregated by race. Teachers were
asked if they teach an advanced course and replied either “yes” or “no.” Results from this
question indicated that more than half of the white teachers were assigned an advanced course
(51.2%), while only 31.2% of teachers of color were assigned an advanced course.

Table 9
Teacher Placements and Teacher Race From Survey Participants
Do you teach an advanced
course? (Yes/No)
White teachers
(N=31)
Teachers of color
(N=16)
Yes 16 5
No 15 11

The findings of this research align well with the literature. According to Kalogrides et al.
(2013), when schools are led by white principals or have more white teachers, the minority–
white gap AP class placements is larger. Additionally, research has shown that teacher sorting
related to teacher quality is significantly affected by race, as teachers of color are systemically
40

evaluated lower than their white counterparts and are thus labeled “lower quality”(Miller et al.,
2009).
The findings of this study’s document analysis and survey demonstrate that white
teachers in Milwaukee county high schools are disproportionately assigned to advanced courses,
while teachers of color are more likely to be assigned to general education and remedial courses.
The interviews conducted in this study demonstrate that the perceptions of teacher
placements did not match the reality in relation to teacher race. Two of the four interviewed
administrators believed that race was not considered at all. One common themes amongst all
percipients was the idea of choosing a teacher who could “relate” well with students. When
asked to explain what that meant, they all said “similar backgrounds.” Two participants said that
similar races could also lead to similar backgrounds and that they would consider that for their
students. These two administrators served at schools with at least 70% of students identifying as
students of color. Based on these interviews, administrators at schools with more students of
color took race into consideration when making teacher placement decisions. Administrators at
schools with more white students perceived themselves to not take race into consideration at all.
While administrators at schools with higher concentrations of white students perceived
themselves to take a “color blind” approach to teacher placement, their actual placements show a
disproportionate number of white teachers being assigned to advanced courses and teachers of
color being assigned to remedial or general education courses.
Research Question #2: Do White Teachers and Teachers of Color Have the Same Influence
Over the Classes That They Teach?
The survey asked teachers to indicate staff that they believed had any involvement in
placements at their school site, including their own placement, and the amount of influence each
41

person had. Table 10 displays the results of these questions aggregated by teacher race. First,
teachers were asked if they believed if themselves, teachers, the principal, assistant principal,
other admin, parents, or students had any involvement in their class placement- either Yes or No.
Then, teachers were asked how much influence each had (0 being little to no influence, 4 being
significant influence). The averages were taken for each subgroup. For example, when asked
about their belief of assistant principal involvement in their class placement, of the 31 white
teachers who took the survey, when totaled, and divided by 31, the result was 0.77, indicating
that 77% of white teachers believed that assistant principals had involvement in their class
placement.

Table 10
Involvement in and Influence Over Teacher Class Placements and Teacher Race
Total number of teacher respondents, n=47
White teachers (n=31) Teachers of color (n=16)
Mean SD Mean SD
Involvement in class placements (1=Yes, 0=No)
Me 0.81 0.40 0.5 0.51
Other teachers 0.23 0.43 0.44 0.51
Principal 0.84 0.37 0.94 0.35
Assistant principal 0.77 0.43 0.56 0.51
Other admin 0.23 0.43 0.56 0.52
Parents 0.01 0.31 0.06 0.25
Students 0.06 0.25 0.06 0.25
Influence over class placements (0=Not involved/No influence; 4=Significant influence)
Me 2.61 0.92 0.88 0.72
Other teachers 1.77 0.88 2.56 1.03
Principal 3.61 0.56 3.19 0.83
Assistant principal 2.81 0.65 3.31 0.70
Other admin 2.23 0.84 1.44 0.63
Parents 0.61 0.67 0.44 0.63
Students 0.55 0.51 0.31 0.48

42

White teachers overwhelmingly believe that they have a greater influence on their class
placements as compared with their teacher of color counterparts. Indeed, 81% of white teachers
believe that they have had some involvement in their class placement, and on average, they
believe themselves to have moderate influence on the actual placement, with an average of 2.61.
In contrast, only 50% of teachers of color believe themselves to have had some involvement in
their class placement. On average, they believe themselves to have little to no influence on the
actual placement, with an average of 0.88. These results demonstrate that teachers of color do
not believe themselves to have strong enough micropolitical influence within their school sites to
have influence over their placements. Conversely, white teachers believe themselves to have
relatively larger amounts of micropolitical influence.
According to the interviews conducted, 100% of administrators consider a teachers’
preferences when making teacher placement decisions. They highlighted themes of wanting
teachers to be “happy” with the subjects that they taught and a belief that this could contribute to
positive morale within the school. Three of four administrators mentioned that they give special
consideration to teachers who have been there for a long time and teachers who have shown that
they are leaders amongst their peers. There was a theme of “wanting to keep those teachers
around” and not wanting those teachers to leave. Turnover was mentioned in one of the
administrator’s evaluation metrics, and this administrator believed that if keeping a teacher
meant giving that teacher a class they wanted to teach, this administrator would do so.
As mentioned earlier, white teachers believe themselves to have significant influence
over their class placements. This belief may cause them to request certain classes over others.
Additionally, administrators place high value on teacher preferencesClick or tap here to enter
43

text. based on the findings of this study. This leads to the conclusion that white teachers’ stronger
micropolitical influence leads to their preferences outweighing those of their teacher of color
counterparts. Teachers tend to prefer to teach classes that are more advanced (Kalogrides et al.,
2013a; Miller et al., 2009). White teachers’ preferences to teach more advanced classes and their
strong influences within their school sites leads to administrators placing more white teachers in
advanced courses than teachers of color.
Research Question # 3: What Is the Relationship Between Teacher Race and Teacher
Preference to Teach an Advanced Course?
There is little research available that explores differences in teacher race and preference
to teach an advanced course. While it is well known that teachers generally prefer to teach
advanced courses, this study aims to identity if this is true for all races of teachers. Table 11
displays the results of the survey for preference of classes to teach aggregated by teacher race.
Teachers were asked to rank their preference for grade level and class type (1 being the least
preferred, 4 being the highest). The mean of these ranks was calculated for each racial subgroup.
For example, the mean rank for white teachers’ preference for 9
th
grade was 1.80.

44

Table 11
Teacher Class Assignment Preferences
Total number of teacher respondents, n=47
White teachers Teachers of color
Mean SD Mean SD
Grade level preferences
9
th
1.80 0.79 1.56 0.89
10
th
1.90 1.12 2.00 0.82
11
th
3.42 0.56 3.44 0.73
12
th
2.87 1.06 2.87 1.06
Class type preferences
Intervention/remedial (any content) 1.48 0.57 1.13 0.34
General (any content) 1.90 0.91 3.38 0.89
Pre-AP/IB (including honors) 3.19 0.70 2.88 0.62
AP/IB 3.42 0.85 2.62 1.02

Based on the results in table 11, both white teachers and teachers of color have similar
grade level preferences. Eleventh grade classes showed the highest preference levels for both
white teachers and teachers of color, and ninth grade classes were the least preferred of both
groups. Although there are few differences regarding grade level preferences, the data from the
survey indicate slight differences in class type preferences between white teachers and teachers
of color. Both white and teachers of color least prefer to teach remedial and intervention classes.
White teachers prefer to teach AP/ IB courses, followed by Pre-AP/IB. Teachers of color
preferred to teach general education courses, followed by Pre-AP/IB courses.
Teachers were also asked about their preferences in interviews, and the results were
similar to those found in the survey. When asked “if you had a choose to teach a pre-course
(designed for students who need more support to be ready for the grade level course) and an AP
45

course, which would you choose?”, all but one teacher said they would prefer the AP course. The
one teacher who said they would prefer the pre-course was a woman of color. For those who
preferred the AP course, three common themes arose in their answers.
1. Teaching students who “cared” about the content;
2. Prestige of the teacher;
3. Class sizes.
Teaching Students Who “Care” About the Content. Teachers mentioned that they had
a desire to teach students who care about the content and are just as excited as the teacher to
learn about the content. One teacher shared:
I love teaching calculus. I enjoy seeing how everything you have learned your entire life
culminates in this fascinating subject area. I want to be in a class where my students share
that same excitement for learning. The students actually care about what I am saying. I
prefer to be in a class where the students care about the content, versus in a classroom
where the students are just there because it’s a graduation requirement.
Given that AP courses are not mandatory, many teachers believed that students who chose those
classes would care more than those who are in other classes.
Prestige of the Teacher. Another common theme that arose in the interviews was the
idea that bein an AP teacher was a goal for teachers, as those who teach AP courses are highly
regarded. One teacher shared the following:
I am a first year teacher, and I can’t wait until I can work my way up to become an AP
teacher. That’s my goal, but I know it will take time for me to be able to do that.
46

Teaching an AP class is commonly regarded as a top tier class to which to be assigned, and they
are classes that many teachers want but only a few are “lucky” enough to get (Klopfenstein,
2004; Solórzano & Ornelas, 2002).
Class Sizes. The third theme that arose in the interviews about the preference for
advanced classes over general ones was class sizes. All interview participants believed that
AP/IB classes had smaller classes, and they felt that this was something that all classes should
have, though this is not a realistic idea. A smaller teacher-to-student ratio in classrooms has been
shown to be desired by not only teachers but also students and parents(Blatchford & Russell,
2019). Many teachers believed that only AP/IB classes allowed for these desired class sizes,
which influenced their preferences for these classes.
The interviews provided insights regarding why some teachers prefer to teach AP classes.
Factors that traditionally make teaching more challenging, such as classes sizes and teaching
students who care about the subject, make AP classes more appealing. Additionally, there is a
level of prestige that comes with teaching an AP course. The results from the survey and study
indicate that people of color were more likely to not prefer teaching advanced courses as
compared with their white counterparts.
Research Question #4: What Is the Relationship Between the Race of Students at a School,
and Teachers’ Class Preference?
The three high schools in metropolitan Milwaukee that were chosen for this study all had
drastically different demographic makeups. Table 12 outlines the racial demographics of teachers
at each school site.

47

Table 12
Racial Demographics of Teachers at Each School Site
School site
Race Milwaukee
Excellence High
School
Shorewood High
School
Brown Deer High
School
American Indian or
Alaskan Native
0.2% 0.3% 0.1%
Asian 0.8% 8.4% 11.3%
Black or African
American
95.5% 11.7% 56.2%
Hispanic or Latino 0.8% 9.6% 7.3%
Native Hawaiian or
Pacific Islander
0% 0% 0%
White 0.8% 66.7% 17.4%
Two or more races 2% 3.3% 7.7%

This study aims to determine whether there was a relationship between the racial
demographics of students and teacher preferences to teach an advanced course. Tables 13, 14,
and 15 show the preferences for AP courses at Milwaukee Excellence, Shorewood, and Brown
Deer, respectively. Graph 1 combines the data and displays the white population as the
independent variable and teacher preference to teach an advanced course as an independent
variable.

48

Table 13
Milwaukee Excellence Teacher Class Assignment Preferences
Total number of teacher respondents, n=47
White teachers Teachers of color Overall
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Grade level preferences
9
th
1.6 0.55 1.4 0.55 1.5 0.52
10
th
1.8 1.30 1.6 0.55 1.17 0.95
11
th
3.2 0.45 3.6 0.55 3.4 0.52
12
th
3.4 0.89

3.4 0.55 3.4 0.70
Class type preferences
Intervention/remedial 1.4 0.55 1.2 0.45 1.3 0.48
General 2.0 1 2.6 1.14 2.3 1.06
Pre-AP/IB 2.8 0.84 3.0 0.71 2.9 0.74
AP/IB 3.8 0.45 3.2 1.10 3.5 0.85

At Milwaukee Excellence, teachers prefer to teach upper classmen (11
th
and 12
th
graders),
and there is a significant preference to teach an advanced course.

49

Table 14
Shorewood Teacher Class Assignment Preferences
Total number of teacher respondents, n=47
White teachers Teachers of color Overall
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Grade level preferences
9
th
2.22 0.86 1.25 0.50 2.0 0.88
10
th
1.33 0.49 2.0 0.82 1.47 0.61
11
th
3.53 0.52 3.75 0.50 3.58 0.51
12
th
2.93 1.10

3.0 0.82 2.95 1.03
Class type preferences
Intervention/remedial 1.6 0.63 1.25 0.5 1.52 0.61
General 2.0 1.06 4.00 0 2.42 1.26
Pre-AP/IB 3.2 0.68 3.0 0 3.16 0.60
AP/IB 3.2 1.08 1.75 0.5 2.89 1.15

At Shorewood High School, there is no significant preference for grade levels. There is
less preference for AP courses as compared with other course types.

50

Table 15
Brown Deer Teacher Class Assignment Preferences
Total number of teacher respondents, n=47
White teachers Teachers of color Overall
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Grade level preferences
9
th
2.36 0.50 1.86 1.22 1.56 0.86
10
th
2.73 1.19 2.29 0.95 2.56 2.20
11
th
3.37 0.67 3.14 0.90 3.28 0.75
12
th
2.55 1.04 2.71 1.25 2.61 1.10
Class type preferences
Intervention/remedial 1.36 0.50 1.00 0.0 1.22 0.43
General 1.73 0.65 3.57 0.53 2.44 1.10
Pre-AP/IB 3.36 0.67 2.71 0.76 3.11 0.76
AP/IB 3.55 0.52 2.71 0.95 3.22 0.81

At Brown Deer, there is no significant preference for grade levels, and there is a slight
preference for AP courses.

51

Figure 4
Percent of White Students at School vs the Preference to Teach an AP Class

The findings from this data demonstrate that teacher preference to teach an AP course
decreases as the white student population at a school site increases. These findings indicate that
student race is a variable that affects teacher class placement preferences. In the conducted
interviews, student race did not emerge as a variable which influenced preference. Teachers
identified class sizes, prestige of the teacher, and student interest in the content as the variables
that influenced their preferences rather than race. This data indicates that there is an unconscious
bias that exists in relation to the students. Research shows that Black and brown students are
disproportionately unassigned to advanced courses as compared with their white counterparts
(Curran & Farley-Ripple, 2008; Jackson, 2009b; Kalogrides et al., 2013b; Mansfield, 2010). The
52

data in this study shows that while teachers perceive their preference to be non-race related,
teachers at schools with less white students tend to want to teach more advanced classes.
Summary
This chapter reports the findings from teachers and administrators at three high schools in
metropolitan Milwaukee. Specifically, 47 teachers were surveyed, 4 teachers were interviewed,
and 4 administrators in charge of scheduling were interviewed. The results from this study
indicate that there is a disproportionate number of white teachers assigned to advanced courses
and teachers of color assigned to remedial or general education courses. White teachers’
preferences to teach more advanced classes and their strong influences within their school sites
lead to administrators placing more white teachers in advanced courses than teachers of color.
Administrators in charge of teacher placement assignments acknowledged the preferences to
teachers who held leadership positions within their school, had more years of experience within
the school, and who voiced their preferences for class types. These findings align closely with
Grissom et al. (2015).
Furthermore, while both white teachers and teachers of color have similar grade level
preferences, there were differences regarding class type preferences. White teachers preferred to
teach AP/IB courses, and teachers of color preferred to teach general education courses.
Teachers’ preferences were perceived to be influenced by factors such as class size, student
interest, and prestige in the interviews. However, survey data shows that preferences were
influenced by the student racial makeup of a school. When there were less white students at a
school, more teachers preferred to teach advanced courses.
Chapter five presents a discussion of the research, further conclusions, and implications.
Finally, I provide some recommendations for future research.
53

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
Introduction
Research has shown that teachers develop certain preferences for certain students. They
usually prefer students who are responsive to a traditional college preparatory curriculum,
motivated, and who they perceive to be college bound (Finley, 1984); These tend to be children
from more privileged backgrounds and non-minority students (Finley, 1984). Advanced classes
are disproportionately assigned to “high status” teachers, who are usually white teachers(Curran
& Farley-Ripple, 2008; Grissom et al., 2015). Many high schools face the challenge of the
inequitable distribution of the most qualified teachers. Students of color are less likely to take
advanced classes and teachers of color are less likely to teach those advanced classes as
compared with their white counterparts. Additionally, teachers of color have been found to be
disproportionately assigned to teach students with lower levels of prior achievement (Clofelter et
al, 2006). This presents a problem with the inequitable distribution of both high quality and
effective teachers overall and teachers of color more specifically (Clofelter et al, 2006).
There is little research that identifies the links to these problems and examines the
relationships among teacher race, teacher placement, and teacher choice of placement. There is
also little research that examines the relationships among teacher placement, teacher preference,
and teacher race. This study examines the links between teacher and student race and how
schools and districts determine school and classroom assignments.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to provide insights into how teachers are assigned courses to
teach in high schools. This study examines the race of teachers, their ability to influence their
placements, and how often these teachers choose to be placed advanced classes. Information
54

about the demographics of the school site was collected to determine trends in teacher
placements. Teachers have varying degrees of micropolitical influence within their respective
school sites. Research has shown that these influences differ based on a teacher’s race and
gender (Grissom et al., 2015). Teacher status is an indicator of the amount of influence teachers
possess, and this influence increases in urban schools and districts. Additionally, teachers of
color are disproportionately assigned to classes with more disadvantaged and underachieving
students. This study examines how micropolitics influence teacher placement practices within
school sites. This study also provides knowledge regarding how teacher placement preferences
differ by race.
Research Questions
The following research questions were used to guide the study:
1) What is the relationship between teacher race and class assignments?
2) Do white teachers and teachers of color have the same influence over the classes in which
they are placed?
3) What is the relationship between teacher race and teacher preference to teach an
advanced course?
4) What is the relationship between student race and teacher class preferences?
Methodology
A mixed-methods convergence triangulation study has been used for this work.
Quantitative data was collected from a survey distributed to 47 teachers who taught in one of
three Milwaukee metropolitan high schools. Document analysis data was collected from master
schedule placements of teachers from the last 10 years in the three metropolitan high schools
examined in this study. The data that was collected provided information about the race and
55

gender of each teacher assigned to each class at the school site. Qualitative data was collected
from both teachers and administrators in charge of teacher placement at each school site via
interviews. Four teachers who either taught math or English were interviewed to discuss their
placement preferences and beliefs. Two of the teachers interviewed identified as White, and two
identified as a teacher of color. Two of the teachers interviewed identified as male, and two
identified as female. Additionally, four administrators were interviewed to discuss placement
practices and beliefs. Two of the administrators identified as white, and two identified as a
person of color. Two administrators identified as male, and two identified as female. A semi-
structured approach was used during the interviews, which contained ten questions on the
interview protocol. All data was interpreted and analyzed using the process of triangulation,
where various sources of information were used to support the findings
Results and Findings
The findings in this study were based on the data that was collected and analyzed. This
section interprets the combined results of the quantitative and qualitative data and links the
findings to the literature.
Research Question #1: What Is the Relationship Between Teacher Race and Class
Assignments?
The findings of this study demonstrate that white teachers in the three chosen Milwaukee
county high schools are disproportionately assigned to advanced courses, while teachers of color
are more likely to be assigned to general education and remedial courses. Teachers of color have
also been shown to be disproportionately assigned to remedial classes with less advanced
students as compared with their white counterparts (Kalogrides et al., 2013a; Miller et al., 2009).
56

The findings from the interviews conducted in this study demonstrate that the perceptions
of teacher placements do not match the reality as it relates to teacher race. Half of the surveyed
administrators believed that the race of the teacher had no impact on placement decisions. This
study has also found that administrators with more students of color take race into greater
consideration than those with a greater number of white students.
Research Question #2: Do White Teachers and Teachers of Color Have the Same Influence
Over the Classes That They Teach?
The results of this study have led to the conclusion that white teachers have stronger
micropolitical influences within their school sites. This greater influence leads to white teachers’
preferences outweighing their teacher of color counterparts. According to the findings from the
interviews conducted, 100% of administrators consider a teachers’ preferences when making
teacher placement decisions. Based on the findings of the survey, 81% of white teachers believe
themselves to have had some involvement in their class placement, and on average, they believe
themselves to have moderate influence on the actual placement. In contrast, only 50% of teachers
of color believe that they have had some involvement in their class placement, and on average,
they believe themselves to have little to no influence on the actual placement.
White teachers believe themselves to have “a lot” of influence over their class
placements. This belief might cause them to be more vocal in their requests to be placed in
certain classes over others. Additionally, administrators place high value on teacher preferences
based on the findings of this study. This leads to the conclusion that white teachers’ stronger
micropolitical influence leads to their preferences outweighing their teacher of color
counterparts. Teachers tend to prefer to teach classes that are more advanced (Kalogrides et al.,
2013a; Miller et al., 2009). White teachers’ preferences to teach more advanced classes and their
57

strong influences within their school sites lead to administrators placing more white teachers in
advanced courses than teachers of color.
Research Question # 3: What Is the Relationship Between Teacher Race and Teacher
Preference to Teach an Advanced Course?
The results of this study have found that both white teachers and teachers of color have
similar grade level preferences. However, there was a significant difference regarding class type
preferences between white teachers and teachers of color. While white teachers preferred to
teach AP/IB courses, teachers of color preferred to teach general education courses. These
findings add additional context to the current literature. While it is well known that teachers
overall prefer to teach advanced courses (Kalogrides et al., 2013a; Miller et al., 2009), the
findings in this study reveal that this is not true for all races of teachers. On average, the findings
in this study match those of the literature, where teachers prefer to teach advanced courses, but
regarding preferences aggregated by race, the results of this study show that this is not true for all
races of teachers.
The interviews conducted in this study have provided insights into the rationales of
teacher preferences. Some of the greatest contributing factors that influenced preferences were
class size, prestige, and the ability to teach content to students who “care” about the class.
Research Question #4: What Is the Relationship Between Student Race and Teacher Class
Preference?
The findings from this study demonstrate that student race is a variable that affected
teacher class placement preferences. As the white student population at a school site increased,
teacher preferences to teach an advanced placement course decreased. Research has shown that
Black and brown students are disproportionately unassigned to advanced courses as compared
58

with their white counterparts (Curran & Farley-Ripple, 2008; Jackson, 2009b; Kalogrides et al.,
2013b; Mansfield, 2010). Other studies have noted that teachers prefer to teach advanced
placement courses (Klopfenstein, 2004; Solórzano & Ornelas, 2002). It can be concluded that
teachers prefer to teach classes with fewer students of color in them; since there are less students
of color in advanced classes, teachers prefer to teach those classes. The findings from this study
align with this conclusion. At schools where there are more students of color, teachers showed a
greater preference to teach advanced placement courses. Conversely, when the school population
has more white students, this preference to teach an advanced placement class decreased. Given
this bias where teachers prefer to teach classes with fewer students of color, their preferences
differ across school sites. The surveys indicate that these biases are unconscious, as the data in
this study shows that teachers perceive their preference to be non-race related.
Implications of the Study
This study contributes to research regarding the placement preferences of teachers and
how placement decisions are made in high schools. The findings from this study align with
previous literature and provide a deeper understanding regarding how the preferences of teachers
vary due to the race of the teachers and student body overall. Moreover, these findings highlight
several practical implications that can help support equitable teacher placement practices in
school sites.
Updating Evaluations for Principals and Other Administrators: No Penalty for Retention
Issues Caused by Placement Decisions
The findings in the study have highlighted a reoccurring theme of administrators and
principals being evaluated on teacher retention and this being a stressor when considering
placement decisions. Leaders want to keep their teachers “happy” and thus try to fulfill their
59

wishes to retain them at their school. While it has been shown that teacher retention is a feature
of effective schools, there are other features such as coaching and development that lead to
teacher improvement (Loeb et al., 2012).Administrator evaluations should reflect measures such
as coaching and development. If lower teacher retention is a result of teachers not getting their
desired placement, this should not negatively impact the evaluation of administration. As long as
this potential negative impact exists, administrators have no incentive or reason to prioritize
equitable placement practices in their school sites over the preferences of individual teachers.
Updating Evaluations for Principals and Other Administrators: Including Metrics on
Equitable Distribution of Teachers
There are near-unanimous findings that the best teachers—those capable of improving
student achievement—are not equitably distributed across the spectrum of schools with
concentrations of high-class and low-poverty students and schools with high and low
concentrations of students of color. Schools that serve disadvantaged students tend to receive few
of the highest-performing teachers when compared with schools that serve advantaged students
(Partee, 2014). Teachers of color are also systemically given lower teacher evaluations and are
distributed inequitably across schools (Klopfenstein, 2004). If this has been shown to be a
problem of practice, we need to update our current metrics to reflect the priorities on which we
want to focus. The findings indicate that equitable distribution of teachers was not considered by
administrators when making placement decisions, and it has never been a priority at their school
site or within their districts.
The findings also indicate that teachers of color do not believe that their options and
preferences impact placement decisions as strongly as their white counterparts. This belief can
60

lead to only certain voices being heard over others and only certain teachers getting their
preferred placements, even if there are other teachers who are a better fit for these classrooms.
These micropolitical influences make it challenging for teachers of color to advance in
the positions of their choice (Grissom et al., 2015). Adding a measure of accountability for all
principals and administrators to ensure that there are equitable placement practices at their school
sites can help to mitigate these inequitable micropolitical affects.
Recommendations for Future Research
This study surveyed 47 teachers at the three chosen high schools in the Milwaukee
metropolitan area. This study has also examined teacher placements from the last 10 years at
each school site and interviews from four teachers and four administrators. Based on my
findings, I present the following recommendations for future research:
1. Examine the racial makeup of AP classes as compared with general education classes at
each of the three school sites studied;
2. Further explore if there are differences regarding teacher evaluation outcomes based on
the race of the teacher;
3. Continue to test my hypotheses based on the findings of this study with schools with a
more than 80% white population;
4. Continue to test my hypotheses based on the findings of this study with schools with a
more than 50% teacher of color population;
5. Conduct a qualitative study that identifies why there is a difference in class placement
practices between white teachers and teachers of color.
61

6. Conduct a qualitative study that identifies why there is a difference in class placement
preferences at schools with more white students as compared with schools with more
students of color.
Concluding Remarks
This study has demonstrated that though teachers, on average, prefer to teach advanced
courses, there are nuances when one considers different factors. First, this preference is not
found among all races of teachers. Based on the findings of this study, teachers of color prefer to
teach general education courses, while white teachers prefer advanced courses. Moreover, as the
population of white students at a school increases, the preference to teach advanced courses
decreases for all races of teachers.
Milwaukee country schools face the same problems as other schools throughout the
country, where teachers of color are disproportionately assigned to remedial classes as compared
with their white counterparts. There are micropolitical influences based on race that influence the
placement decisions made by administrators within Milwaukee county high schools. There is
also a heighted sense of entitlement and influence exhibited by white teachers that does not exist
as profoundly with teachers of color. Equitable distribution of teachers is not currently a priority
for Milwaukee county schools, and this leads to more inequities that remain unaddressed. If
change is going to occur, there must be accountability metrics that are implemented for school
administrators to ensure micropolitical pressures are not impacting the ability of administrators
to ensure equitable placement practices at their school sites.

62
62
References
Addonizio, M. F., Kearney, C. P., & Gawlik, M. A. (2015). Teacher Quality and Sorting across Traditional Public and Charter Schools in
the Detroit Metropolitan Region (Vol. 42, Issue 2).
Blatchford, P., & Russell, A. (2019). Class size, grouping practices and classroom management.
Boyd, D., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2003). The Draw of Home: How Teachers’ Preferences for Proximity Disadvantage
Urban Schools. http://www.nber.org/papers/w9953
Boyd, D., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2005a). Explaining the Short Careers of High Achieving Teachers in Schools with Low
Performing Students*.
Boyd, D., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2005b). The draw of home: How teachers’ preferences for proximity disadvantage urban
schools. In Journal of Policy Analysis and Management (Vol. 24, Issue 1, pp. 113–132). https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.20072
Creswell, J. W., Plano Clark, V. L., Gutmann, M. L., & Hanson, W. E. (2003). CHOOSING A MIXED METHODS DESIGN. In
Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 209–240).
Curran, R., & Farley-Ripple, E. (2008). Within-School Variation in Teacher Quality: The Case of Ninth Grade. In American Journal of
Education (Vol. 114).
Goldhaber, D., Lavery, L., & Theobald, R. (2015). Uneven Playing Field? Assessing the Teacher Quality Gap Between Advantaged and
Disadvantaged Students. Educational Researcher, 44(5), 293–307. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X15592622
63

Goldhaber, D., Quince, V., & Theobald, R. (2018). Has It Always Been This Way? Tracing the Evolution of Teacher Quality Gaps in U.S.
Public Schools. American Educational Research Journal, 55(1), 171–201. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831217733445
Grissom, J. A., Kalogrides, D., & Loeb, S. (n.d.). The Micropolitics of Educational Inequality: The Case of Teacher-Student Assignments.
Grissom, J. A., Kalogrides, D., & Loeb, S. (2015). The Micropolitics of Educational Inequality: The Case of Teacher–Student
Assignments. Peabody Journal of Education, 90(5), 601–614. https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2015.1087768
Hanushek, E. A., Kain, J. F., & Rivkin, S. G. (2001). Why Public Schools Lose Teachers.
Jackson, C. K. (2009a). Student Demographics, Teacher Sorting, and Teacher Quality: Evidence from the End of School Desegregation. In
Journal of Labor Economics (Vol. 27, Issue 2). http://www.naacpldf.org/
Jackson, C. K. (2009b). Student Demographics, Teacher Sorting, and Teacher Quality: Evidence from the End of School Desegregation. In
Journal of Labor Economics (Vol. 27, Issue 2). http://www.naacpldf.org/
Kalogrides, D., & Loeb, S. (2013). Different Teachers, Different Peers: The Magnitude of Student Sorting Within Schools. Educational
Researcher, 42(6), 304–316. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X13495087
Kalogrides, D., Loeb, S., & Béteille, T. (2013a). Systematic Sorting: Teacher Characteristics and Class Assignments. Sociology of
Education, 86(2), 103–123. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038040712456555
Kalogrides, D., Loeb, S., & Béteille, T. (2013b). Systematic Sorting: Teacher Characteristics and Class Assignments. Sociology of
Education, 86(2), 103–123. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038040712456555
64

Klopfenstein, K. (2004). Advanced Placement: Do minorities have equal opportunity? Economics of Education Review, 23(2), 115–131.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-7757(03)00076-1
Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2002). Teacher Sorting and the Plight of Urban Schools: A Descriptive Analysis. In Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis Spring (Vol. 24, Issue 1).
Loeb, S., Kalogrides, D., & Béteille, T. (2012). Effective schools: Teacher hiring, assignment, development, and retention. Education
Finance and Policy, 7(3), 269–304. https://doi.org/10.1162/EDFP_a_00068
Mansfield, R. K. (2010). Teacher Quality and Student Inequality.
Miller, C., Degiorgi, G., Lovenheim, M., Pistaferri, L., Rothwell, G., Weinstein-Gould, J., Zarafshar, S., & Labor, S. (2009). Teacher
Sorting and Own-Race Teacher Effects in Elementary School.
Min Kim, C., Frank, K. A., & Spillane, J. P. (2018). Relationships Among Teachers’ Formal and Informal Positions and Their Incoming
Student Composition. Teachers College Record, 120, 34.
Partee, G. L. (2014). Attaining Equitable Distribution of Effective Teachers in Public Schools.
Solórzano, D. G., & Ornelas, A. (2002). A Critical Race Analysis of Advanced Placement Classes: A Case of Educational Inequality.
Journal of Latinos and Education, 1(4), 215–229. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532771xjle0104_2

Addonizio, M. F., Kearney, C. P., & Gawlik, M. A. (2015). Teacher Quality and Sorting across Traditional Public and Charter Schools in
the Detroit Metropolitan Region (Vol. 42, Issue 2).
65

Blatchford, P., & Russell, A. (2019). Class size, grouping practices and classroom management.
Boyd, D., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2003). The Draw of Home: How Teachers’ Preferences for Proximity Disadvantage
Urban Schools. http://www.nber.org/papers/w9953
Boyd, D., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2005a). Explaining the Short Careers of High Achieving Teachers in Schools with Low
Performing Students*.
Boyd, D., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2005b). The draw of home: How teachers’ preferences for proximity disadvantage urban
schools. In Journal of Policy Analysis and Management (Vol. 24, Issue 1, pp. 113–132). https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.20072
Creswell, J. W., Plano Clark, V. L., Gutmann, M. L., & Hanson, W. E. (2003). CHOOSING A MIXED METHODS DESIGN. In
Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 209–240).
Curran, R., & Farley-Ripple, E. (2008). Within-School Variation in Teacher Quality: The Case of Ninth Grade. In American Journal of
Education (Vol. 114).
Goldhaber, D., Lavery, L., & Theobald, R. (2015). Uneven Playing Field? Assessing the Teacher Quality Gap Between Advantaged and
Disadvantaged Students. Educational Researcher, 44(5), 293–307. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X15592622
Goldhaber, D., Quince, V., & Theobald, R. (2018). Has It Always Been This Way? Tracing the Evolution of Teacher Quality Gaps in U.S.
Public Schools. American Educational Research Journal, 55(1), 171–201. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831217733445
Grissom, J. A., Kalogrides, D., & Loeb, S. (n.d.). The Micropolitics of Educational Inequality: The Case of Teacher-Student Assignments.
66

Grissom, J. A., Kalogrides, D., & Loeb, S. (2015). The Micropolitics of Educational Inequality: The Case of Teacher–Student
Assignments. Peabody Journal of Education, 90(5), 601–614. https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2015.1087768
Hanushek, E. A., Kain, J. F., & Rivkin, S. G. (2001). Why Public Schools Lose Teachers.
Jackson, C. K. (2009a). Student Demographics, Teacher Sorting, and Teacher Quality: Evidence from the End of School Desegregation. In
Journal of Labor Economics (Vol. 27, Issue 2). http://www.naacpldf.org/
Jackson, C. K. (2009b). Student Demographics, Teacher Sorting, and Teacher Quality: Evidence from the End of School Desegregation. In
Journal of Labor Economics (Vol. 27, Issue 2). http://www.naacpldf.org/
Kalogrides, D., & Loeb, S. (2013). Different Teachers, Different Peers: The Magnitude of Student Sorting Within Schools. Educational
Researcher, 42(6), 304–316. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X13495087
Kalogrides, D., Loeb, S., & Béteille, T. (2013a). Systematic Sorting: Teacher Characteristics and Class Assignments. Sociology of
Education, 86(2), 103–123. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038040712456555
Kalogrides, D., Loeb, S., & Béteille, T. (2013b). Systematic Sorting: Teacher Characteristics and Class Assignments. Sociology of
Education, 86(2), 103–123. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038040712456555
Klopfenstein, K. (2004). Advanced Placement: Do minorities have equal opportunity? Economics of Education Review, 23(2), 115–131.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-7757(03)00076-1
Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2002). Teacher Sorting and the Plight of Urban Schools: A Descriptive Analysis. In Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis Spring (Vol. 24, Issue 1).
67

Loeb, S., Kalogrides, D., & Béteille, T. (2012). Effective schools: Teacher hiring, assignment, development, and retention. Education
Finance and Policy, 7(3), 269–304. https://doi.org/10.1162/EDFP_a_00068
Mansfield, R. K. (2010). Teacher Quality and Student Inequality.
Miller, C., Degiorgi, G., Lovenheim, M., Pistaferri, L., Rothwell, G., Weinstein-Gould, J., Zarafshar, S., & Labor, S. (2009). Teacher
Sorting and Own-Race Teacher Effects in Elementary School.
Min Kim, C., Frank, K. A., & Spillane, J. P. (2018). Relationships Among Teachers’ Formal and Informal Positions and Their Incoming
Student Composition. Teachers College Record, 120, 34.
Partee, G. L. (2014). Attaining Equitable Distribution of Effective Teachers in Public Schools.
Solórzano, D. G., & Ornelas, A. (2002). A Critical Race Analysis of Advanced Placement Classes: A Case of Educational Inequality.
Journal of Latinos and Education, 1(4), 215–229. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532771xjle0104_2

68

Appendix A
Interview Protocol
Introduction
Hello, thank you for participating in this study. The purpose of this interview is to help answer the questions “How do HS principals
go about making teacher placement decisions and what factors influence HS teachers’ preferences on the classes they teach?”
Everything you state in this interview will remain confidential and I will include no identifiable information in the write up of this
research. I will record our session, to ensure I have accurate accounts of what we discussed today. Is everything I’ve just stated ok
with you?
Awesome, let’s begin!
Interview
with…
Question RQ # Concepts from the
conceptual framework
Type of question

Admins

1. Tell me more about yourself and your
background.
n/a n/a Background and Demographic
Questions
2. What about this school? Tell me more
about the background, student and
teacher demographics, etc. of this
school
RQ3
RQ4
Student demographics Background and Demographic
Questions
3. What is the decision-making process
that you engage in when you are
assigning courses?
RQ2 # of years of teaching
experience
Teacher ability to
choose class placement
Opinions and behavior
4. What do you believe are the most
important qualities in a teacher who
teaches introductory and general
courses?
RQ2 Teacher ability to
choose class placement
Opinions and values
5. If at all, how are teacher’s and race
considered when making placement
decisions?
RQ1
RQ2
Teacher gender
Teacher race
Opinions and values
69

6. What factors do you consider for
teacher placement in classes that tend
to have lower achievement?
RQ1 Student Demographics Opinions and Values
7. How much autonomy do you have in
teacher placement decisions?
RQ2 Teacher ability to
choose class placement
Experience and behavior
8. How much does a teacher’s preference
weigh into the decision-making
process?
RQ2 Experience/Values
9. Who are your Math and English AP
teachers? Why were they selected?
What experience, training, and
certification do they have? Were other
teachers considered?
RQ1
RQ2

10. Suppose there was a highly
qualified, highly effective teacher with
a track record of producing student
achievement, and a first year teacher
you are trying to place. There are 2
classes open- pre-algebra (designed
for students who need extra support in
addition to Algebra), and AP Calculus.
Both teachers are content experts and
can do well in either class. What
would be your placement decision?
Explain the rationale.
RQ1 Teacher ability to
choose class placement
Student demographics
Hypothetical
Opinions and values.
11. Describe the ideal teacher
placement scenario for your building-
Who teaches whom?
RQ2 Ideal position
Opinions and values
Teachers 1. Tell me more about your educational
and professional background. How
many years have you been teaching?
N/a # of years teaching
experience
Background and Demographic
Questions
70

2. In your, how do the race and
demographics at your school influence
teacher placement of courses?
RQ4 Student demographics Background and Demographic
Questions
3. What is your opinion on the race of
the teacher and their ability to choose
which classes they want to teach?
RQ2 # of years of teaching
experience
Teacher ability to
choose class placement
Opinions and behavior
4. What do you believe are the most
important factors in a teacher who
teachers introductory and general
courses?
RQ3 Teacher ability to
choose class placement
Opinions and values
5. How much does a teacher’s preference
weigh into the decision-making
process?
RQ2 Teacher ability to
choose class placement

Experience/Values
6. Describe the ideal teacher placement
scenario for your building- Who
teaches whom?
RQ1
RQ3
Teacher gender, race, #
of years of teaching
experience.
Ideal position
Opinions and values
7. If you had a choice to teacher a pre-
course (designed for students who
need more support to be ready for the
grade level course) and an AP course,
which would you choose? Why?
RQ3
RQ4
Teacher ability to
choose class placement
Student demographics
Hypothetical
Opinions and values.
8. Some people would say that teachers
do not want to teach classes with high
percentages of underserved
populations (income, race, etc. )-
which is why they prefer to teacher
advanced classes. What would you say
to these people?
RQ3 Student demographics,
Teacher gender, race, #
of years of teaching
experience
Devil’s advocate.
9. If you teach an advanced class, what is
something you enjoy? If you do not
teach and advanced course, is this
RQ3
RQ4
Student demographics,
Teacher gender, race, #
of years of teaching
experience
Devil’s advocate.
71

something that you would like to teach
in the future? Why or why not?

72
72
Appendix B
Teacher Survey Instrument
Q1 What is the highest level of school you have completed or the highest degree you have
received? (RQ1)
o Less than high school degree
o High school graduate (high school diploma or equivalent including GED)
o Some college but no degree
o Associate degree in college (2-year)
o Bachelor's degree in college (4-year)
o Master's degree
o Doctoral degree
o Professional degree (JD, MD)
Q2 Choose one or more races that you consider yourself to be: (RQ1,2,3,4)
▢ White
▢ Black or African American
▢ American Indian or Alaska Native
▢ Asian
▢ Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander
▢ Other ________________________________________________
Q3 What is your sex? (RQ2)
o Male
o Female
End of Block: Demographic Questions
73

Start of Block: School District and School Information
Q4 What is the name of your school? (RQ4)
________________________________________________________________
Q5 Select the District/City in which you teach (RQ4)
▢ Milwaukee
▢ Shorewood
▢ Brown Deer
▢ Greenfield
End of Block: School District and School Information
Start of Block: Class Information
Q6 What Grade level do you primarily teach? (RQ1,3,4)
▢ 9th
▢ 10th
▢ 11th
▢ 12th
Q7 Do you teach an advanced course (honors, AP, IB) (RQ1,2,3,4)
o Yes
o No
End of Block: Class Information
Start of Block: Teacher Quality Information
Q8 How many years have you been a teacher? (RQ2)
o 0-3 Years
o 4-6 Years
74

o 7-10 years
o 11+ years
Q9 Are you certified in more than one area? (RQ2)
o Yes
o No
o Not yet, but I want more
Q10 Do you have any leadership positions on your team? (RQ2)
o Yes
o No
o Not yet, but I want to
End of Block: Teacher Quality Information
Start of Block: Teacher influence information
Q11 To the best of your knowledge, indicate yes or no if the following people played a role
in your classroom placement. (RQ2)
Yes No
You o o
Other teachers o o
Principal o o
Assistant Principal o o
Other Admin o o
Parents o o
Students o o

75

Page Break
Q11 Would you be interested in participating in an in depth minute interview?
o Yes
o No
Q12 On a scale of 1-4, How much influence did each of the following people have over your
classroom placement? (RQ2)
0 (not
involved/no
influence)
1 2 3 4 (A lot of
influence)
You o o o o o
Other
Teachers
o o o o o
Principal o o o o o
Assistant
Principal
o o o o o
Other Admin o o o o o
Parents o o o o o
Students o o o o o
End of Block: Teacher influence information
Start of Block: Teacher preference information
Q13 Drag the options below to rank your preference of class placements from highest to
lowest (1 being the highest preferred, 4 being the least preferred) (RQ4)
______ 9th Grade
76

______ 10th Grade
______ 11th Grade
______ 12th Grade
Q14 Drag the options below to rank your preference of class placements from highest to
lowest (1 being the highest preferred, 4 being the least preferred) (RQ4)
______ Intervention/remedial (any content)
______ General (any content)
______ Pre-AP (pre-advanced placement, any content)
______ AP (Advanced Placement, any content)
End of Block: Teacher preference information

77

Appendix C
Administrator Survey Instrument
Q1 Choose one or more races that you consider yourself to be: (RQ1,2,3,4)
▢ White
▢ Black or African American
▢ American Indian or Alaska Native
▢ Asian
▢ Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander
▢ Other ________________________________________________
Q2 What is your sex?
o Male
o Female
End of Block: Demographic Questions
Start of Block: School District and School Information
Q3 What is the name of your school? (RQ4)
________________________________________________________________
Q4 Select the District/City in which you teach
▢ Milwaukee
▢ Shorewood
▢ Brown Deer
▢ Greenfield
End of Block: School District and School Information

78

Q5 To the best of your knowledge, indicate yes or no if the following people played a role in
the classroom placements at your school. (RQ2)
Yes No
You o o
Other teachers o o
Principal o o
Assistant principal o o
Other admin o o
Parents o o
Students o o
Q6 On a scale of 1-4, How much influence did each of the following people have over
classroom placements at your school? (RQ2)
0 (not
involved/no
influence)
1 2 3 4 (A lot of
influence)
You
o o o o o
Other
teachers
o o o o o
Principal
o o o o o
Assistant
principal
o o o o o
Other admin
o o o o o
Parents
o o o o o
Students
o o o o o

79

End of Block: Teacher influence information
Start of Block: Teacher preference information
80

Abstract (if available)

Abstract A significant amount of research has supported assertions that teachers generally tend to prefer teaching advanced courses. While this tends to be a true generalization for all teachers, previous research has not fully examined whether this preference is held by all races of teachers. Teacher preferences and teacher abilities to influence class placement is largely a function of the micropolitical power teachers have within their school sites. These power dynamics are microcosms of the same power dynamics that exist within most US social and political systems, which benefit white people and males. This study examines the relationships among teacher race, student race, teacher preferences, and teacher influence.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Finding joy in the fallback: a study of how teachers can stay and find happiness in their now chosen profession through self-efficacy

PDF

Preservice teacher perspectives: impact of culturally responsive pedagogy and implications of Eurocentric, whitewashed roots on United States education

PDF

Classrooms beyond the binary: elementary teachers gendered beliefs and classroom practices

PDF

An Exploration of the Development and Enactment of Anti-Racist Teaching Practices in the Elementary Classroom

PDF

School leader impact on equitable grading practices to support middle school English learners

PDF

Reducing the education debt through supporting African American and Latinx teacher longevity

PDF

In search of the Black superintendent

PDF

School disciplined reimagined: centering Black students in discipline policies

PDF

Black male school administrators perceptions of the recruitment process into leadership at Chicago public schools

PDF

How principals lead Title I schools to high academic achievement: a case study of transformative leadership

PDF

Examining within-school secondary teacher course assignment: what, why, and so what?

PDF

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K-12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals

PDF

TikToking and Instagramming: following high school teacher influencers' roles in supporting and informing teacher practices

PDF

Stop, dismantle and reimagine teacher preparation programs: an examination of racial justice practices of beginning preservice teachers…

PDF

An examination of factors that potentially impact anxiety levels in high school students in an international school

PDF

Rebuilding Black boarding schools within Black townships: an exploratory study to rebuild a Black boarding school in the United States' oldest incorporated all-Black town of Eatonville, Florida

PDF

Examining the impact of LETRS professional learning on student literacy outcomes: a quantitative analysis

PDF

The positionality and power dynamics of high school math departments

PDF

The attributes of effective equity-focused elementary principals

PDF

The factors supporting or inhibiting Teachers of Color to accept and stay in an international school in Southeast Asia

Asset Metadata

Creator Mallett, Lita (author)

Core Title Who’s teaching whom: a micropolitical examination of teacher placement practices in Milwaukee County high schools

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Educational Leadership

Degree Conferral Date 2022-05

Publication Date 05/05/2022

Defense Date 03/27/2022

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Education,equity,gender,micropolitics,OAI-PMH Harvest,Race,student achievement,teacher placement

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Cash, David (committee chair), Krop, Cathy (committee member), Roach, John (committee member)

Creator Email litamallett@gmail.com,lmallett@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC111259024

Unique identifier UC111259024

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Mallett, Lita

Type texts

Source 20220506-usctheses-batch-938 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu