WORKPLACE SUPPORT AND DIVERSITY

IN THE MARKET FOR PUBLIC SCHOOL

TEACHERS

Steven Bednar

(Autor correspondiente)

Departamento de Economía

Elon University

Elon, CAROLINA DEL NORTE 27244

sbednar@elon.edu

Dora Gicheva

Departamento de Economía

University of North Carolina

at Greensboro

Greensboro, CAROLINA DEL NORTE 27402-6170

d_gichev@uncg.edu

Abstracto
Mentoring, and to a greater extent support from high-level ad-
ministrators, has been shown to decrease worker turnover in gen-
eral, but little is known about its diﬀerential impact on minority
workers. Utilizing four waves of the Schools and Staﬃng Survey,
we ﬁnd that administrative support is most strongly associated
with retention for minority teachers working in schools where
minorities are underrepresented. This eﬀect is pronounced for
teachers new to the profession and those in schools with more
students from low-income families or located in rural areas. El
results indicate that workplace support is essential in maintain-
ing or growing minority representation in relatively less-diverse
organizaciones.

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
mi
d
pag
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

1
4
2
2
7
2
1
6
9
2
7
0
9
mi
d
pag
_
a
_
0
0
2
4
3
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

https://doi.org/10.1162/edfp_a_00243

272

Steven Bednar and Dora Gicheva

INTRODUCCIÓN

1 .
Although there is general agreement on the importance of promoting diversity and in-
clusiveness in the workplace, it is less clear how to do so successfully. In theory, dirigido
mentoring and workplace support can help make organizations more diverse (ver, p.ej.,
Athey, Avery, and Zemsky 2000), but the literature oﬀers little empirical evidence of the
ways in which mentoring may have diﬀerential impacts on minority workers. En esto
paper we focus on public school teachers in the United States, asking whether provid-
ing more workplace support (holding other workplace conditions constant) can aid in
the retention of minority teachers and can ameliorate the diﬀerence in turnover rates
between white and minority teachers. We further investigate whether minority teachers
beneﬁt more from workplace support in relatively nondiverse schools.

Diﬀerential turnover rates and impacts of administrative support are rooted in so-
cial identity theory. Our empirical model is based on a theory of turnover, in which the
likelihood of changing employers is negatively related to the utility derived from one’s
current job. Utility increases, but with diminishing returns, from administrative sup-
port and from the closeness of one’s racial or ethnic identity to that of coworkers. Nosotros
treat social identity and support as nonseparable in the utility function and consider the
case when administrative support matters more for those who are considered outsiders
to the social group. In our context, minority teachers who teach in nondiverse schools
derive less utility from the social setting than their white colleagues. An increase in ad-
ministrative support therefore has a greater marginal impact on their utility and thus
turnover, given that utility has diminishing returns from overall support.

Using data from four consecutive waves of the Schools and Staﬃng Survey (SASS),
we ﬁrst conﬁrm the established result that teachers are more likely to stay at their cur-
rent school if they perceive higher levels of support from the administration. Sin embargo,
when we look at minority and white teachers separately, we uncover a novel pattern in
teacher turnover that is consistent with social identity theory. The relationship between
administrative support and retention is strongest for minority teachers employed at
schools where minorities are underrepresented. Perceived support from parents fol-
lows a similar but less clear-cut pattern. Support from coworkers has a less clearly de-
ﬁned role in aiding retention. The relationships we uncover are most pronounced for
teachers who are relatively new to the profession and in schools located in rural areas
or with more students from low-income families. Our results are robust to a variety of
diﬀerent speciﬁcations.

Turnover is costly for any organization, but turnover among teachers has particu-
larly strong policy implications. There is evidence that teacher turnover has negative
impacts on student achievement. Hanushek’s (1997) review of a large set of studies
that use a value-added methodology suggests a positive link between teacher experience
and student performance. Using data on fourth- and ﬁfth-grade students in New York
City, Ronfeldt, Loeb, y Wyckoff (2013) show that teacher turnover is associated with
lower math and reading scores, and even students whose teachers did not change jobs
are aﬀected negatively by high turnover at the school. Jackson and Bruegmann (2009)
ﬁnd peer eﬀects in teacher performance, which implies that losing eﬀective teachers
has negative spillover eﬀects on those teachers who remain at the school. kraft (2015)
shows evidence that losing inexperienced but eﬀective teachers through seniority-based

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
mi
d
pag
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

1
4
2
2
7
2
1
6
9
2
7
0
9
mi
d
pag
_
a
_
0
0
2
4
3
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

273

Workplace Support and Teacher Diversity

layoﬀs necessitated by district budget cuts has negative eﬀects on student achievement,
an argument also made by Boyd et al. (2011a).

Retention of minority teachers in schools where they are underrepresented is es-
pecially important. Although schools with a small percentage of minority teachers also
tend to have smaller fractions of minority students, there tend to be more minority
students per minority teacher in these less-diverse schools. The presence of minority
teachers may then help close the achievement gap between white and black students,1
and there could be additional role model eﬀects.

Numerous studies have examined how teacher, alumno, and school characteristics
are related to teacher turnover.2 Using data on teachers and schools in Texas, Hanushek,
Kain, and Rivkin (2004) observe that white teachers are more likely to exit schools
with a higher fraction of minority students, whereas minority teachers are less likely to
leave a school the higher the fraction of minority students. Across a variety of diﬀerent
data sources, workplace support from the administration has been shown to play an
especially important role in retention (Boyd et al. 2011b; Grissom 2011; muchacho 2011).

Far less attention has been paid to the interaction of teacher characteristics, semejante
as race, and factors related to the school’s administration. Previous studies of teacher
turnover (p.ej., muchacho 2011) include a rich set of controls for working conditions, maestro
características, and school characteristics, but no interactions between administrative
support and teacher or school variables.3 Grissom (2011) uses SASS data to show that
principal eﬀectiveness is especially strongly correlated with teacher satisfaction and
turnover in schools with a high fraction of minority students or students eligible for free
or reduced-price lunch, but this relationship is not investigated separately for minority
and nonminority teachers. Hanushek, Kain, and Rivkin (2004) show that turnover is
lower among black and Hispanic teachers when they are employed at schools with a
higher fraction of minority students, but their study does not incorporate factors related
to the school’s administration. Two exceptions are Grissom and Keiser (2011), who ﬁnd
that minority teachers report higher levels of job satisfaction and have lower turnover
rates if their principal is also a minority, and Grissom, Nicholson-Crotty, and Keiser
(2012), who show that male teachers are more likely to change jobs when working under
a female principal.

2 . M OV I N G AC RO S S S C H O O L S V E R S U S L E AV I N G T H E P RO F E S S I O N
In this study we focus on teachers who stay in the profession and examine the choice
to remain at one’s current school or to change employers within the same occupation.
Teachers who continue teaching at their current school are commonly referred to as

1. Using random assignment of students and teachers to diﬀerent-sized classrooms, Dee (2004) ﬁnds that there
are gains in math and reading scores when students are taught by an own-race teacher. Más, there is evidence
that subjective evaluations of students by teachers are higher when the teacher and student share the same
carrera (Ehrenberg, Goldhaber, and Brewer 1995; Dee 2005). Fairlie, Hoﬀmann, and Oreopoulos (2014) examine
a similar issue in a higher education setting. In their study of one community college where the fraction of
minority instructors is about 16 percent and minority students constitute 21 percent of the student body, ellos
ﬁnd that the performance gap between white and minority students is smaller in classes taught by a minority
instructor.

2. Grissom, Viano, and Selin (2015) oﬀer an extensive review of the literature.
3. Ladd’s (2011) focus is on diﬀerences by school level in the factors related to teacher mobility, so she shows

separate estimates for elementary, middle, and high schools in North Carolina.

274

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
mi
d
pag
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

1
4
2
2
7
2
1
6
9
2
7
0
9
mi
d
pag
_
a
_
0
0
2
4
3
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

Steven Bednar and Dora Gicheva

“stayers.” “Movers” are deﬁned as teachers who continue teaching but at a diﬀerent
escuela. Finalmente, “leavers” are teachers who are not in a teaching occupation when ob-
served in a follow-up survey.

Although many previous studies do not diﬀerentiate between moving to another
school and leaving the teaching profession, others have emphasized how important it is
to make this distinction (Hanushek, Kain, and Rivkin 2004; Kukla-Acevedo 2009; Gris-
som, Viano, and Selin 2015; Feng and Sass 2016). Using multinomial choice models and
two diﬀerent datasets, Kukla-Acevedo (2009) and Ladd (2011) ﬁnd that administrative
practices are more closely related to the likelihood of moving than of leaving relative
to staying, especially for elementary and middle school teachers. More generally, el
distinction between occupational changes and job changes within an occupation has
long been emphasized by labor economists (p.ej., Neal 1999). Previous studies, como
Gibbons et al. (2005), have modeled occupation-switching as part of a process in which
workers learn about their ability and their areas of comparative advantage. If workplace
support enhances learning about one’s ability, it may even be the case that it is asso-
ciated with higher probability of occupation changes, particularly among workers with
low levels of labor market experience.

Teachers who leave the profession often do so for personal reasons, such as retire-
mento, el embarazo, or health. Dolton and van der Klaauw (1999) study exits separately
by destination (nonteaching sector or nonwork) and by whether the departure was vol-
untary. They ﬁnd that diﬀerent factors drive each type of move. Stinebrickner (2002)
also ﬁnds that diﬀerent factors play a role for going into a new occupation compared
to leaving the labor force. The results of these studies are an important indication that
leavers should not all be grouped together, but the SASS does not oﬀer information
that is detailed enough to allow us to distinguish between the diﬀerent categories of
exits. Further complicating the analysis, the time period covered by the data we use in-
cludes the Great Recession, when alternative options outside of teaching, shown to be
an important factor for the decision to leave (Dolton and van der Klaauw 1999), changed
importantemente.

The Teacher Follow-Up Survey (TFS), which is based on a subsample of teachers
who responded to the SASS and is administered a year later, collects information on
the main reason for moving or leaving the teaching profession. Responses commonly
given by leavers in the 2012–13 TFS are retirement (23 percent of leavers) or “other per-
sonal life reasons (p.ej., salud, pregnancy/childcare, caring for family)" (17 por ciento).
These turnover decisions are relatively unlikely to be aﬀected by personnel manage-
ment practices such as workplace support. Stinebrickner (2002) uses longitudinal data
of high school graduates to show that changes in family circumstances are commonly
the main reason for teachers leaving the profession. Al mismo tiempo, most movers in
the 2012–13 TFS report the main reason for moving to be location (24 por ciento), dissat-
isfaction with the administration (12 por ciento), or speciﬁc desire to teach at their new
escuela (12 por ciento). These responses lead us to believe that the decision to move is con-
siderably more likely to be inﬂuenced by school-level factors than the decision to leave.
En resumen, we diﬀerentiate between movers and leavers and focus the analysis on
the former because we believe the SASS data are better suited to analyze job changes
within teaching and because workplace support is more likely to play a role in the de-
cision to move. In the analysis that follows we exclude leavers from the sample and

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
mi
d
pag
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

1
4
2
2
7
2
1
6
9
2
7
0
9
mi
d
pag
_
a
_
0
0
2
4
3
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

275

Workplace Support and Teacher Diversity

estimate binary choice models of turnover measured as moving to a diﬀerent school,
but we verify the robustness of our results to estimating a multinomial choice model
that includes leaving the profession as an outcome.

3 . T H E O R E T I C A L F R A M E WO R K
Turnover in the labor market is often modeled as a process in which workers compare
the utility associated with their current job to that of the next best alternative. Cuando
own-race and the race of one’s coworkers enter a worker’s utility function, they will be
important determinants of retention.

Race mismatch between an individual and her coworkers is important in social
identity theory, where a person gains more utility in a group setting if the other mem-
bers of the group are of a similar type. Strunk and Robinson (2006) provide evidence
that teachers in particular seek to work with other same-race colleagues to preserve
their social identity, and Cannata (2010) ﬁnds social identity to play a role in the ini-
tial application process. This is important because the social networks formed at work
are thought to play a large role in the transmission of knowledge. Isolation from these
networks and their beneﬁts can disadvantage the minority group.

Social identity theory is related to isolation theory. Theories of isolation or being
in a numerical minority predict higher turnover for workers in the minority group.
In a study of workers at a large national chain, Leonard and Levine (2006) ﬁnd that
turnover is signiﬁcantly greater for black and Hispanic workers when there are more
white coworkers and fewer coworkers of the same race or ethnicity.

Workplace support is also important for turnover. Boyd et al. (2011a) study the impor-
tance of a wide range of teacher and school characteristics for the retention of teachers
in New York City and show perceptions of the school’s administration to be the most
important factor. Grissom (2011) and Ladd (2011), among others, have also shown ad-
ministrative support to play a central role in decreasing turnover for teachers.

Our contribution is to incorporate the interaction between social identity and ad-
ministrative support. Using utility representation, we can express the probability of
moving for individual j as

Pr(Move j ) = Pr[Ud. (α j, Pj ) ≤ ¯U ],

where αj measures the level of administrative support for worker j; Pj is the proportion
of same-race coworkers; and ¯U represents the expected utility of the next best available
job.4

∂U(α j,Pj )
∂Pj

∂U(α j,Pj )
∂α j

consistent with the assumption that

The well-documented connection between administrative support and turnover is
> 0. Social identity and isolation theories
> 0. Most standard utility functional forms incorporate diminish-
predict that
ing returns to administrative support and to the fraction of the group with the same race
≤ 0.5 Eso es, adminis-
or ethnicity but we further impose the assumption that
trative support has less of an eﬀect for employees with many same-race coworkers or,
conversely, it is even more important for a minority teacher who is part of a numerical

∂U(α j,Pj )
∂α j∂Pj

4. Alesina and La Ferrara (2000) introduce a similar utility function, but in their model the parameter αj measures

a person’s distaste for socializing with other-race individuals.
5. A simple example of such utility function is U = (α j + Pj )1/2.

276

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
mi
d
pag
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

1
4
2
2
7
2
1
6
9
2
7
0
9
mi
d
pag
_
a
_
0
0
2
4
3
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

Steven Bednar and Dora Gicheva

minority. The marginal impact of an increase in administrative support will then be
larger for an individual when the proportion of workers of a diﬀerent race is larger.

Empirically, we estimate a linear probability model for worker j in school s at time t:

Pr(Move j ) = X jβ1 + Zstβ2 + β3α j + β4M j + β5(α j × M j ) + γs + νt,

(1)

where X j is a vector of worker characteristics, Zst are time-varying school and principal
covariables, and M j is an indicator for minority status. The parameters γs and νt repre-
> 0
sent school- and survey-year ﬁxed eﬀects, respectivamente. The assumption that
corresponds to β3 < 0. We estimate the model in equation 1 separately for schools with low and higher levels of racial and ethnic diversity. Then β4 should be positive at non- > 0. Finalmente, the cross-partial derivative being negative
diverse schools when
implies that β5 < 0 at schools where minority teachers are greatly underrepresented. The next section describes the data we use in the estimation of the empirical model in equation 1, and the results are presented in section 5. ∂U(α j,Pj ) ∂Pj ∂U(α j,Pj ) ∂α j 4 . DATA We use the 1999–2000, 2003–04, 2007–08, and 2011–12 waves of the SASS, conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). A new sample of schools is se- lected each year using a stratiﬁed sampling design; school administrators complete a school and a principal questionnaire. The SASS includes both public and private schools but we focus our analysis on the public schools in the data. The NCES assigns a unique time-invariant identiﬁcation number to each school, which makes it possible to link observations for schools surveyed multiple times. About 19 percent of public schools in the data appear in multiple waves. Teachers within each sampled school are also stratiﬁed and sampled at random. The sampled teachers complete a separate teacher questionnaire. A follow-up survey admin- istered at the beginning of the following academic year collects information from the principal on whether each of the teachers in the sample remained at the same school, continued teaching at another school, or left the teaching profession. This follow-up survey allows us to examine what factors are related to teacher turnover.6 As discussed in section 2, we exclude movers from the sample.7 From the school questionnaire, we use data on the racial and ethnic composition of students and all teachers, including those not sampled; the fraction of students ap- proved for free or reduced-price lunches under the National School Lunch Program; 6. Preferably, turnover information would be collected from teachers rather than from administrators. A subset of the teachers who are SASS respondents are interviewed at the beginning of the following academic year for the TFS and are asked to report their employment status. Comparing weighted teacher and principal responses from the 2005 TFS shows that 97.5 percent of teachers reported as stayers by their principal also self-reported as stayers; the fraction of teachers correctly classiﬁed as stayers is 99 percent if leavers are excluded from the sample. Principals identify movers correctly 79.6 percent of the time, but this number increases to 87 percent if leavers are not taken into account. Principals are correct in identifying leavers 69 percent of the time, but 25 percent of the teachers whom principals classify as leavers self-report to be movers. We use principals’ responses rather than information from the TFS because the TFS has considerably fewer respondents and sample selection is nonrandom, disproportionately sampling movers and leavers. 7. A small fraction of teachers is on shorter-term leave (about 1 percent), remain at their current school but in a nonteaching position (less than 0.5 percent), are deceased (fewer than 0.1 percent) or have unknown status (less than 0.25 percent); they are also excluded from the analysis. l D o w n o a d e d f r o m h t t p : / / d i r e c t . m i t . / / f e d u e d p a r t i c e - p d l f / / / / 1 4 2 2 7 2 1 6 9 2 7 0 9 e d p _ a _ 0 0 2 4 3 p d . / f f b y g u e s t t o n 0 7 S e p e m b e r 2 0 2 3 277 Workplace Support and Teacher Diversity Figure 1. Cumulative Distribution of the Fraction of Minority Teachers per School the size of the school and the student–teacher ratio; and for some speciﬁcations, the school’s location based on the NCES “urban-centric” classiﬁcation system.8 Informa- tion that we use from the principal questionnaire includes race and ethnicity, gender, education, experience as principal and as teacher, and tenure as principal at the current school. The teacher questionnaire provides information on teachers’ gender, race, eth- nicity, education, years of teaching experience, subject and grade assignment, tenure, union membership, and school-related annual earnings. In our study we deﬁne “minority” as nonwhite or Hispanic.9 Figure 1 shows the distribution of the fraction of minority teachers at public schools sampled in the 1999, 2003, 2007, and 2011 waves of the SASS. There are no minority teachers in 37 percent of the schools in the data.10 For the purposes of our analysis, we deﬁne “low-minority” schools to be those that employ 10 percent or fewer minority teachers, which includes over two thirds of the surveyed schools. “High-minority” schools are deﬁned as those where 15 percent or more of the teachers are minority, which constitutes the top quartile of the distribution. The use of the term “high-minority” is relative here because 15 percent minority is not a high number in absolute terms, but these schools are fairly diverse compared with most public schools in the United States. Schools where the fraction of minority teachers is 8. The system was introduced in 2006. It is based on the proximity of the school’s location to an urbanized area and has four major categories: city, suburban, town, and rural. 9. There are not enough minority teachers in the surveyed schools to conduct the analysis separately for each race and ethnicity. There are no Asian teachers at more than 75 percent of the schools; the case is similar for Native American teachers. The 75th percentile of the distribution of the share of Hispanic teachers is 3 percent, and the corresponding number for the share of black teachers is 5 percent. 10. The share of minority teachers is derived from the school questionnaire, which is usually completed by the principal. About 4 percent of teachers in the sample who self-report as nonwhite or Hispanic work at schools where the reported share of minority teachers is zero, suggesting that in some cases administrators may not be aware of a teacher’s minority status. Most of these teachers self-report as Native American or Hispanic; only 1 percent of black teachers are observed at schools where the share of minority teachers is recorded as zero. 278 l D o w n o a d e d f r o m h t t p : / / d i r e c t . m i t . / / f e d u e d p a r t i c e - p d l f / / / / 1 4 2 2 7 2 1 6 9 2 7 0 9 e d p _ a _ 0 0 2 4 3 p d . f / f b y g u e s t t o n 0 7 S e p e m b e r 2 0 2 3 Steven Bednar and Dora Gicheva between 10 and 15 percent are excluded from most of the analyses, but in section 5 we examine the robustness of the results to using alternative cutoﬀs. Furthermore, we restrict our analysis to full-time teachers. Our ﬁnal sample includes 114,120 public school teachers at 21,860 unique schools.11 Combining all waves of the SASS, only 1,570 of the teachers appear as a unique obser- vation within a school; the modal number of sampled teachers from a given school is three and the median is four, but 5 percent of schools have ﬁfteen or more teachers in the ﬁnal estimation sample, accounting for 17 percent of teachers in the data. Ap- pendix table A.1 shows descriptive statistics at the teacher level for the variables used in the analysis for low-minority (columns 1 and 2) and high-minority (columns 3 and 4) schools. We use the SASS teacher weights in the calculation of the means and stan- dard deviations. Columns 1 and 3 show descriptive statistics for minority teachers, and columns 2 and 4 summarize the variables for white non-Hispanic respondents. It is evident from table A.1 that over a one-year period, between 92 and 94 percent of non- leavers stay at the same school. The most likely stayers are nonminority teachers in low-minority schools. Measures of Perceived Support Surveyed teachers are asked a series of questions about their perception of various work- ing conditions. Responses are given on a 4-point Likert scale, with 1 corresponding to “strongly agree” and 4 to “strongly disagree,” but we reverse the scales so that higher numbers correspond to higher satisfaction with a given working condition. We select eight of the available variables to measure perceived support from the administration, from other teachers, and from parents. The ﬁrst four measures align most closely with the concept of support from the principal: “The school administration’s behavior to- ward the staﬀ is supportive and encouraging”; “My principal enforces school rules for student conduct and backs me up when I need it”; “The principal knows what kind of school he or she wants and has communicated it to the staﬀ”; and “In this school, staﬀ members are recognized for a job well done.” The next three statements corre- spond most closely to teacher cooperation and support: “Rules for student behavior are consistently enforced by teachers in this school, even for students who are not in their classes”; “Most of my colleagues share my beliefs and values about what the cen- tral mission of the school should be”; and “There is a great deal of cooperative eﬀort among the staﬀ members.” Finally, support from parents is measured by responses to the statement “I receive a great deal of support from parents for the work I do.” Coeﬃcients of correlation between the support measures are shown in table 1. Each of the administrative support measures tends to be most highly correlated with the other administrative support measures (correlations between 0.50 and 0.61), slightly less highly correlated with the teacher support variables (correlations between 0.26 and 0.51), and least strongly correlated with perceived parental support (correlation coeﬃ- cients ranging from 0.18 to 0.25). Similarly, teacher support measures are most strongly correlated with other teacher support variables, and least strongly correlated with parent support. Based on our interpretation of the underlying survey questions, the correla- tions in table 1, and results from principal component analysis, we group administrator, 11. All sample sizes in the paper are rounded to the nearest ten as per NCES restricted-use data requirements. l D o w n o a d e d f r o m h t t p : / / d i r e c t . m i t . / f / e d u e d p a r t i c e - p d l f / / / / 1 4 2 2 7 2 1 6 9 2 7 0 9 e d p _ a _ 0 0 2 4 3 p d / . f f b y g u e s t t o n 0 7 S e p e m b e r 2 0 2 3 279 Workplace Support and Teacher Diversity Table 1. Correlations Between Survey Measures of Support Supportive Administration Principal Enforces Rules Principal Communicates Staff Recognized Teachers Enforce Rules Colleagues Share Beliefs Cooperation Parent Support Supportive administration Principal enforces rules Principal communicates Staff recognized Teachers enforce rules Colleagues share beliefs Cooperation Parent support 1 0.59 0.57 0.57 0.35 0.26 0.39 0.18 1 0.61 0.50 0.46 0.29 0.38 0.22 1 0.55 0.42 0.37 0.45 0.18 1 0.41 0.35 0.51 0.25 1 0.51 0.47 0.25 1 0.53 0.21 1 0.24 1 teacher, and parent support into three distinct measures but also explore the possibility that principal and teacher support measure the same concept and should be grouped together. We use principal component analysis to group the support measures; the fac- tor loadings are shown in Appendix table A.2. We construct a combined school support measure that incorporates perceived administrative and teacher support, as well as two separate support indices.12 We standardize each of the variables we construct to have a mean of 0 and standard deviation of 1 in the sample; because parent support is based on a single survey question, we leave it as a 4-point scale. Ideally, we would like to also have an objective measure of the support received by each teacher in the sample so that we can compare the roles of perceived and actual support, but the SASS does not oﬀer such measures. Ladd (2011) shows that perceptions of working conditions are more predictive of turnover intentions than actual departure rates, but perceived principal eﬀectiveness is related to actual turnover and to students’ subsequent math test scores. In the interpretation of our results, we emphasize that we uncover a novel relationship between turnover and perceived support, rather than actual principal eﬀectiveness. Perceptions of support are important for policy because the most direct way to change them is by actually providing more support. Figure 2 shows histograms comparing the distributions of administrative, teacher, and parent support reported by minority and nonminority teachers at less and more di- verse schools. One observation that stands out is that conditional on the type of school, perceived support does not diﬀer much by race and ethnicity. Teachers at nondiverse schools report slightly higher levels of support. The distributions are generally left- skewed, with high fractions of teachers indicating high or very high support levels. As further evidence that the levels of perceived support are similar for minority and nonminority teachers at nondiverse schools, and to explore in more detail the reliability of the support measures at the school level, in table 2 we show intraclass correlation coeﬃcients for these measures. In particular, we estimate random eﬀect models of the form Support js = μ + us + e js 12. We veriﬁed that our results are robust to including the support measures separately in the model or to excluding subsets of them and ﬁnd that all administrative support variables have a similar relationship with turnover for the diﬀerent groups of teachers we consider. 280 l D o w n o a d e d f r o m h t t p : / / d i r e c t . m i t . f / / e d u e d p a r t i c e - p d l f / / / / 1 4 2 2 7 2 1 6 9 2 7 0 9 e d p _ a _ 0 0 2 4 3 p d / f . f b y g u e s t t o n 0 7 S e p e m b e r 2 0 2 3 Steven Bednar and Dora Gicheva Figure 2. Distribution of the Support Measures for teacher j at school s and use the estimated variances of us and e js, σ 2 e respec- /(σ 2 tively, to calculate and report σ 2 e ). We would expect the intraclass correlation u u to increase when minority teachers are excluded from the sample if these teachers re- port very diﬀerent levels, but table 2 shows this is not the case at low-minority schools. We do see a slight increase at more diverse schools, suggesting race- or ethnicity-based diﬀerences in perceived support at such schools. The intraclass correlations are around u and σ 2 + σ 2 l D o w n o a d e d f r o m h t t p : / / d i r e c t . m i t . / / f e d u e d p a r t i c e - p d l f / / / / 1 4 2 2 7 2 1 6 9 2 7 0 9 e d p _ a _ 0 0 2 4 3 p d . f / f b y g u e s t t o n 0 7 S e p e m b e r 2 0 2 3 281 Workplace Support and Teacher Diversity Table 2. Intraclass Correlations for Support Measures (cid:2)10% Minority >15% Minority

School support

Administrative support

Teacher support

Parent support

0.217

0.203

0.192

0.124

0.218

0.204

0.193

0.126

0.186

0.179

0.158

0.131

0.224

0.210

0.193

0.173

norte

Sample

83,890

79,890

30,230

18,240

Todo

Nonminority

Todo

Nonminority

Notas: The table shows the ratio σ 2
+ pag 2
e are, respectivamente, el
tu
estimated variances of us and e js in the random effects model Support js = μ + a nosotros +
e js. Each cell in the table represents the results from a separate regression model. Sample
sizes are rounded to the nearest 10.

mi ) where σ 2

u and σ 2

/(pag 2
tu

0.2 (slightly lower for parent support), providing evidence that the measures are reliable
but at the same time have enough within-school variation to allow us to estimate models
with school ﬁxed eﬀects. We next examine how turnover is related to perceived support,
particularly for minority teachers working at schools where few of their coworkers share
their minority background.

5 . E M P I R I C A L A N A LY S I S
As discussed in section 2, we examine turnover as the decision to move to a diﬀer-
ent school because we model workplace ﬁt rather than occupational choice. Más-
más, leaving the profession is often driven by factors, such as retirement or pregnancy
and child rearing, that are less likely to be inﬂuenced by workplace support than by
personal considerations. We begin by examining descriptively how the relationship
between turnover and perceived support diﬀers for white and minority teachers at dif-
ferent points of the support distribution. We estimate local polynomial regressions of
an indicator for moving to a diﬀerent school on the measure of administrative support.
The smoothed values from these regressions and corresponding 95 percent conﬁdence
intervals are shown in ﬁgure 3, where the smoothing is performed separately for four
grupos: minority and white teachers at schools with few minorities (ﬁgure 3a), y
minority and white teachers at schools with a relatively high fraction of nonwhite or
Hispanic teachers (ﬁgure 3b).

For all four groups, the probability of moving is strictly decreasing in perceived sup-
puerto. It is also evident from ﬁgure 3a that the diﬀerence in turnover between minority
and white teachers at low-minority schools shrinks as support increases. At low levels
of support, minority teachers at low-minority schools are close to 4 puntos de porcentaje
more likely to move than their nonminority coworkers; when support is very high, el
diﬀerence in the probability of moving decreases to about 1 percentage point. It can also
be seen from ﬁgure 3a that the convergence is gradual—the solid line that represents
minority teachers is steeper than the dashed line representing nonminority teachers
for all levels of support above −2.8.

Figure 3b repeats the analysis for the schools with a higher fraction of minority
profesores. The diﬀerence in average turnover between minority and white teachers at
high-minority schools is less than a percentage point for all values of support above
−2.6, or more than 95 percent of the sample. Además, the slopes of the two curves

282

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
mi
d
pag
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

1
4
2
2
7
2
1
6
9
2
7
0
9
mi
d
pag
_
a
_
0
0
2
4
3
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

Steven Bednar and Dora Gicheva

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
mi
d
pag
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

1
4
2
2
7
2
1
6
9
2
7
0
9
mi
d
pag
_
a
_
0
0
2
4
3
pag
d

Notas: Smoothed values of a local polynomial regression of a binary variable equal to 1 for movers and 0 for stayers on the measure
of perceived administrative support; Epanechnikov kernel and bandwith equal to 1. Leavers are excluded from the sample.

Cifra 3. Administrative Support and Teacher Mobility

are very similar. Comparing the curves representing minority teachers in ﬁgure 3a and
ﬁgure 3b suggests that the relationship between workplace support and the probability
of moving is more strongly negative for minority teachers in schools where they are
underrepresented. En cambio, the curve for white teachers is steeper in ﬁgure 3b than
in ﬁgure 3a, suggesting that support matters more for retaining nonminority teach-
ers in high-minority schools compared with white teachers with predominantly white
coworkers. Considering all four curves in ﬁgure 3 reveals that turnover decreases fastest
with workplace support for minority teachers at low-minority schools.

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

283

Workplace Support and Teacher Diversity

To estimate the relationship between turnover and support, we estimate a linear
probability model in which the outcome is a binary indicator equal to 1 for movers and
0 for stayers, excluding leavers from the sample.13 All support measures are interacted
with teacher minority status to uncover any diﬀerential relationships by race or eth-
nicity. We include school ﬁxed eﬀects in the model in order to account for unobserved
time-invariant school characteristics that may be simultaneously correlated with the
level of administrative support and teachers’ decision to move.14 Additional controls
include the teacher and principal characteristics from Appendix table A.1, así como
time-varying school characteristics. We also include indicators for teacher education,
Los grados, and main subject taught. The models also include interactions between teacher
and principal minority status and teacher and principal gender because Grissom and
Keiser (2011) and Grissom, Nicholson-Crotty, and Keiser (2012) ﬁnd that race and gen-
der congruence between teachers and their principal are related to teacher turnover. Nosotros
account for common shocks at the state-year level by clustering the standard errors.

The linear probability model is our speciﬁcation of choice because with many
schools in the data and often a small number of teachers per school, incluyendo la escuela
ﬁxed eﬀects in a nonlinear model, such as logit or probit, may lead to bias due to the
incidental parameters problem. We veriﬁed that with state-by-year ﬁxed eﬀects, the lin-
ear probability, binary logit, and multinomial logit model with leaving the profession
as an additional outcome, all produce similar marginal eﬀects.

Mesa 3 shows estimation results when the sample is split into schools with 10 por-
cent or fewer minority teachers (columns 1–4) and schools with more than 15 por ciento
minority teachers (columns 5–8).15 Support from parents enters each speciﬁcation. El
models in columns 1 y 5 include the composite measure of school support that com-
bines support from the administration and from coworkers. This variable is negatively
related to turnover, but at nondiverse schools the relationship is stronger for minor-
ity teachers—if school support increases by one standard deviation, the probability of a
teacher moving decreases by 2 percentage points for minority and 1.3 puntos de porcentaje
for nonminority individuals. The pattern is reversed at more diverse schools—a stan-
dard deviation decrease in support is associated with 2.2 percentage point decrease in
turnover for white teachers and 1.6 percentage point decrease for nonwhite or Hispanic
profesores.

Administrative support is associated with lower mobility for all groups, but matters
the most for minority teachers at schools with relatively few other nonwhite teachers.
The model in column 2 shows that at nondiverse schools, the magnitude of the re-
lationship between perceived principal support and turnover is almost twice as large

13. We do not use survey weights in the estimation. Given that our analysis focuses on the subsample of 4,000
minority teachers at low-minority schools, and probability weights in the SASS often exceed 200, the variability
of our estimates for minority teachers in nondiverse schools increases substantially when we include weights.
Outliers in terms of low selection probability can have excessive inﬂuence on the results, and we prefer to avoid
the possibility that such outliers bias the coeﬃcient estimates. Arguably, weights are not necessary when the
models include school ﬁxed eﬀects and a rich set of other covariates on which the sample stratiﬁcation is based.
14. Our results do not change much if we replace the school ﬁxed eﬀects with state-year or district-year indicators.
15. Alternativamente, we can identify how the school’s level of diversity aﬀects the relationship between support and
turnover by estimating a model with a triple interaction between support, teacher minority status, y el
fraction of minority teachers at the school. Such models yield similar results, but we prefer to split the sample
because estimating the models separately for low- and higher-minority schools makes the interpretation of the
results more straightforward compared with the interpretation of the triple interaction results.

284

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
mi
d
pag
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

1
4
2
2
7
2
1
6
9
2
7
0
9
mi
d
pag
_
a
_
0
0
2
4
3
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

Steven Bednar and Dora Gicheva

Mesa 3. Support and Teacher Mobility

Dependent Variable: Moved to a Different School

(cid:2)10% Minority (norte = 83,890)

>15% Minority (norte = 30,230)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

−0.013***
(0.001)
−0.020***
(0.004)

−0.022***
(0.003)
−0.016***
(0.003)

−0.013***
(0.001)
−0.025***
(0.004)

−0.012***
(0.001)
−0.030***
(0.006)
−0.009*** −0.003**
(0.001)
(0.001)
−0,007
(0.004)
−0.004*** −0.004*** −0.005*** −0.004*** −0.001
(0.001)
(0.001)
(0.002)
(0.001)
−0.010*
−0.014*** −0.011** −0.004
(0.003)
(0.005)
(0.005)
(0.005)

(0.001)
−0.010*
(0.005)

0.009
(0.006)

−0.022***
(0.003)
−0.018***
(0.003)

−0,002
(0.002)
−0,004
(0.003)

−0.019***
(0.003)
−0.021***
(0.003)
−0.015*** −0.006**
(0.002)
(0.002)
−0.007**
0.004
(0.003)
(0.003)
−0,001
−0,003
(0.002)
(0.002)
−0.006** −0.004
(0.003)
(0.003)

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

Nonminority × School

apoyo

Minority × School support

Nonminority × Administrative

apoyo

Minority × Administrative

apoyo

Nonminority × Teacher

apoyo

Minority × Teacher support

Nonminority × Parent

apoyo

Minority × Parent support

Notas: Results from linear probability model. The sample is limited to teachers who remained at the same school or continued teaching at
a different school. All specifications include school fixed effects; the teacher, principal, and school characteristics listed in Appendix table
A.1; indicators for teachers’ education, Los grados, and main subject taught; and interactions between teacher and principal minority status and
teacher and principal gender. The errors are clustered at the state–year level. The sample sizes are rounded to the nearest 10.
***pag < 0.01; **p < 0.05; *p < 0.10. for minority than it is for nonminority teachers, and the diﬀerence is highly statis- tically signiﬁcant. One standard deviation increase in administrative support is as- sociated with a 2.5-percentage point decrease in the probability that a nonwhite or Hispanic teacher moves. The coeﬃcient estimate decreases even further to −0.03 when we hold perceived teacher support constant (column 4). This relationship is not only statistically but also economically signiﬁcant, given that only about 8 percent of mi- nority teachers move in a given year. As a comparison, the corresponding decrease in the turnover rate for white non-Hispanic teachers at mostly white schools is 1.2–1.3 per- centage points. Consistent with what we observe in ﬁgure 3, we ﬁnd the relationship between administrative support and turnover diﬀers little by minority status at more diverse schools, where one standard deviation increase in support is associated with about a 2-percentage point decrease in the probability of moving. The models in columns 3 and 7 of table 3 show results for the relationship between support from other teachers and turnover. This relationship is negative for all teachers but is not statistically signiﬁcant for minority teachers at nondiverse schools (column 3). The magnitude is largest for white non-Hispanic teachers at relatively high-diversity schools, where one standard deviation increase in perceived teacher support decreases turnover by 1.5 percentage points. Overall, it is evident that support from other teach- ers matters less for turnover than support from the principal, and this becomes espe- cially clear when administrative and teacher support are included jointly in the model (columns 4 and 8). While including teacher support does not attenuate the relationship between turnover and administrative support, the reverse is not true. The magnitude of the coeﬃcient on teacher support decreases to −0.003 in column 4 and −0.006 in / f / e d u e d p a r t i c e - p d l f / / / / 1 4 2 2 7 2 1 6 9 2 7 0 9 e d p _ a _ 0 0 2 4 3 p d . / f f b y g u e s t t o n 0 7 S e p e m b e r 2 0 2 3 285 Workplace Support and Teacher Diversity column 8 for nonminority teachers, and becomes positive but not statistically signiﬁ- cant for minority teachers when support from the principal is held constant. The positive relationship between teacher support and turnover for minority teach- ers is at odds with the theory that support should be associated with lower mobility. One plausible explanation is that the variable we use measures a concept diﬀerent from teacher support. For example, conditional on support from the principal, agree- ment with the statement that “Rules for student behavior are consistently enforced by teachers in this school, even for students who are not in their classes” may mean there are problems related to student discipline at the school. Another explanation for why teacher support and cooperation are in some cases associated with higher mobility can be inferred from open-ended responses in the 2012 TFS to the question that asks teachers to provide their reason for moving. Responses include the statements “I took a transfer in order to ensure that a colleague would not be transferred” and “One teacher needed to volunteer to relocate for one year. I volunteered.” Support from parents, which enters all models in table 3, is associated with lower probability of turnover. Similar to support from the administration, the relationship is strongest for minority teachers at low-minority schools, for whom one standard deviation increase in parental support decreases the probability of moving by about 1 percentage point on average. Additional coeﬃcient estimates from some of the spec- iﬁcations are shown in Appendix table A.3. Because the model includes school ﬁxed eﬀects, school and principal characteristics measure the impact of changes over time, which in most cases are not substantial. The estimated coeﬃcients for these variables are noisy and typically not statistically diﬀerent from zero and are not shown. Consis- tent with the ﬁndings in Grissom and Keiser (2011), minority teachers, particularly at low-minority schools, have lower turnover rates when supervised by a minority prin- cipal. We do not ﬁnd a statistically signiﬁcant diﬀerence in turnover rates based on gender congruence between the teacher and principal. The relationship between salary and the probability of moving is negative but not statistically signiﬁcant—this result is consistent with the ﬁndings in Hanushek et al. (2004) and Scaﬁdi, Sjoquist, and Stine- brickner (2007), who provide evidence that salary plays a relatively small role in the decision to move to another school. Appendix table A.4 veriﬁes the robustness of the main results to estimating a multi- nomial logit model.16 The estimated relative risk ratios in columns 2 and 4 and their statistical signiﬁcance align with the ﬁndings in columns 4 and 8 of table 3. Columns 1 and 3 of table A.4 suggest that for minority teachers in nondiverse schools, the decision to leave the profession is driven by diﬀerent factors from the decision to move. The so- cial isolation theory we discuss in section 3 ignores issues such as intrinsic motivation that are likely to play an important role for selection into or out of teaching. The re- sults for leaving the teaching profession in columns 1 and 3 of table A.4 have important policy implications and should be investigated further in future research. 16. The estimated model includes a set of state-by-year indicators rather than school ﬁxed eﬀects. Because there are many schools in the data and typically a small number of teachers per school, including school ﬁxed eﬀects in a nonlinear model may lead to bias. 286 l D o w n o a d e d f r o m h t t p : / / d i r e c t . m i t . f / / e d u e d p a r t i c e - p d l f / / / / 1 4 2 2 7 2 1 6 9 2 7 0 9 e d p _ a _ 0 0 2 4 3 p d / . f f b y g u e s t t o n 0 7 S e p e m b e r 2 0 2 3 Steven Bednar and Dora Gicheva Robustness of the Results to Redefining Diversity The robustness of the main results to using alternative cutoﬀs for splitting the sample by the share of minority teachers at a school is explored in Appendix table A.5. First, the results in column 1 exclude from the sample of nondiverse institutions schools that report no minority teachers; the coeﬃcient estimates are comparable to those in col- umn 4 of table 3. Column 2 includes only the schools that report no minority teachers. As discussed in section 4, this sample includes a small fraction of teachers with self- reported minority status. The estimated relationship between administrative support and the probability of moving is 3.1 percentage points higher for nonwhite or Hispanic teachers in this group. The sample of schools that report a nonzero share of minor- ity teachers is split into four groups of approximately equal sizes and the results for each of these groups are shown in the remaining columns of table A.5. These results suggest that administrative support matters more for minority teachers’ turnover the less diverse their school is, and the diﬀerence in the estimated coeﬃcients by race and ethnicity shrinks as diversity increases. It should be noted that the most diverse group includes schools with 23 percent or more minority teachers. Restricting the sample further to more diverse schools results in small sample size and noisy coeﬃcient es- timates in the presence of school-level ﬁxed eﬀects. The coeﬃcient on parent support for minority teachers also becomes less negative as the level of diversity increases, but because its magnitude is smaller and standard errors are fairly large, we cannot reject the null hypothesis that the coeﬃcients are equal to zero across the speciﬁcations in columns 2–6. No clear-cut pattern emerges for the estimated coeﬃcients of teacher support. Appendix table A.6 further shows that the results are robust to redeﬁning the mi- nority variable to focus on black teachers rather than grouping all nonwhite or Hispanic individuals together. As we point out in section 4, the representation of other minor- ity groups is too low to conduct the analysis separately for them. We split the sample into schools with fewer than and more than 10 percent black teachers; just over 10 per- cent of schools report having more than 15 percent black teachers among their staﬀ, so we lower the cutoﬀ for more diverse schools in order to increase the sample size and accuracy of the estimates. Table A.6 shows similar trends to what we observe in table 3—administrative and parent support matter more for black than for nonblack teachers at nondiverse schools. The relationship between support and turnover does not diﬀer by race in more diverse schools. When administrative and parent support are held con- stant, teacher support has a positive but not statistically signiﬁcant relationship with the probability of moving for black teachers in both types of workplaces. Results by Subgroup It is well known that turnover is considerably higher among teachers who are new to the profession. Among teachers in the data (including leavers) with ﬁve or fewer years of experience in the profession, 78 percent remain at the same school over the course of one academic year. The corresponding fraction is 87 percent for more experienced teachers, where separations are much more likely to include retirements. Whereas only 5 percent of more experienced teachers move to a diﬀerent school, 11 percent of teachers l D o w n o a d e d f r o m h t t p : / / d i r e c t . m i t . / f / e d u e d p a r t i c e - p d l f / / / / 1 4 2 2 7 2 1 6 9 2 7 0 9 e d p _ a _ 0 0 2 4 3 p d / f . f b y g u e s t t o n 0 7 S e p e m b e r 2 0 2 3 287 Workplace Support and Teacher Diversity Table 4. Turnover Results by Subgroup Dependent Variable: Moved to Different School Sample Experience (cid:2)5 (1) Experience >5
(2)

High % NSLP

Bajo % NSLP

Town/Rural

(3)

(4)

(5)

Urban

(6)

Grupo A. (cid:2)10% Minority Teachers in School

Nonminority × Administrative support

Minority × Administrative support

Nonminority × Teacher support

Minority × Teacher support

Nonminority × Parent support

Minority × Parent Support

norte

−0.018***
(0.004)
−0.055***
(0.018)
−0.005
(0.004)
−0,003
(0.016)
−0.009**
(0.004)

0.009
(0.012)

19,380

−0.009***
(0.001)
−0.025***
(0.006)
−0.002*
(0.001)
0.016***
(0.005)
−0,002
(0.001)
−0.010*
(0.005)

64,510

−0.016***
(0.002)
−0,036***
(0.010)
−0.0005
(0.002)

0.005
(0.009)
−0.006***
(0.002)
−0,004
(0.008)

−0.008***
(0.002)
−0.026***
(0.007)
−0.004***
(0.002)
0.012*
(0.007)
−0,002
(0.002)
−0.016**
(0.007)

(0.002)

−0.011*** −0.013***
(0.002)
−0.035*** −0.024***
(0.007)
−0.003*
(0.002)

(0.008)
−0,002
(0.002)

0.008
0.011
(0.008)
(0.008)
−0.005*** −0.001
(0.002)
(0.001)
−0,007
−0.016**
(0.007)
(0.008)

33,240

50,650

51,140

32,750

Grupo B. >15% Minority Teachers in School

Nonminority × Administrative support

Minority × Administrative support

Nonminority × Teacher support

Minority × Teacher support

Nonminority × Parent support

Minority × Parent support

norte

−0.029***
(0.008)
−0.016**
(0.008)
−0,007
(0.007)

0.006
(0.007)
−0.005
(0.006)
−0.016**
(0.008)

8,950

−0.018***
(0.003)
−0.017***
(0.003)
−0,001
(0.003)
−0.0004
(0.004)
−0,001
(0.003)
−0,004
(0.004)

21,280

−0.018***
(0.004)
−0.020***
(0.004)
−0.006*
(0.004)
0.006*
(0.003)
−0.0004
(0.003)
−0.005
(0.004)

−0.019***
(0.004)
−0.020**
(0.008)
−0.005
(0.005)
−0,007
(0.009)
−0,003
(0.004)
−0,003
(0.008)

(0.004)

−0.019*** −0.018***
(0.005)
−0.021*** −0.021***
(0.005)
−0,006
(0.004)

(0.004)
−0.006*
(0.003)

0.003
(0.005)
−0,001
(0.004)
−0,001
(0.005)

0.004
(0.004)
−0,001
(0.003)
−0,006
(0.004)

22,660

7,570

12,010

18,220

9.3

15.6

23.9

36.3

105.5

52.2

Notas: Distribution of the number of minority students per minority teacher at the schools in the sample. The ratio is calculated as the
number of nonwhite or Hispanic students divided by the number of nonwhite or Hispanic full-time or part-time teachers plus 1 to avoid
dividing by 0 for the schools with no minority teachers.

6 . CONCLUSIÓN
Workplace support has been shown to decrease turnover for public school teachers of all
demographic backgrounds. en este estudio, we document a more nuanced result, a saber,
that the eﬀect of support is strongest for minority teachers in schools where minori-
ties are underrepresented. Using four waves of data from the nationally representative
Schools and Staﬃng Survey, we show that support from the school’s administration re-
duces the likelihood of moving to a diﬀerent school for all teachers but the relationship
is especially pronounced for nonwhite or Hispanic teachers at schools where 10 por ciento
or fewer of all teachers are also nonwhite or Hispanic. Focusing on teachers who are
new to the profession strengthens the result.

Concerns over the higher turnover rates of minority teachers have been expressed
in the literature (p.ej., Achinstein y otros. 2010). The ﬁndings we present are particularly
relevant given that it has been found that turnover is higher for minority teachers who
teach in less diverse schools (Hanushek, Kain, and Rivkin 2004), and a similar trend
of higher turnover for minority workers in nondiverse organizations has been docu-
mented in other labor market settings (Leonard and Levine 2006). Mesa 5 shows that
there tend to be more minority students per minority teacher in less-diverse schools,
which further underscores the importance of retaining these teachers. Por ejemplo,
the median number of minority students per minority teacher is twenty-eight in less-
diverse schools and slightly lower, twenty-four, in more diverse schools. The ratio grows
to two to one at the 90th percentile. Our results suggest that one way to increase di-
versity through retaining current minority employees is by providing more workplace
apoyo.

This work has important policy implications for principal staﬃng. If a school’s goal
is to increase the diversity of its staﬀ, then placing principals with a demonstrated his-
tory of providing workplace support, especially to minority teachers, can increase diver-
sity through retention. The implications for increasing diversity in organizations are
even broader if our results are shown to be applicable in other labor market settings.
One limitation of the paper is that the data provide only a measure of perceived, bastante
than actual, workplace support. Having both available would be more informative but
results in studies such as Ladd (2011) aﬃrm the usefulness of measures of teachers’
perceptions of their working conditions.

Another limitation is that we do not observe where most of the teachers in the study
move to, so it is diﬃcult to assess the full beneﬁt of retaining minority teachers at
their current school. Although there are documented beneﬁts of increasing diversity
in the workplace, some of these teachers may move to harder-to-staﬀ schools. Cifra 4

290

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
mi
d
pag
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

1
4
2
2
7
2
1
6
9
2
7
0
9
mi
d
pag
_
a
_
0
0
2
4
3
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

Steven Bednar and Dora Gicheva

Notas: Predicted values based on coefficient estimates and standard errors from the regression model %(cid:8)FamInc = β0 +
β1MinorityTeacher + β2FractionMinority + β3(MinorityTeacher × FractionMinority) + α1999 + α2003 + α2007 + ε. El
sample consists of 3,320 teachers from the main estimation sample who were followed in the Teacher Follow-up Survey and indicated
they moved to a different school. %(cid:8)FamInc is the percent change in average family income in the ZIP Code of the school where a
teacher works. It is calculated as %(cid:8)FamInc = (FamIncT FS − FamIncSASS )/FamIncSASS, with average family income based
sobre el 2000 Census. Sample sizes are rounded to the nearest 10.

Cifra 4. Percent Change in Average Family Income in School ZIP Code for Movers

oﬀers crude evidence that teachers who move tend to go to schools in more aﬄuent
areas, nonminorities more so than minorities, especially if they leave a school with
a high fraction of minority staﬀ. The ﬁgure shows that for the 3,320 teachers in our
sample who are followed in the TFS and report moving, el 2000 Census mean family
income in the ZIP Code of the school in which they work is, on average, higher after the
move. The predicted increase is small, acerca de 10 puntos de porcentaje, for respondents who
leave schools with low fraction of minority teachers. It is more pronounced for teachers
who leave more diverse schools, particularly if they are white. The trends in ﬁgure 4
are an indication that even minority teachers who leave schools with nondiverse staﬀ
tend to move to schools in areas where families have more resources, which provides
some evidence that these teachers do not go to schools where they can serve more
disadvantaged students.

The SASS data do not allow us to link retention of minority teachers in nondiverse
schools to student performance, but it is important for future research to examine how
administrators’ support for teachers from underrepresented minority groups translates
to student achievement, especially for minority students. It is also essential to under-
stand better the mechanism through which supportive principals help retain minority
teachers in nondiverse schools, whether it is through improving teaching eﬀectiveness,
fostering a more accepting climate, or implementing other policies that have a diﬀer-
ential impact on nonwhite or Hispanic teachers.

EXPRESIONES DE GRATITUD
We thank Charles Clotfelter, Andrew Greenland, Kathryn Rouse, and Peter Youngs for helpful
comments.

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
mi
d
pag
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

1
4
2
2
7
2
1
6
9
2
7
0
9
mi
d
pag
_
a
_
0
0
2
4
3
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

291

Workplace Support and Teacher Diversity

REFERENCIAS
Achinstein, Betty, Rodney T. Ogawa, Dena Sexton, and Casia Freitas. 2010. Retaining teachers of
color: A pressing problem and a potential strategy for hard-to-staﬀ schools. Review of Educational
Investigación 80(1): 71–107.

Alesina, Alberto, and Eliana La Ferrara. 2000. Participation in heterogeneous communities.
Revista trimestral de economía 115(3): 847–904.

Athey, Susan, Christopher Avery, and Peter Zemsky. 2000. Mentoring and diversity. Americano
Economic Review 90(4): 765–786.

chico, Donald, Hamilton Lankford, Susana Loeb, y James Wyckoff. 2011a. Teacher layoﬀs: Un
empirical illustration of seniority versus measures of eﬀectiveness. Education Finance and Policy
6(3): 439–454.

chico, Donald, Pamela Grossman, Marsha Ing, Hamilton Lankford, Susana Loeb, y James Wyck-
apagado. 2011b. La influencia de los administradores escolares en las decisiones de retención de docentes. educación americana-
revista de investigación cacional 48(2): 303–333.

Cannata, Marisa. 2010. Understanding the teacher job search process: Espoused preferences and
preferences in use. Teachers College Record 112(12): 2889–2934.

Dee, Thomas S. 2004. Maestros, carrera, and student achievement in a randomized experiment.
Review of Economics and Statistics 86(1): 195–210.

Dee, Thomas S. 2005. A teacher like me: Does race, etnicidad, or gender matter? American Eco-
nomic Review 95(2): 158–165.

Dolton, Peter, and Wilbert van der Klaauw. 1999. The turnover of teachers: A competing risks
explicación. Review of Economics and Statistics 81(3): 543–550.

Ehrenberg, Ronald G., Daniel D. Goldhaber, and Dominic J. Cervecero. 1995. Do teachers’ race, generación-
der, and ethnicity matter? Evidence from the National Educational Longitudinal Study of 1988.
Industrial & Labor Relations Review 48(3): 547–561.

Fairlie, Robert W., Florian Hoﬀmann, and Philip Oreopoulos. 2014. A community college instruc-
tor like me: Race and ethnicity interactions in the classroom. Revisión económica estadounidense 104(8):
2567–2591.

feng, li, and Tim R. Sass. 2016. Teacher quality and teacher mobility. Education Finance and
Política 12(3): 396–418.

Gibbons, Roberto, Lawrence F. katz, Thomas Lemieux, and Daniel Parent. 2005. Comparative
advantage, aprendiendo, and sectoral wage determination. Journal of Labor Economics 23(4): 681–724.

Grissom, Jason A. 2011. Can good principals keep teachers in disadvantaged schools? Enlace
principal eﬀectiveness to teacher satisfaction and turnover in hard-to-staﬀ environments. Maestros
College Record 113(11): 2552–2585.

Grissom, jason a., and Lael R. Keiser. 2011. A supervisor like me: Carrera, representación, y el
satisfaction and turnover decisions of public sector employees. Journal of Policy Analysis and Man-
agement 30(3): 557–580.

Grissom, jason a., Jill Nicholson-Crotty, and Lael Keiser. 2012. Does my boss’s gender matter?
Explaining job satisfaction and employee turnover in the public sector. Journal of Public Admin-
istration Research and Theory 22(4): 649–673.

292

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
mi
d
pag
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

1
4
2
2
7
2
1
6
9
2
7
0
9
mi
d
pag
_
a
_
0
0
2
4
3
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

Steven Bednar and Dora Gicheva

Grissom, jason a., Samantha L. Viano, and Jennifer L. Selin. 2015. Understanding employee
turnover in the public sector: Insights from research on teacher mobility. Public Administration
Revisar 76(2): 241–251.

Hanushek, eric a. 1997. Assessing the eﬀects of school resources on student performance: Un
update. Evaluación educativa y análisis de políticas 19(2): 141–164.

Hanushek, eric a., John F. Kain, y Steven G.. Rivkin. 2004. Why public schools lose teachers.
Journal of Human Resources 39(2): 326–354.

Jackson, C. Kirabo, and Elias Bruegmann. 2009. Teaching students and teaching each other:
The importance of peer learning for teachers. Revista económica americana: Economía Aplicada 1(4):
85–108.

kraft, Mateo A.. 2015. Teacher layoﬀs, teacher quality, y rendimiento estudiantil: Evidencia de
a discretionary layoﬀ policy. Education Finance and Policy 11(4): 1–41.

Kukla-Acevedo, Sharon. 2009. Leavers, mudanzas, and stayers: The role of workplace conditions in
teacher mobility decisions. Journal of Educational Research 102(6): 443–452.

muchacho, Helen F. 2011. Teachers perceptions of their working conditions: How predictive of planned
and actual teacher movement? Evaluación educativa y análisis de políticas 33(2): 235–261.

leonardo, Jonathan S., and David I. Levin. 2006. The eﬀect of diversity on turnover: A large case
estudiar. Industrial & Labor Relations Review 59(4): 547–572.

Neal, Derek. 1999. The complexity of job mobility among young men. Journal of Labor Economics
17(2): 237–261.

Ronfeldt, Matthew, Susana Loeb, y James Wyckoff. 2013. How teacher turnover harms stu-
dent achievement. American Educational Research Journal 50(1): 4–36.

Scaﬁdi, Benjamín, David L. Sjoquist, and Todd R. Stinebrickner. 2007. Carrera, poverty, and teacher
movilidad. Revisión de la economía de la educación 46(2): 145–159.

Stinebrickner, Todd R. 2002. An analysis of occupational change and departure from the labor
fuerza: Evidence of the reasons that teachers leave. Journal of Human Resources 37(1): 192–216.

Strunk, Katharine O., and Joseph Paul Robinson. 2006. Oh, won’t you stay: A multilevel analysis
of the diﬃculties in retaining qualiﬁed teachers. Peabody Journal of Education 81(4): 65–94.

APÉNDICE A : A D D I T I O N A L DATA

Cuadro A.1. Summary Statistics for Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) Sample

(cid:2)10% Minority Teachers

>15% Minority Teachers

Minority

Nonminority

Minority

Nonminority

(1)

0.92

0.08

0.15
(0.98)

0.14
(0.98)

0.12
(1.00)

(2)

0.94

0.06

0.13
(0.96)

0.08
(0.97)

0.17
(0.96)

(3)

0.92

0.08

0.04
(1.04)

0.02
(1.02)

0.05
(1.05)

(4)

0.92

0.08
−0,03
(1.03)
−0,03
(1.04)
−0,02
(1.02)

Stay at current school

Move to different school

School support

Administrative support

Support from other teachers

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
mi
d
pag
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

1
4
2
2
7
2
1
6
9
2
7
0
9
mi
d
pag
_
a
_
0
0
2
4
3
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

293

Workplace Support and Teacher Diversity

Cuadro A.1. Continuado.

(cid:2)10% Minority Teachers

>15% Minority Teachers

Minority

Nonminority

Minority

Nonminority

(1)

2.70
(0.90)

(2)

2.73
(0.86)

(3)

2.50
(0.97)

(4)

2.37
(0.95)

0.74

0.75

0.76

0.75

$54,896 ($16,942)

$55,492 ($17,020)

$55,697 ($15,703)

$56,660 ($17,013)

0.79

12.57
(9.35)

7.11
(7.63)

0.13

0.45

7.59
(6.83)

4.34
(4.47)

13.23
(7.03)

0.01

0.42

4.82
(3.13)

36.37
(26.56)

839.30
(616.48)

15.45
(4.47)

34.11
(25.77)

77.48
(94.60)

0.02

7.96
(6.27)

0.23

0.40

0.13

0.24

0.61

0.35

0.04

0.80

14.58
(9.73)

8.74
(8.38)

0.06

0.40

8.19
(7.09)

4.77
(4.93)

12.86
(6.79)

0.02

0.43

2.64
(2.98)

31.67
(23.76)

737.32
(552.63)

14.91
(4.23)

20.18
(21.14)

56.75
(68.02)

0.01

6.84
(4.98)

0.14

0.36

0.17

0.33

0.62

0.33

0.05

0.75

12.1
(9.32)

6.45
(7.05)

0.57

6.96
(6.37)

3.84
(4.28)

13.33
(7.09)

0.01

0.38

52.73
(25.41)

67.60
(27.68)

948.63
(716.89)

15.82
(4.36)

84.51
(19.66)

28.35
(16.98)

0.03

17.31
(10.44)

0.54

0.27

0.08

0.11

0.68

0.27

0.04

0.74

13.52
(9.84)

7.11
(7.42)

0.37

0.53

7.15
(6.34)

3.99
(4.21)

13.37
(7.14)

0.02

0.4

35.37
(21.02)

56.80
(28.78)

976.22
(748.74)

15.93
(4.47)

71.34
(25.30)

34.37
(19.81)

0.03

13.01
(8.99)

0.46

0.30

0.09

0.15

0.63

0.33

0.05

Parent support

Características del docente

Female

School-related yearly earnings

(2011 dollars)

Union member

Years of experience

Years of tenure

Principal characteristics

Minority

Female

Years of experience as principal

Years principal at current school

Years of teaching experience

Currently teaching

Has graduate degree

School characteristics

% teachers of racial/ethnic minority

% students approved for NSLP

Total enrollment in school

Students per FTE teacher

% students of racial/ethnic minority

Minority student-to-teacher ratio

Charter school

Poverty rate in school ZIP Code

Share of schools by location

City

Suburb

Ciudad

Rural area

% Schools by level

Elementary

Secondary

Combined

Number of observations

4,000

79,890

11,990

18,240

Notas: Data for 21,860 public schools. The sample includes teachers from the 1999, 2003, 2007, y
2011 waves of the SASS who remained in teaching the following year. Standard errors are shown in
parentheses. The statistics are calculated using SASS teacher weights. The sample sizes are rounded to
the nearest 10. FTE = equivalente a tiempo completo; NSLP = National School Lunch Program.

294

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
mi
d
pag
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

1
4
2
2
7
2
1
6
9
2
7
0
9
mi
d
pag
_
a
_
0
0
2
4
3
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

Steven Bednar and Dora Gicheva

Tabla A.2. Factor Loadings from Principal Component Analysis

School Support

Administrative Support

Teacher Support

Supportive administration

Principal enforces rules

Principal communication

Staff recognized

Teachers enforce rules

Colleagues share beliefs

Cooperación

Eigenvalue
Cronbach’s α

0.38

0.39

0.41

0.40

0.36

0.32

0.37

3.74

0.85

0.51

0.50

0.51

0.48

2.7

0.84

Nota: The reported results are for the first factor from separate models.

Table A.3. Additional Coefficient Estimates from the Main Model

0.57

0.59

0.58

2.01

0.74

Minority teacher

Nonminority teacher × Minority principal

Minority teacher × Minority principal

Female teacher

Female principal

Female teacher × Female principal

Características del docente

Ln(salary)

Union member

Tenure

Experience

Experience squared

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

0.022
(0.015)
−0.017**
(0.009)
−0.030*
(0.018)
−0.009***
(0.002)

0.007
(0.005)
−0,001
(0.005)

0.025
(0.015)
−0.017**
(0.009)
−0.030*
(0.018)
−0.009***
(0.002)

0.007
(0.005)
−0,001
(0.005)

0.010
(0.012)
−0.005
(0.011)
−0.017*
(0.010)
−0.012***
(0.005)

0.0003
(0.011)
−0,007
(0.009)

0.011
(0.012)
−0.005
(0.011)
−0.017*
(0.010)
−0.013***
(0.005)

0.0003
(0.010)
−0,007
(0.009)

−0,008
(0.006)
−0.007**
(0.003)
−0.002***
(0.0002)
−0.005***
(0.0004)
0.00012***
(0.00001)

−0,015
(0.011)
−0,003
(0.005)
−0.003***
(0.0003)
−0.005***
(0.001)
0.00010***
(0.00002)

−0,015
(0.011)
−0,004
(0.005)
−0.003***
(0.0003)
−0.005***
(0.001)
0.00010***
(0.00002)

Notas: Additional coefficient estimates from the models in table 3.
***pag < 0.01; **p < 0.05; *p < 0.10. Table A.4. Multinomial Logit Results Nonminority × Administrative support Minority × Administrative support (cid:2)10% Minority >15% Minority

Leave

(1)

0.814***
(0.015)

0.952
(0.066)

Move

(2)

0.813***
(0.015)
0.689***
(0.046)

Leave

(3)

0.773***
(0.024)
0.822***
(0.032)

Move

(4)

0.820***
(0.029)
0.818***
(0.033)

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
mi
d
pag
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

1
4
2
2
7
2
1
6
9
2
7
0
9
mi
d
pag
_
a
_
0
0
2
4
3
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

295

Workplace Support and Teacher Diversity

Table A.4. Continuado.

(cid:2)10% Minority

>15% Minority

Leave

(1)

1.004
(0.018)
0.883*
(0.060)
0.947***
(0.019)

0.995
(0.070)

Move

(2)

0.950***
(0.019)

1.107
(0.083)
0.924***
(0.018)
0.845**
(0.057)

Leave

(3)

0.967
(0.031)

0.965
(0.036)
0.946**
(0.025)

0.974
(0.035)

Move

(4)

0.902***
(0.032)

0.997
(0.043)
0.950*
(0.028)

0.936
(0.039)

Nonminority × Teacher support

Minority × Teacher support

Nonminority × Parent support

Minority × Parent support

norte

89,440

33,250

Notas: The base outcome is continuing to teach at the same school. The presented coefficients are
relative risk ratios. All specifications include the teacher, principal, and school characteristics from
the main model; indicators for teacher’s education, Los grados, and main subject taught; and interactions
between teacher and principal minority status and teacher and principal gender. State-by-year fixed
effects are included as dummy variables. All errors are clustered at the state-year level.
***pag < 0.01; **p < 0.05; *p < 0.10. Table A.5. Support and Turnover at Schools with Different Levels of Diversity Dependent Variable: Moved to Different School (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) l D o w n o a d e d f r o m h t t p : / / d i r e c t . m i t . / f / e d u e d p a r t i c e - p d l f / / / / 1 4 2 2 7 2 1 6 9 2 7 0 9 e d p _ a _ 0 0 2 4 3 p d f . / f b y g u e s t t o n 0 7 S e p e m b e r 2 0 2 3 Nonminority × Administrative support −0.011*** −0.012*** −0.005** (0.002) Minority × Administrative support Nonminority × Teacher support Minority × Teacher support Nonminority × Parent support Minority × Parent Support N % Minority teachers (0.002) (0.002) −0.026*** −0.043*** −0.034*** (0.011) (0.007) −0.004** −0.002 (0.002) (0.002) (0.012) −0.002 (0.003) 0.023** 0.014 (0.010) (0.011) −0.006*** −0.002 (0.002) (0.002) −0.010 −0.013 (0.010) (0.011) 0.008 (0.006) −0.002 (0.002) −0.011* (0.006) 46,130 (0,10] −0.016*** (0.003) −0.026*** (0.009) −0.001 (0.003) 0.004 (0.009) 0.00004 (0.003) −0.009 (0.007) −0.019*** (0.003) −0.019*** (0.006) −0.006** (0.002) −0.008 (0.007) −0.002 (0.003) −0.009 (0.006) 21,460 −0.018*** (0.004) −0.020*** (0.003) −0.005 (0.003) 0.005* (0.003) −0.001 (0.003) −0.002 (0.003) 21,530 37,760 21,420 21,580 0 (0,3.85] (3.85,8.871] (8.871,23.0768] (23.0768,100] Notes: All specifications include school fixed effects and all covariates from the main models. The errors are clustered at the state–year level. The sample sizes are rounded to the nearest 10. ***p < 0.01; **p < 0.05; *p < 0.10. Table A.6. Support and Turnover for Black Teachers Nonblack × Administrative support Black × Administrative support Dependent Variable: Moved to Different School (cid:2)10% Black (1) −0.013*** (0.001) −0.023** (0.010) >10% Negro
(2)

−0.023***
(0.003)
−0.023***
(0.006)

296

Steven Bednar and Dora Gicheva

Table A.6. Continuado.

Dependent Variable: Moved to Different School

(cid:2)10% Negro
(1)

−0.004***
(0.001)

0.004
(0.009)
−0.004***
(0.001)
−0.024***
(0.008)

102,010

>10% Black
(2)

−0.0001
(0.003)

0.006
(0.005)
−0,001
(0.003)
−0,002
(0.005)

21,720

Nonblack × Teacher support

Black × Teacher support

Nonblack × Parent support

Black × Parent support

norte

Notas: The specifications include school fixed effects and all covariates from the main models.
The errors are clustered at the state–year level. The sample sizes are rounded to the nearest 10.
***pag < 0.01; **p < 0.05. l D o w n o a d e d f r o m h t t p : / / d i r e c t . m i t . f / / e d u e d p a r t i c e - p d l f / / / / 1 4 2 2 7 2 1 6 9 2 7 0 9 e d p _ a _ 0 0 2 4 3 p d / . f f b y g u e s t t o n 0 7 S e p e m b e r 2 0 2 3 297 WORKPLACE SUPPORT AND DIVERSITY image

Descargar PDF