…we find that black students randomly assigned to a black teacher in grades K-3 are 5 percentage points (7%) more likely to graduate from high school and 4 percentage points (13%) more likely to enroll in college than their peers in the same school who are not assigned a black teacher.
…We envision role model effects as information provision: black teachers provide a crucial signal that leads black students to update their beliefs about the returns to effort and what educational outcomes are possible.
This is from an intriguing working paper looking at natural experiments in Louisiana and North Carolina.
It fits with similar research into the importance and lasting effects of role models. They spur our dreams, change our attitudes, and shape our beliefs and expectations.
A superstar – especially one that is like you – can completely shatter self imposed limitations. Take this from a famous recent paper:
Girls are more likely to invent in a particular class if they grow up in an area with more women (but not men) who invent in that class… These findings suggest that there are many “lost Einsteins” – individuals who would have had highly impactful inventions had they been exposed to innovation in childhood – especially among women, minorities, and children from low-income families.
In the west we tend to focus on the individual. Often in zero-sum situations.
But when you add in the context of previous and future generations, we all have a stake in a visible diversity of success.
It will spur the next generation. It compounds.
Wouldn’t we all benefit from fewer “lost Einstein’s”?
As always my emphasis.
As a coda to the last post about banning headscarves, Vasiliki Fouka has another working paper looking at the impact of US schools banning German as a language of instruction after World War One:
Aﬀected individuals were less likely to volunteer in WWII and more likely to marry within their ethnic group and to choose decidedly German names for their oﬀspring. Rather than facilitating the assimilation of immigrant children, the policy instigated a backlash, heightening the sense of cultural identity among the minority...
Apparently it went further than this, with some states even banning the use of German over the telephone and some language that wouldn’t look too out of place in some contemporary discourse:
A 1915 pamphlet of the American Defense League, one of the largest nationalist political groups of the time, reads as follows: “Any language which produces a people of ruthless conquistadores [sic] such as now exists in Germany, is not ﬁt to teach clean and pure American boys and girls.”
But the main thing is, the heightening of minority identity is similar, despite it being a completely different country and affected group:
In line with the model, the backlash is greater in counties with a smaller share of German population. This is consistent with a cultural transmission mechanism in which parental and peer socialization are substitutes: In places where Germans constitute a smaller minority, parents try harder to shape each child’s sense of ethnicity because they cannot reasonably expect that children will be socialized in their ethnic culture through peer interaction alone… The extent of the backlash was higher also in counties with a greater share of Lutherans.. The implication is that communities with a greater initial sense of ethnic identity reacted more adversely to assimilation policies… The number of pupils enrolled in Sunday schools increased post-war in states that experienced a German language ban. No corresponding increase was observed in other activities of the church, such as number of schools or services held in German. This suggests that the backlash was driven by increased demand of parents for German enculturation, and not by increased supply of ethnic indoctrination by the church.
As always my emphasis.
We ﬁnd that the law reduces the secondary educational attainment of Muslim girls, and impacts their trajectory in the labor market and family composition in the long run. We provide evidence that the ban operates through increased perceptions of discrimination and that it reduces assimilation by casting religion and national identities as incompatible.
This is from a recent working paper looking at a 2004 French law that banned “religious signs” in primary and secondary schools. It affected many religions, but was essentially a de facto ban on Muslim girls wearing headscarves in school.
These bans are purportedly to encourage assimilation and a homogenisation of values. But study authors Aala Abdelgadir and Vasiliki Fouka find that it can actually intensify a minority sense of identity.
Which makes sense. I’m struggling to think of a ban on anything that actually changed minds. Some part of the population will follow the decree because they believe in it already. Others will stomach it. And the rest will contravene and reap the consequences/rewards.
In cases like murder, the benefits of a ban outweigh the consequences for the individual. For some drugs, the tide seems to be shifting in the other direction.
But do the benefits of forced cultural homogenisation really outweigh the consequences for these women and their families? Especially given they could rebound for generations?
We measure educational and socioeconomic outcomes of French-born women with parents from Muslim-majority countries who were just old enough to have been at school when the law was enacted, and compare them to older cohorts who did not experience the ban, and to a variety of control groups, including non-Muslim immigrants and Muslim men.
Our ﬁrst ﬁnding is that exposure to the ban signiﬁcantly reduces the likelihood of completing secondary education. Part of this eﬀect appears to be driven by a negative impact on enrollment rates in secondary school for Muslim women aged 16 and above… We also ﬁnd that Muslim women aﬀected by the ban took longer to complete secondary education, conditional on their pre-existing age-educational proﬁles. These higher dropout rates and longer completion times indicate that the ban disrupted the educational progress of Muslim girls. This negative educational shock carries over to a number of longer term outcomes, such as labor force participation, employment rates, and fertility patterns.
These women and families were wearing scarves for a legitimate reason to them. That a top-down approach is destined to fail is driven home by the mechanism by which this all occurred:
We show that these longer run eﬀects of the ban work through two hypothesized pathways: a discrimination channel, and an identity channel. First, women aﬀected by the ban report increased perceptions of discrimination at school and a lower trust in the French school system… Second.. Muslim women were forced to choose between a secular French identity and attachment to their religious practices, a conﬂict that often led to alienation from the French society. In the data, Muslim women aﬀected by the ban increase their identiﬁcation with the nationality of their father relatively more than their identiﬁcation with France.
As always my emphasis.