Tag Archives: Geoffrey Wodtke

Working Paper 2016-01

Does School Poverty Mediate the Effects of Neighborhood Context on Academic Achievement during Childhood?

Geoff T. Wodtke, University of Toronto

Matthew Parbst, University of Toronto

UT Sociology Working Paper No. 2016-01

July 2016

Keywords: neighbourhoods, schools, academic achievement, poverty, mediation, childhood

Full Article


Abstract

Theory suggests that the school environment is an important pathway through which the effects of neighborhood poverty on educational outcomes are transmitted, especially earlier in the life course when young children are thought to be most sensitive to neighborhood institutional resources. Using data from the PSID, counterfactual methods, and a value-added estimation strategy, we investigate whether primary school poverty mediates the effects of neighborhood context on academic achievement during childhood. Contrary to expectations, results indicate that school poverty is not a significant mediator of neighborhood effects during this developmental period. Although moving from a high-poverty neighborhood to a low-poverty neighborhood during childhood is estimated to substantially reduce subsequent exposure to school poverty and improve academic achievement, school poverty does not play an important mediating role because even the large differences in school composition linked to differences in neighborhood context have no appreciable effect on achievement. A battery of formal sensitivity analyses suggests that these results are highly robust to the presence of unobserved confounding, to the use of alternative model specifications, and to the use of alternative measures of school context.

University of Toronto Sociology Working Paper 2016-01

Are Smart People Actually Less Racist?

WodtkeProfessor Geoffrey Wodtke studies the contextual and individual-level determinants of inter-group relations. His research studying the connections between racism and intelligence was published this month in Social Problems and has been featured in the media, including in The National Post, Yahoo News and the Washington Post. The original article is Geoffrey T. Wodtke Soc Probl (2016) 63 (1): 21-45 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/socpro/spv028 First published online: 8 January 2016 (25 pages). The Washington Post piece is excerpted here:

Are Smarter People Actually Less Racist?

By Max Ehrenfreind

Bernie Sanders isn’t the first presidential candidate to oppose reparations for slavery. All the same, the Vermont senator running for the Democratic presidential nomination has been criticized for his position over the past few days. Ta-Nehisi Coates of the Atlantic noted that Sanders promises his liberal supporters their dreams on all kinds of other issues, even if those dreams are controversial and politically infeasible. The issue of race should be no different, Coates argued.

It is, though. Recent research shows that Americans think about racial questions differently than other political issues.

In general, people with better scores on tests of intelligence are more likely to describe themselves as liberal, researchers have found. For example, they’re more likely to support intrusive governmental policies intended to protect the environment, according to the new study, which was published this month. They’re also more likely to say that African Americans are discriminated against and far less likely to call them stupid or lazy.

When you get down to the brass tacks of dealing with racial prejudice, though, more intelligent people seem to tunnel back into the woodwork. The new study revealed that smarter respondents are no more likely to support specific policies designed to improve racial equality — even though they are more liberal on other issues and are more likely to see discrimination as a problem.

That was the riddle Geoffrey Wodtke, the author of the study and a sociologist at the University of Toronto, was hoping to solve. To be sure, many white participants probably were conservatives who opposed the policies for reasons having nothing to do with race — skepticism about the government’s ability to engineer social change or commitment to the ideal of the free market. Those reasons, though, should have been less compelling for the more intelligent respondents.

“If this is truly an issue of higher-ability whites being more opposed to fairly intrusive government interventions,” Wodtke said, “they should be opposed to those across the board, at least if the principle is consistently applied.”

His conclusion is that while many intelligent Americans might think of themselves as progressive, they might not be entirely prepared to stand by their stated views on race…Read the full article