3 ms·
According to your data, a 20:1 ratio could be explained. The first figure of your link [3] shows that the ratio for elementary level teachers is 89:11. Pluggin
by jfim 6y ago
According to your data, a 20:1 ratio could be explained. The first figure of your link [3] shows that the ratio for elementary level teachers is 89:11.
Plugging these numbers into R shows that it's not exactly a surprising result:
> prop.test(1,21,p=11/100)
1-sample proportions test with continuity correction
data: 1 out of 21, null probability 11/100
X-squared = 0.31913, df = 1, p-value = 0.5721
alternative hypothesis: true p is not equal to 0.11
- groby_b 6y agoYep - my mistake, I only looked at the LAUSD data for elementary schools, and then at total numbers instead for the following data sets. This makes the "principals are 1:1" data even more interesting. It also lends a good chunk more weight to the idea that at least elementary schools are an environment with outsizedly more female role models. I still think the "build a system" argument doesn't hold - see the 1:1 data - but I'm certainly more convinced on "the effects of the system-as-is result in this", even without the conscious build step.