Sda - Group 5 Final Project

Running Head: GROUP 5: FINAL PROJECT 1
Group 5: Final Project
Prajacta Kulkarni, Alexandra Milan and Erika Samsone
University of Washington, Secondary Data Analysis

GROUP 5: FINAL PROJECT 2
Group 5: Final Project

Question 1: How do studies that have used the NELS operationalize social capital and cultural capital
variables?
Different studies that have used NELS operationalize social capital and cultural capital variables
differently. However, the study that we focused on, and how we chose our variables for social and
cultural capital said that Powell, Steelman, & Carini (2006) classified cultural classes (i.e., attending
classes outside school in art, music, dance, language, and computers) as cultural capital (p. 1365).
Powell, Steelman, & Carini (2006) also mentioned that their operationalization of cultural capital
includeschildren's attendance at art, science, and history museums (p. 1365) as well. For social capital
the authors chose variables that show parents involvement with their child and in their childs
education. For example, some of the variables that the authors chose to use are: the number of the
childs friends and their parents that the mother knowsfrequency that parents help with childrens
homeworkfrequency that children and parents talk about school (Powell, Steelman, & Carini, 2006,
p. 1668). To create our social capital variable and our cultural capital variable, we also used the same
variables as Powell, Steelman, and Carini did in their article titled Advancing Age, Advantaged Youth:
Parental Age and the Transmission of Resources to Children.
Question 1a: What is the relationship between social capital/cultural capital variables and academic
achievement in high school?
The relationship between social capital and academic achievement in high school is significantly
correlated with r=0.11. The sample size for this correlation was 12144 students. The social capital
construct was made up of nine items: Parents help their child with homework, parents talk to their child
about school, parents talk to their child about plans after high school, parents know their childs friends,
and parents know their childs friends parents (this part had five different variables). The relationship
between cultural capital and academic achievement in high school is also significantly correlated with
r=0.08. The same size again for this correlation was 12144 students. The cultural capital construct was
made up of eight items: whether the child is involved in art, music, dance, language, or computer classes
outside of school (these were five different variables), and whether the child visits art museums, science
museums, or history museums (this was three different variables).
To create the social and cultural capital constructs, an EFA was run based on some variables that
seemed like they could go together. For social capital thirteen variables were chosen, however after
looking at the EFA results, it was determined that nine of those original thirteen variables would go
together better than the others, those are the variables that were used in the creation of social capital
because together their Cronbachs alpha was a .91, meaning that a latent construct based on these
variables could be created. (The Cronbachs alpha for the original thirteen variables was a .34). For the
EFA on cultural capital, eight variables were chosen. Based on the EFA results, all eight of the variables
chosen would be able to work well together, so a reliability test was done, with the Cronbachs alpha at
.98, meaning once again that a latent construct could be created based on the eight variables.
Question 2: What are the differences in math and science scores for respondents who are high school
dropouts versus high school completers?
After running separate independent T-Tests for both math and science standardized scores, the
mean scores for high school dropouts is higher in for math and science scores. One reason for this is that
the sample size for high school completers is a lot larger than the sample size for non-completers at
11,382 and 618 respectively. Having a larger sample size means that there are more students who have
taken the standardized tests, and may have scored lower on them, thus making the mean of math and
science scores lower; whereas the students who are high school dropouts have a smaller sample size,
meaning that fewer students took the math and science standardized tests. Therefore, even if some
students scored lower on their test, the smaller sample size means that the lower scores wont affect
the mean score as much.
Another reason for the difference between math and science scores for High School completers
versus high school dropouts is that just because a student did not complete high school does not
necessarily mean that he or she could not perform well on a standardized test. Since standardized tests
do not show overall student achievement, it is difficult to say if and how much standardized test scores
affect high school completion rates. For math standardized test score, high school graduates had M=63,
SE= .20, and high school dropouts had a M=74, SE=1.22. For science standardized test score, high school
graduates had a M=63, SE=.20, while high school dropouts had a M=75, SE=1.18.
Question 2a: Are their differences between the following groups: first-generation & non-first
generation, URM & non URM, female and male, low-income and high income?
Non-first generation students did better in math standardized test scores (M=67, SE=.33), than
first generation students in math standardized test scores (M= 61, SE=.26). This difference,7406, CI [-
4.45, -6.09] was statistically significant t(11314)=-12.56, p=.01. In addition, it represented a small sized
effect, r=-.14. Non-URM students did better in math standardized test scores (M=63, SE=.24), than URM
students in math standardized test scores (M=62, SE=.41). This difference, 5701, CI [-.018, -1.89] was
statistically significant t(11247)=-2, p=.01. In addition, it represented a small sized effect, r=.02. Males
did slightly better in math standardized test scores (M=63.2, SE=.30), than females in math standardized
test scores (M=62.5, SE=.29). This difference, 11382, CI [1.46, -.170] was not statistically significant
t(11384)=1.5, p=.01. In addition, it represented a small sized effect, r=.01. Lastly non-low income
students did better in math standardized test scores (M=66, SE=.40), than low income students (M=62,
SE=.26). This difference, 4536, CI [-3.67, -5.51] was statistically significant t(10348)=-9.77, p=.01. In
addition, it represented a small sized effect, r=-.14.
In terms of science standardized test scores, unsurprisingly, non-first generation students did
better (M=66, SE=.34), than first generation students (M=62, SE=.26). This difference, 7218, CI [-3.63, -
5.31] was statistically significant t(11314)=-10, p=.01. In addition, it represented a small sized effect, r= -
.12. URM students scored lower (M=61.6, SE=.42) than the non-URM students (M=63.3, SE=.23) in
science standardized test scores. This difference, 5621, CI [-.807, -2.71] was statistically significant
t(11274)=-3.6, p=.01. In addition, it represented a small sized effect, r=-.04. Female students scored
lower in science standardized test scores (M=62, SE= .29) than the male students (M=64, SE=.29). This
difference, 11345, CI [2.95, 1.31] was statistically significant t(11384)=5.1, p=.01. In addition, it
represented a small sized effect, r=.04. Low-income students also scored lower (M=62, SE=.25) on the
science standardized test compared to the non-low income students (M=65, SE=.41). This difference,
4399, CI [-2.72, -4.61] was statistically significant t(10348)=-7.6, p=.01. In addition, it represented a small
sized effect, r=-.11.
Question 3: What high school co-curricular experiences are related to college completion?
In order to examine what high school co-curricular experiences are related to college
completion, I chose to look at the correlation between participation in academic activities in relation to
students highest degree attained. Before doing so, both the Academic Activities and Highest Degree
Student Attained variables were recoded with dummy variables. Specifically, the missing codes in each
variable was recoded to one number instead of multiple (i.e., -999 versus -9, -8, and so forth) and the
valid codes were then renumbered starting from 0 versus 1. Academic Activities was then re-named to
Co-Curricular Activities and Highest Degree Student Attained was renamed to Highest Degree Earned. A
total of 3,582 students answered whether or not they participated in academic activities in high school
whereas 4,060 students answered what their highest degree attained was. Of those two groups, a total
of 3,582 students answered both questions. Looking at the information provided by those who
answered both questions, there is a significant correlation between the two (0.037). This means that
participation in academic activities in high school positively affected students desire and completion of
higher education.
The Academic Activities variable was specifically chosen due to the co-curricular portion of the
question, versus extra-curricular. Of the activities given to students to choose from during their time
in high school, Academic Activities was the only applicable co-curricular activity. Through the
correlation created above, it is shown that Academic Activities as a co-curricular activity is significantly
correlated to attaining postsecondary education.
Question 4: How do motivational factors explain college enrollment?
In order to examine motivational factors of students affecting college enrollment, we had to
decide what questions would be considered motivational. By reading the ~7,500 variables, we had
decided How Sure Student Will Graduate from HS and How Sure Student Will Continue Education
were appropriate questions to measure what we needed. We then recoded the variables by dismissing
the missing and recoding the variables to measure from Very Not Sure (i.e., 0), Not Sure (i.e., 1), Sure
(i.e., 2), and Very Sure (i.e., 3) for both questions. Once all of the data was recoded and given dummy
variables, we then ran a correlation test in order to figure out if the two had any relation. Through the
correlation test we were able to find out that there was a significant correlation between those who
were sure that they will graduate college and those who would continue their education due to the
value of 0.045.
Question 4a: Do the factors differ within and between groups (racial categories, gender, SES)?
Once we had data showing that there was a significant correlation between students who were
sure that they will graduate college to those who were sure that they will continue their education, we
had dug deeper and compared the motivation between students in specific groups: race/ethnicity;
sex/gender; and SES. In order to compare students within each group, we had run Oneway ANOVA and
Post Hoc Tests comparing students within those three categories. Through the results from all three
tests, Asian/Pacific Islander and White, Not Hispanic students had higher motivation to graduate from
high school and continue their education compared to Hispanic and Black, Not Hispanic Students due to
the mean differences found in the Post Hoc Tests. There had been a mean difference of 0.22 between
Male and Female students who were sure that they would graduate high school and a mean difference
of 0.98 between Male and Female students who were sure that they would continue their education,
which means that most students were confident that they would graduate high school, however, less
males were sure that they would continue their education than females. Students who had a higher
socio-economic standing were also more likely to be sure that they would graduate from high school
and continue their education compared to low-income students.
Question 5 and 5a: What types of extra-curricular activities do students who aspire to major in a STEM
field in college that attend college tend to engage in? Do these activities differ from those who aspire
to major in a non-Stem field?
In order to answer this question, dummy variables were created to represent involvement in
academic activity involvement and STEM vs. nonSTEM major in college. There was a NELS variable that
measured academic involvement with the following response option: school did not offer, did not
participate, participated, participated as an officer. This variable was recoded for did not participate to
become a no response and for both participated and participated as an officer to become a yes
response. School did not offer was included in missing data. The variable representing major at last
institution was recoded into no for nonSTEM majors and yes for STEM majors. Majors that qualified
as STEM were determined based on related literature (Nicholls, Wolfe, Besterfiel-Sacre, & Shuman, pp.
367-368).
Crosstabular descriptive analysis was run on the data, including calculation of Cronbachs alpha.
Of 9657 valid cases, 22.02% were STEM majors and 38.32% participated in academic clubs. A greater
proportion of STEM majors participated in in academic clubs (43.95%) than nonSTEM majors (36.73%).
This was a significant difference, =24.54, p<.01.
Question 6a: How do extra-curricular activities differ between students who are 1st generation
college students?
As with question 2a, first generation variable was used by combining variables for parent
education level. If at least one parent graduated from college, the student was not considered first
generation. If neither parent graduated from college, the student was considered first generation.
To compare data, crosstabular descriptive analysis was run on the data, including calculation of
Cronbachs alpha. Of 6490 cases, 69.92% were first generation students and 34.04% participated in
academic clubs. A smaller proportion of first generation students participated in in academic clubs
(31.70%) than those that were not first generation (39.50%). This was a significant difference, =54.92,
p<.01.
Question 6b: How do extra-curricular activities differ between students whose families have strong
religious beliefs?
Participation in religious activities was used to operationalize strong religious beliefs. An EFA
had been run on other groups of variables in order to create a representative latent construct, but
relationships between variables were not strong enough to create a reliable component. Participation
in religious activities was reverse coded and missing responses were excluded.
Of 8199 valid cases, 54.15% participated in academic clubs. A greater proportion of students who
participated in religious activities 2-3 times a month or more participated in academic clubs (55%) than
students who participated in religious activities once a month or less (45%). This trend was true for all
subgroups. These differences were significant, =88.62, p<.01.
Question 6c: How do extra-curricular activities differ between students who graduate from high
school and dont enroll in college?
The variable to indicate if a student ever enrolled is postsecondary education was used to
operationalize college enrollment. Therefore, we did not necessarily focus on students who enrolled in
college right after graduating from high school. However, we also only looked at select cases where
students had graduated from high school. High school graduation included both a traditional diploma
and GED during recoding. Students who did not graduate from high school were not included in the
analysis.
To compare data, crosstabular descriptive analysis was run on the data, including calculation of
Cronbachs alpha. Of 8026 valid cases, 71.03% had attended a postsecondary institution at some point
and 36.48% participated in academic clubs. A larger proportion of students that attended a
postsecondary institution participated in academic clubs (40.16%) than those that were not first
generation (27.57%). This was a significant difference, =112.18, p<.01.
Question 6d: How do extra-curricular activities differ between students who graduate from a
postsecondary institution?
For this question, highest PSE degree received was recoded to operationalize if a student
graduated from college. Any student who received and associates degree or higher was included in the
group of students who graduated from a postsecondary institution. Students who did not attend a PSE,
only attended some or received a certificate but not higher were considered not be graduates.
Of 8209 valid cases, 53.21% graduated from a postsecondary institution and 36.17% participated in
academic clubs. A greater proportion of students who graduated from a postsecondary institution
participated in academic clubs (40.91%) than students who did not graduate from a postsecondary
institution (30.78%). This was a significant difference, =90.99, p<.01.
Question 7: Describe the teachers in low-income schools versus non-low income schools.
Before examining the descriptive characteristics of low income and non-low income teachers, I
recoded the Teacher Race, Teacher Sex, Teacher Certification Held, and Highest Degree Earned variables
and created dummy variables in order to better understand the data. In low income schools, 10,273
teachers participated in the question about race and 10,417 participated in the question about sex out
of a total of 12,144. When asked what race low income teachers identified as, 143 stated Other, 249
stated Hispanic, 634 stated Black/Non-Hispanic, and 9,247 stated White, with 1,871 refusing, skipping,
or missing the question. Of the 12,144 teachers in low income schools, 4,944 identified as male and
5,473 identified as female, with 1,727 skipping the question. In non-low income schools, 10,261
teachers participated in the question about race and 10,414 teachers participated in the question about
sex out of a total of 12,144. When asked what race low income teachers identified as, 93 stated Other,
253 stated Hispanic, 650 stated Black/Non-Hispanic, and 9,265 stated White/Non-Hispanic, with 1,883
either refusing, skipping, or missing the question. Of the teachers in non-low income schools, 4,266
identified as male, and 6,148 identified as female, with 1,730 skipping the question.
When looking at highest degree earned of low income and non-low income teachers, 10,261 low
income teachers and 10,288 participated. Out of the low income teachers, 26 earned a Bachelors
degree, 5,742 earned a Masters degree, 3,830 an Educational Specialist degree, and 663 a Doctorate,
with 1,883 either refusing, skipping, or missing the question. Out of the non-low income teachers 19
earned a Bachelors degree, 5,773 earned a Masters degree, 3,885 earned an Educational Specialist
degree, and 611 a Doctorate, with 1,856 teachers refusing, skipping, or missing the question. From there
we looked at teaching certification. 10,370 low income teachers and 10,355 non-low income teachers
participated in the question out of a total of 12,144 for each group. Looking specifically at the low
income teachers, 9,571 hold a Standard teaching certification, 442 a Probationary teaching certification,
3357 a Temporary teaching certification, with 1,774 refusing, skipping, or missing the question. With
non-low income teachers 9,615 hold a Standard teaching certification, 416 a Probationary teaching
certification, 324 a Temporary teaching certification, with 1,789 refusing, skipping, or missing the
question.
Both groups seem to have a pattern of having significantly more white and female teachers
compared to other races and male teachers, with low-income White teachers making up 81% of the
teaching population and non-low income White teachers making up 90% of the teaching population for
that specific group. The difference between male and female teachers is not as large as race, with the
differences between the two sexes being about 529 for low income teachers but 1,882 for non-low
income teachers. By looking at low income and non-low income teachers highest degree earned and
type of teaching certification held, our group was able to get a better sense of teachers socio-economic
status. In low income schools, more teachers hold Bachelors degrees and Doctorate degrees than non-
low income schools which have more teachers with Masters and Educational Specialist degrees. By
having more teachers with Bachelors and Doctorate degrees, these schools may have more teachers
with less experience and also more with tenured positions. This may be a negative effect on low income
schools as you have new teachers who may need guidance and more experienced teachers who may not
be as understanding or flexible with the changing populations and student needs in schools. Teachers in
low income schools also have less teachers holding Standard teaching certifications than non-low
income schools and more with Probationary and Temporary. This can be detrimental in schools as
having teaching certifications ensures that teachers have successfully completed approved teaching
programs and have learned how to effectively teach in the classroom.
Question 8: Describe a students' race and their high school institutional type.
High school institutional type was operationalized as program type indicated on a students high
school transcript. This variable was recoded for vocational and skill focused skills programs were
included as other types of programs. General academic and rigorous academic programs were both
kept as responses for the variable, resulting in three categories of responses.
Of participants, N=9691, 71.03% were white, 12.28% Hispanic, 8.75% black, 6.99% Asian, and
<1% Native American. 46.64% attended a general academic high school program, 19.85% attended an
academically rigorous high school program and 33.5% attended an other type of high school. A higher
proportion of black, Hispanic, and Native American students attended an other type of school
(41.55%) than white and Asian students (31.24%). Conversely, a smaller proportion of black, Hispanic
and Native American students attended an academically rigorous program (15.87%) than white and
Asian students (20.98%). Similarly, a smaller proportion of black, Hispanic and Native American students
attended a general academic program (42.58%) than white and Asian students (47.78%).
Question 8a: What is the relationship between high school characteristics and the likelihood students
will attend a postsecondary institution?
A binary logistic regression was run to predict postsecondary enrollment from type of high
school attended. Analysis yielded significant results, indicating that high school type could be used as a
predictor of postsecondary enrollment (chi square = 1408.091, p < .01, df = 2). Nagelkerkes r2 of .222
indicated a small relationship. Students that attended a general academic program are 2.81 times less
likely to attend a postsecondary institution, = -2.811, p < .01. Both general academic and rigorous
academic programs were significant predictors; students that attended a rigorous academic program are
1.3 times less likely to attend a postsecondary institution ( = -1.304, p < .01). Prediction success was
75%. While these results seem unusual, the other category of the variable contains a wide range and
unknown set of nontraditional high school programs that could be impacting results.
Question 9: For those enrolled in a private high school, do they have higher college enrollment rates
compared to those not enrolled in a private high school?
For the students who are enrolled in a private high school, they do have higher college
enrollment rates compared to their counterparts who are enrolled in a public high school. As can be
seen in Figure 9.1, 89% of students who were enrolled in a private high school attended a four-year
institution, whereas only 67% of students who were enrolled in a public high school attended a four
year-institution. Out of the total 12,144 students who were part of the original data set, 8,743 answered
whether or not they attended a four-year institution, leaving only 3401 or 28% of students who did not
answer. Thus showing that students who were enrolled in a private high school had higher college
enrollment rates compared to the students who were enrolled in a public high school.
9a- What about graduation rates?
For those students who were enrolled in a private high school, majority of them were able to
graduate from a four-year institution with a Bachelors degree; whereas only 58% of students who
attended a public high school graduated from a four-year institution. More students that were enrolled
in a public high school graduated with a certificate or associates degree than their private high school
counterparts. However, at the Masters Degree and Ph.D./ Professional Degree levels there is not much
of a difference between public high school and private high school enrollments and graduation from
college or university. Therefore, students who attended a private high school did have higher college
graduation rates compared to students who went to a public high school.
Question 10: For those who attended 4-year postsecondary institutions, what college majors do
people tend to select?
Of the students who moved onto 4-year postsecondary education and participated in this
survey, 4,060 said that they received a Bachelors degree, with 206 (5.1%) students answers missing
and 579 (14.3%) skipping or missing the question. Of the students, 615 graduated with a Bachelors
degree in Education (15.1%), 681 graduated with a Bachelors degree in English (16.8%), 607 graduated
with a Bachelors degree in History (15.0%), 718 graduated with a Bachelors degree in Mathematics
(17.7%), 818 graduated with a Bachelors degree in Science (20.1%), 56 graduated with a Bachelors
degree in a Foreign Language (1.4%), and 400 graduated with a Bachelors degree in a different area of
study (9.9%).
By looking at the numbers through the frequency charts, the most common majors of study
were Mathematics and Science, possibly gearing students towards careers within the STEM field. Social
sciences and humanities majors were next with Education, English, and History, while Foreign Language
was the least popular with 1.4%. Those who graduated with a Bachelors degree in a different area of
study may have majored in other arts, humanities, social sciences, and science fields, though were not
specified.
References
Nicholls, G. M., Wolfe, H., Besterfiel-Sacre, M., & Shuman, L. J. (2014). Defining the Majors that
Comprise STEM: An Analytical. International Journal of Engineering Education, 30(2), 360-377.
Powell, B., Steelman, L.C., & Carini, R.M. (2006). Advancing Age, Advantaged Youth: Parental Age and
the Transmission of Resources to Children. Social Forces. 84. 1359-1390.
Appendix
Syntax: Question 1
RECODE RACE (4=1) (5=0) (1 thru 3=0) (8 thru 9=999) INTO Race_RC.
VARIABLE LABELS Race_RC 'students race '.
EXECUTE.
RECODE BYPARED (7=999) (1 thru 3=0) (4 thru 6=1) (98 thru 99=999) INTO BYPARED_RC.
VARIABLE LABELS BYPARED_RC 'Parents education base year '.
EXECUTE.
RECODE F1PARED F2PARED (7=999) (1 thru 3=0) (4 thru 6=1) (98 thru 99=999) INTO F1PARED_RC
F2PARED_RC.
VARIABLE LABELS F1PARED_RC 'First follow up parents education ' /F2PARED_RC 'Follow up 2 '+
'Parents education '.
EXECUTE.
RECODE SEX (1=0) (2=1) (9=999) INTO Gender_RC.

VARIABLE LABELS Gender_RC 'Students Gender'.
EXECUTE.
FACTOR
/VARIABLES BYS34A BYS34B BYS4A BYS7A BYS4OCC BYS7OCC
/MISSING LISTWISE
/ANALYSIS BYS34A BYS34B BYS4A BYS7A BYS4OCC BYS7OCC
/PRINT INITIAL CORRELATION SIG KMO EXTRACTION
/PLOT EIGEN
/CRITERIA MINEIGEN(1) ITERATE(25)
/EXTRACTION PC
/ROTATION NOROTATE
/METHOD=CORRELATION.
RELIABILITY
/VARIABLES=BYS4OCC BYS7OCC BYS4A BYS7A BYS34A BYS34B
/SCALE('ALL VARIABLES') ALL
/MODEL=ALPHA.
COMPUTE SES=MEAN(BYS4OCC,BYS7OCC,BYS4A,BYS7A,BYS34A,BYS34B).
EXECUTE.
Syntax: Question 1a
RELIABILITY
/VARIABLES=BYP69 BYP66 BYP67 BYP62 BYP62B1 BYP62B2 BYP62B3 BYP62B4 BYP62B5
/MODEL=ALPHA
/SUMMARY=TOTAL.
COMPUTE
Social_Capital=MEAN(BYP69,BYP66,BYP67,BYP62,BYP62B1,BYP62B2,BYP62B3,BYP62B4,BYP62B5).
EXECUTE.
FACTOR
/VARIABLES BYP60A BYP60B BYP60C BYP60D BYP60G BYP61CA BYP61DA BYP61EA
/MISSING LISTWISE
/ANALYSIS BYP60A BYP60B BYP60C BYP60D BYP60G BYP61CA BYP61DA BYP61EA
/PRINT INITIAL CORRELATION DET KMO EXTRACTION
/PLOT EIGEN
/EXTRACTION PC
/ROTATION NOROTATE
RELIABILITY
/VARIABLES=BYP60A BYP60B BYP60C BYP60D BYP60G BYP61CA BYP61DA BYP61EA
/MODEL=ALPHA
/SUMMARY=TOTAL.
COMPUTE
Cultural_Capital=MEAN(BYP60A,BYP60B,BYP60C,BYP60D,BYP60G,BYP61CA,BYP61DA,BYP61EA).
EXECUTE.
Syntax: Question 2
RECODE HSSTAT (-9=999) (-6=999) (5=0) (4=1) (6=1) (1 thru 3=0) INTO HSSTAT_RC.
VARIABLE LABELS HSSTAT_RC 'high school graduation status'.
EXECUTE.
T-TEST GROUPS=HSSTAT_RC_N(0 1)
/MISSING=ANALYSIS
/VARIABLES=F22XSSTD
/CRITERIA=CI(.95).
T-TEST GROUPS=HSSTAT_RC_N(0 1)
/MISSING=ANALYSIS
/VARIABLES=F22XMSTD
/CRITERIA=CI(.95).
Syntax: Question 2a
RECODE HSSTAT BYFAMINC (1 thru 11=0) (12 thru 15=1) (98 thru 99=999) INTO HSSTAT_RC
Family_income.
VARIABLE LABELS HSSTAT_RC 'High School Graduation Stauts ' /Family_income 'family income '.
EXECUTE.
T-TEST GROUPS=BYPARED_RC(0 1)
/MISSING=ANALYSIS
/VARIABLES=F22XMSTD
/CRITERIA=CI(.95).
T-TEST GROUPS=RACE_RC(0 1)
/MISSING=ANALYSIS
/VARIABLES=F22XMSTD
/CRITERIA=CI(.95).
T-TEST GROUPS=Gender_RC(0 1)
/MISSING=ANALYSIS
/VARIABLES=F22XMSTD
/CRITERIA=CI(.95).
T-TEST GROUPS=Family_income(0 1)
/MISSING=ANALYSIS
/VARIABLES=F22XMSTD
/CRITERIA=CI(.95).
T-TEST GROUPS=BYPARED_RC(0 1)
/MISSING=ANALYSIS
/VARIABLES=F22XSSTD
/CRITERIA=CI(.95).
T-TEST GROUPS=Gender_RC(0 1)
/MISSING=ANALYSIS
/VARIABLES=F22XSSTD
/CRITERIA=CI(.95).
T-TEST GROUPS=RACE_RC(0 1)
/MISSING=ANALYSIS
/VARIABLES=F22XSSTD
/CRITERIA=CI(.95).
T-TEST GROUPS=Family_income(0 1)
/MISSING=ANALYSIS
/VARIABLES=F22XSSTD
/CRITERIA=CI(.95).
Syntax: Question 3
DATASET ACTIVATE DataSet1.

RECODE F1S41BG (1=0) (2=1) (3=2) (4=3) (-9 thru -8=-999) INTO F1S41BG_RC.
VARIABLE LABELS F1S41BG_RC 'Co-Curricular Activities'.
EXECUTE.
RECODE F4HHDG (1=0) (2=1) (3=2) (4=3) (5=4) (6=5) (-9 thru -3=-999) INTO F4HHDG_RC.
VARIABLE LABELS F4HHDG_RC 'Highest Degree Earned'.
EXECUTE.
CORRELATIONS
/VARIABLES=F4HHDG_RC F1S41BG_RC
/PRINT=TWOTAIL NOSIG
/STATISTICS DESCRIPTIVES
/MISSING=PAIRWISE.
CORRELATIONS
/VARIABLES=F1S41BG_RC F4HHDG_RC
/MISSING=PAIRWISE.
USE ALL.
COMPUTE filter_$=(F4HHDG_RC >= 3).
VARIABLE LABELS filter_$ 'F4HHDG_RC >= 3 (FILTER)'.
VALUE LABELS filter_$ 0 'Not Selected' 1 'Selected'.
FORMATS filter_$ (f1.0).
FILTER BY filter_$.
EXECUTE.
Syntax: Question 4 and 4a
ONEWAY BYS46 BYS47 BY F2S29D

/MISSING ANALYSIS
/POSTHOC=TUKEY ALPHA(0.05).
ONEWAY BYS46 BYS47 BY RACE

/MISSING ANALYSIS
ONEWAY BYS46 BYS47 BY SEX

/MISSING ANALYSIS
ONEWAY BYS46 BYS47 BY F1SES

/MISSING ANALYSIS
RECODE BYS46 BYS47 (1=3) (2=2) (3=1) (4=0) (6 thru 9=-999) INTO BYS46_RC BYS47_RC.
VARIABLE LABELS BYS46_RC 'How Sure Will Graduate From HS' /BYS47_RC 'How Sure Student Will '+
'Continue Education'.
EXECUTE.
CORRELATIONS
/VARIABLES=BYS46_RC BYS47_RC F2D23D F2D23B F2D23C
/MISSING=PAIRWISE.
FACTOR
/VARIABLES F2D23D F2D23B F2D23C
/MISSING LISTWISE
/ANALYSIS F2D23D F2D23B F2D23C
/PRINT INITIAL CORRELATION SIG DET KMO EXTRACTION
/PLOT EIGEN
/EXTRACTION PC
/ROTATION NOROTATE
RELIABILITY
/VARIABLES=F2D23D F2D23B F2D23C BYS46_RC BYS47_RC
/MODEL=ALPHA
/SUMMARY=MEANS.
Syntax: Question 5 and 5a
RECODE PSELASMJ (302=1) (900=999) (10 thru 31=1) (110 thru 112=1) (140 thru 150=1) (182 thru
185=1)
(260 thru 271=1) (400 thru 403=1) (40 thru 100=0) (120 thru 135=0) (160 thru 181=0) (186 thru
240=0) (280 thru 301=0) (303 thru 390=0) (420 thru 505=0) (-9 thru 0=999) INTO MajorSTEM_RC.
VARIABLE LABELS MajorSTEM_RC 'Majored in STEM field in last institution'.
EXECUTE.
RECODE F1S41BG (2=0) (1=999) (3 thru 4=1) (6 thru 9=999) INTO ACADclubs_RC.
VARIABLE LABELS ACADclubs_RC 'Participation in school academic clubs'.
EXECUTE.
CROSSTABS
/TABLES=MajorSTEM_RC BY ACADclubs_RC
/FORMAT=AVALUE TABLES
/STATISTICS=CHISQ CC CORR
/CELLS=COUNT EXPECTED
/COUNT ROUND CELL.
* Chart Builder.
GGRAPH
/GRAPHDATASET NAME="graphdataset" VARIABLES=ACADclubs_RC COUNT()[name="COUNT"]
MajorSTEM_RC
MISSING=LISTWISE REPORTMISSING=NO
/GRAPHSPEC SOURCE=INLINE.
BEGIN GPL
SOURCE: s=userSource(id("graphdataset"))
DATA: ACADclubs_RC=col(source(s), name("ACADclubs_RC"), unit.category())
DATA: COUNT=col(source(s), name("COUNT"))
DATA: MajorSTEM_RC=col(source(s), name("MajorSTEM_RC"), unit.category())
COORD: rect(dim(1,2), cluster(3,0))
GUIDE: axis(dim(3), label("Participation in school academic clubs"))
GUIDE: axis(dim(2), label("Percent"))
GUIDE: legend(aesthetic(aesthetic.color.interior), label("Majored in STEM field in last ",
"institution"))
SCALE: cat(dim(3), include("1.00"))
SCALE: linear(dim(2), include(0))
SCALE: cat(aesthetic(aesthetic.color.interior), include(".00", "1.00"))
SCALE: cat(dim(1), include(".00", "1.00"))
ELEMENT: interval(position(summary.percent(MajorSTEM_RC*COUNT*ACADclubs_RC,
base.aesthetic(aesthetic(aesthetic.color.interior)))), color.interior(MajorSTEM_RC),
shape.interior(shape.square))
END GPL.
Syntax: Question 6a

RECODE BYPARED (1 thru 3=1) (4 thru 6=0) (7 thru 99=999) INTO FirstGen_RC.
VARIABLE LABELS FirstGen_RC 'First Generation Status'.
EXECUTE.
RECODE F1S41BG (2=0) (1=999) (3 thru 4=1) (6 thru 9=999) INTO ACADclubs_RC.
VARIABLE LABELS ACADclubs_RC 'Participation in school academic clubs'.
EXECUTE.
CROSSTABS
/TABLES=FirstGen_RC BY ACADclubs_RC
/COUNT ROUND CELL.
Syntax: Question 6b
RECODE F2S106 (6=1) (5=2) (4=3) (3=4) (2=5) (1=6) (98 thru 99=999) INTO F2S106_RC.
VARIABLE LABELS F2S106_RC 'How often attends religious services'.
EXECUTE.
CROSSTABS
/TABLES=F2S106_RC BY ACADclubs_RC
/COUNT ROUND CELL.
Syntax: Question 6c

RECODE HSSTAT (3=0) (4=999) (1 thru 2=1) (5 thru 6=0) (-9 thru -6=999) INTO HSGRAD_RC.
VARIABLE LABELS HSGRAD_RC 'HS Graduation status'.
EXECUTE.
RECODE F4ATT4YR (1=1) (2=0) (-9 thru -3=999) INTO PSEenrollment_RC.

VARIABLE LABELS PSEenrollment_RC 'Ever enrolled in PSE'.
EXECUTE.
USE ALL.
COMPUTE filter_$=(HSGRAD_RC = 1).
VARIABLE LABELS filter_$ 'HSGRAD_RC = 1 (FILTER)'.
VALUE LABELS filter_$ 0 'Not Selected' 1 'Selected'.
FORMATS filter_$ (f1.0).
FILTER BY filter_$.
EXECUTE.
CROSSTABS
/TABLES=PSEenrollment_RC BY ACADclubs_RC
/COUNT ROUND CELL.
FILTER OFF.
USE ALL.
EXECUTE.
Syntax: Question 6d
RECODE F4TYPEDG (3 thru 10=1) (1 thru 2=0) (-9 thru -3=999) INTO PSEGradStatus_RC.
VARIABLE LABELS PSEGradStatus_RC 'Successfully obtained a college degree (AA and higher)'.
EXECUTE.
CROSSTABS
/TABLES=PSEGradStatus_RC BY ACADclubs_RC
/COUNT ROUND CELL.
Syntax: Question 7
RECODE BYT3_1 BYT6_1 (1=0) (2=1) INTO BYT3_1RC BYT6_1RC.

VARIABLE LABELS BYT3_1RC 'Low Income Sex of Teacher' /BYT6_1RC 'Non-Low Income Sex of Teacher'.
EXECUTE.
RECODE BYT3_2 BYT6_2 (1=0) (2=1) (3=2) (4=3) (7 thru 9=-999) INTO BYT3_2RC BYT6_2RC.
VARIABLE LABELS BYT3_2RC 'Low Income Race of Teacher' /BYT6_2RC 'Non-Low Income Race of
Teacher'.
EXECUTE.
RECODE BYT3_6 BYT6_6 (4=2) (5=3) (3=1) (1 thru 2=0) (97 thru 99=-999) INTO BYT3_6RC BYT6_6RC.
VARIABLE LABELS BYT3_6RC 'Low Income Type of Certification' /BYT6_6RC 'Non-Low Income Type of '+
'Certification'.
EXECUTE.
RECODE BYT3_8 BYT6_8 (1=0) (2=1) (3=2) (4=3) (7 thru 9=-999) INTO BYT3_8RC BYT6_8RC.
VARIABLE LABELS BYT3_8RC 'Low Income Highest Degree Earned' /BYT6_8RC 'Non-Low Income Highest
'+
'Degree Earned'.
EXECUTE.
FREQUENCIES VARIABLES=BYT3_6RC BYT6_6RC BYT3_8RC BYT6_8RC

/STATISTICS=STDDEV MEAN
/BARCHART FREQ
/ORDER=ANALYSIS.
FREQUENCIES VARIABLES=BYT3_2RC BYT6_2RC

/BARCHART FREQ
/ORDER=ANALYSIS.
FREQUENCIES VARIABLES=BYT3_1RC BYT6_1RC

/BARCHART FREQ
/ORDER=ANALYSIS.
Syntax: Question 8
RECODE F2RTRPRG (1=3) (2=2) (99=999) (3 thru 6=0) INTO HSPRGTYPE_RC.

VARIABLE LABELS HSPRGTYPE_RC 'HS program type'.
EXECUTE.
FREQUENCIES VARIABLES=HSPRGTYPE_RC
/BARCHART PERCENT
/ORDER=ANALYSIS.
CROSSTABS
/TABLES=RACE BY HSPRGTYPE_RC
/STATISTICS=CHISQ
/CELLS=COUNT
/COUNT ROUND CELL.
* Chart Builder.
GGRAPH
/GRAPHDATASET NAME="graphdataset" VARIABLES=RACE COUNT()[name="COUNT"] HSPRGTYPE_RC
MISSING=LISTWISE REPORTMISSING=NO
/GRAPHSPEC SOURCE=INLINE.
BEGIN GPL
SOURCE: s=userSource(id("graphdataset"))
DATA: RACE=col(source(s), name("RACE"), unit.category())
DATA: COUNT=col(source(s), name("COUNT"))
DATA: HSPRGTYPE_RC=col(source(s), name("HSPRGTYPE_RC"), unit.category())
COORD: rect(dim(1,2), cluster(3,0))
GUIDE: axis(dim(3), label("COMPOSITE RACE"))
GUIDE: axis(dim(2), label("Percent"))
GUIDE: legend(aesthetic(aesthetic.color.interior), label("HS program type"))
SCALE: cat(dim(3), include("1", "2", "3", "4", "5"))
SCALE: linear(dim(2), include(0))
SCALE: cat(aesthetic(aesthetic.color.interior), include("1.00", "2.00", "3.00"))
SCALE: cat(dim(1), include("1.00", "2.00", "3.00"))
ELEMENT: interval(position(summary.percent(HSPRGTYPE_RC*COUNT*RACE, base.all(acrossPanels()))),
color.interior(HSPRGTYPE_RC), shape.interior(shape.square))
END GPL.
Syntax: Question 8a
RECODE F4ATT4YR (1=1) (2=0) (-9 thru -3=999) INTO PSEenrollment_RC.

VARIABLE LABELS PSEenrollment_RC 'Ever enrolled in PSE'.
EXECUTE.
RECODE F2RTRPRG (1=3) (2=2) (99=999) (3 thru 6=0) INTO HSPRGTYPE_RC.

VARIABLE LABELS HSPRGTYPE_RC 'HS program type'.
EXECUTE.
LOGISTIC REGRESSION VARIABLES PSEenrollment_RC

/METHOD=ENTER HSPRGTYPE_RC
/CONTRAST (HSPRGTYPE_RC)=Indicator
/CRITERIA=PIN(.05) POUT(.10) ITERATE(20) CUT(.5).
Syntax: Question 9
RECODE F2S12A (2=0) (1=1) (14=999) (15=1) (96=1) (3 thru 13=1) (97 thru 99=999) INTO F2S12A_RC.
VARIABLE LABELS F2S12A_RC 'type of HS program '.
EXECUTE.
RECODE NOMSECT (1=1) (2 thru 3=0) (8 thru 9=999) INTO NOMSECT_RC.

VARIABLE LABELS NOMSECT_RC 'type of high school '.
EXECUTE.
CROSSTABS
/TABLES=F4ATT4YR BY NOMSECT_RC
/CELLS=COUNT COLUMN
/COUNT ROUND CELL.
Syntax: Question 9a
CROSSTABS
/TABLES=F4HHDG BY NOMSECT_RC
/CELLS=COUNT COLUMN
/COUNT ROUND CELL.
Syntax: Question 10
FREQUENCIES VARIABLES=F1T310A1 F1T310B1 F1T310C1 F1T310D1 F1T310E1 F1T310F1 F1T310G1

/ORDER=ANALYSIS.
Figures by Question
Figures: Question 1a
Figure 1a.1, Correlations of Social Capitol to High School Completion.
Correlations
Social Capital Construct (9 High school completion status as of
items) 2000
Social Capital Construct (9 items) Pearson 1 .112 **
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 12144 12144
High school completion status as of Pearson .112 **
1
2000 Correlation
N 12144 12144
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Figure 1a.2, Correlations of Cultural Capitol to High School Completion.

Correlations
Cultural Capital Construct (8 High school completion status as of
items) 2000
Cultural Capital Construct (8 items) Pearson 1 .075 **
Correlation
N 12144 12144
High school completion status as of Pearson .075 **
1
2000 Correlation
N 12144 12144
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Figures: Question 2
Figure 2.1, Results for Independent Sample Test for Science Scores for High School Graduates vs. Non-
graduates.
Group Statistics
HSSTAT_RC_N N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
SCIENCE STANDARDIZED SCORE Graduated HS 11382 62.7174 22.22568 .20833
Did not graduate HS 618 75.0273 29.46979 1.18545
Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for

Equality of
Variances t-test for Equality of Means
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Sig. (2- Mean Std. Error
F Sig. t df tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper
SCIENCE Equal 415.812 .000 -13.156 11998 .000 -12.30991 .93572 -14.14408 -10.47574
STANDARDIZED variances
SCORE assumed
Equal -10.227 655.665 .000 -12.30991 1.20361 -14.67331 -9.94651

variances
not
assumed
Figure 2.2, Results for Independent Sample Test for Math Scores for High School Graduates vs. Non-
graduates.
Levene's Test for
Equality of
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Sig. Difference
(2- Mean Std. Error
MATHEMATICS Equal 532.087 .000 - 11998 .000 -10.88772 .92872 - -

STANDARDIZED variances 11.723 12.70817 9.06727
SCORE assumed
Equal -8.777 652.455 .000 -10.88772 1.24045 - -

variances 13.32348 8.45196
not
assumed
Figure 2a.1, Results for Independent Sample Test for Math Scores Based on Gender.
Group Statistics
Gender N Mean Std. Dev Std. Error Mean
MATHEMATICS STANDARDIZED Male 5349 63.2198 21.76001 .29752

SCORE
Female 6035 62.5742 22.51080 .28977
Levene's Test
for Equality of
95% CI of the
Difference
Sig.
(2- Mean Std. Error Upp
F Sig. t df tailed) Difference Difference Lower er
MATHEMATICS Equal 13.76 .000 1.551 11382 .121 .64560 .41617 - 1.46
STANDARDIZED variances 4 .17016 135
SCORE assumed
Equal 1.554 11296.82 .120 .64560 .41532 - 1.45

variances 0 .16849 969
not
assumed
Figure 2a.2, Results for Independent Sample Test for Science Scores Based on Gender.
Levene's Test
for Equality of
95% CI of the
Difference
Sig. (2- Mean Std. Error
SCIENCE Equal 47. .000 5.089 11382 .000 2.13551 .41959 1.31303 2.95799
STANDARDIZED variances 246
SCORE assumed
Equal 5.109 11345 .000 2.13551 .41798 1.31620 2.95482

variances not .606
assumed
Figures: Question 3
Figure 3.1, Correlation of Academic Activities and Highest Degree Attained.
Figure 4a.1, Oneway ANOVA of Motivation Questions of Students Based on Race.
Figure 4a.2, Homogeneous Subsets of Motivation of Students Based on Race.

Figure 4a.3, Oneway ANOVA of Motivation of Students Based on Sex.

Figure 4a.4, Homogeneous Subsets of Students Based on Sex
Figures: Question 5 and 5a

Figure 5.1, Crosstabulation of STEM major by participation in academic clubs.
Majored in STEM field in last institution by Participation in school academic clubs- Crosstabulation
Participation in school
academic clubs
No Yes Total
Majored in STEM field in No (Non-STEM) Count 3202 1859 5061
last institution Expected Count 3121.6 1939.4 5061.0
Yes (STEM) Count 801 628 1429
Expected Count 881.4 547.6 1429.0
Total Count 4003 2487 6490
Expected Count 4003.0 2487.0 6490.0
Figure 5.2, Chi square results for crosstabulation of STEM major by participation in academic clubs.
Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig. (2- Exact Sig. (2- Exact Sig. (1-
Value df sided) sided) sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 24.542a 1 .000
Continuity Correctionb 24.238 1 .000
Likelihood Ratio 24.267 1 .000
Fisher's Exact Test .000 .000
Linear-by-Linear Association 24.539 1 .000
N of Valid Cases 6490
a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 547.60.
b. Computed only for a 2x2 table
Figure 5.3, Percent of STEM majors vs. non-STEM majors and academic activity participation.
Figure 6a.1, Crosstab counts
First Generation Status by Participation in school academic clubs Crosstabulation
Participation in school academic clubs
No Yes Total
First Generation Status No Count 1757 1147 2904
Expected Count 1915.3 988.7 2904.0
Yes Count 4612 2141 6753
Expected Count 4453.7 2299.3 6753.0
Total Count 6369 3288 9657
Expected Count 6369.0 3288.0 9657.0
Figure 6a.2, Crosstab significance testing.

Chi-Square Tests
Figures: Question 6b
Figure 6b.1, Crosstab counts.
How often attends religious services * Participation in school academic clubs Crosstabulation
Participation in school
academic clubs
No Yes Total
How often attends Not at all Count 1258 478 1736
religious services Expected Count 1126.2 609.8 1736.0
Several times a year Count 1181 584 1765
Expected Count 1145.0 620.0 1765.0
Once a month Count 462 234 696
Expected Count 451.5 244.5 696.0
2-3 times a month Count 534 313 847
Expected Count 549.5 297.5 847.0
Once a week Count 1334 866 2200
Expected Count 1427.2 772.8 2200.0
More than once a Count 550 405 955
week Expected Count 619.5 335.5 955.0
Total Count 5319 2880 8199
Expected Count 5319.0 2880.0 8199.0
Figure 6b.2, Crosstab significance.

Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig. (2-
Value df sided)
a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is
244.48.
Figures: Question 6c
Figure 6c.1, Crosstab counts.
Ever enrolled in PSE * Participation in school academic clubs Crosstabulation
No Yes Total
Ever enrolled in PSE No Count 1684 641 2325
Expected Count 1476.8 848.2 2325.0
Yes Count 3414 2287 5701
Expected Count 3621.2 2079.8 5701.0
Total Count 5098 2928 8026
Expected Count 5098.0 2928.0 8026.0
Figure 6c.2, Crosstab significance.

Chi-Square Tests
Figures: Question 6d
Figure 6d.1, Crosstab counts.
College graduation status * Participation in school academic clubs Crosstabulation
No Yes Total
College graduation status No Count 2659 1182 3841
Expected Count 2451.8 1389.2 3841.0
Yes Count 2581 1787 4368
Expected Count 2788.2 1579.8 4368.0
Total Count 5240 2969 8209
Expected Count 5240.0 2969.0 8209.0
Figure 6d.2, Crosstab significance.

Chi-Square Tests
Figures: Question 7
Figure 7.1, Charts comparing sex of teacher based on income.
Figure 7.2, Charts of Race of Low and Non-Low Income Teachers.

Figure 7.3, Certification of Teachers Based on Income.

Figure 8a.1, Regression results
Variables in the Equation
B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)
Step 1a HSPRGTYPE_RC 1170.968 2 .000
HSPRGTYPE_RC(1) -2.811 .093 913.078 1 .000 .060
HSPRGTYPE_RC(2) -1.304 .089 216.238 1 .000 .271
Constant 2.371 .081 848.419 1 .000 10.709
a. Variable(s) entered on step 1: HSPRGTYPE_RC.
Figure 8a.2, Regression prediction

Classification Tablea
Predicted
Ever enrolled in PSE Percentage

Observed No Yes Correct
Step 1 Ever enrolled in PSE No 1258 1252 50.1
Yes 810 4927 85.9
Overall Percentage 75.0
a. The cut value is .500
Figure 8a.3, Regression r2

Model Summary
Step -2 Log likelihood Cox & Snell R Square Nagelkerke R Square
1 8727.599a .157 .222
a. Estimation terminated at iteration number 5 because parameter estimates

changed by less than .001.
Figures: Question 9
Figure 9.1, College enrollment rates based on public vs. private high school attendance.
N Public High School Private High School
Attended four-year institution 6082 66% 89%
Did not attend four-year institution 2661 34% 11%
Total 8743 100% 100%
Figure 9.2, Crosstabulation of 4 Year PSE attendance by Public or Private High School Attendance.
Case Processing Summary
Cases
Valid Missing Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent
Ever attended a 4-year institution * type of high school 8743 72.0% 3401 28.0% 12144 100.0%
Ever attended a 4-year institution * type of high school Crosstabulation

type of high school
Private High School Public High School Total
Ever attended a 4-year institution Yes Count 1266 4816 6082
% within type of high school 89.0% 65.8% 69.6%
No Count 157 2504 2661
Total Count 1423 7320 8743
Figure 9a.1, College graduation rates by public vs. private high school attendance.
N Public High School Private High School
Certificate 849 18% 5%
Associates Degree 816 17% 7%
Bachelors Degree 3362 58% 76%
Masters Degree 374 6% 10%
Ph.D. or Professional Degree 73 1% 2%
Total 5474 100% 100%
Figure 9a.2, Crosstabulation of Highest Degree attained by Public or Private High School Attendance.
Case Processing Summary
Cases
Valid Missing Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent
Highest PSE degree 5474 45.1% 6670 54.9% 12144 100.0%

attained as of 2000 by
type of high school
Highest PSE degree attained as of 2000 by type of high school Crosstabulation
type of high school
Private High School
Highest PSE Certificate/license Count 56

degree
attained as of % within type of high school 5.1%
2000
Associate^s degree Count 72
% within type of high school 6.6%
Bachelor^s degree Count 835
Master^s degree/equivalent Count 113
Ph.D or a professional degree Count 23
Total Count 1099

Highest PSE degree attained as of 2000 * type of high school Crosstabulation
type of high school
Public High School
Highest PSE degree Certificate/license Count 793

attained as of 2000
Associate^s degree Count 744
Bachelor^s degree Count 2527
Master^s Count 261

degree/equivalent
Ph.D or a Count 50
professional degree
Total Count 4375

Figures: Question 10
Figure 10.1, Frequencies of Students Who Attended 4-Year Postsecondary Institutions and Majors.

Sda - Group 5 Final Project

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sda - Group 5 Final Project

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Running Head: GROUP 5: FINAL PROJECT 1

Group 5: Final Project

Prajacta Kulkarni, Alexandra Milan and Erika Samsone

University of Washington, Secondary Data Analysis

Group 5: Final Project

RECODE SEX (1=0) (2=1) (9=999) INTO Gender_RC.

DATASET ACTIVATE DataSet1.

Syntax: Question 4 and 4a

ONEWAY BYS46 BYS47 BY F2S29D

ONEWAY BYS46 BYS47 BY RACE

ONEWAY BYS46 BYS47 BY SEX

ONEWAY BYS46 BYS47 BY F1SES

Syntax: Question 5 and 5a

DATASET ACTIVATE DataSet1.

DATASET ACTIVATE DataSet1.

RECODE F4ATT4YR (1=1) (2=0) (-9 thru -3=999) INTO PSEenrollment_RC.

RECODE BYT3_1 BYT6_1 (1=0) (2=1) INTO BYT3_1RC BYT6_1RC.

FREQUENCIES VARIABLES=BYT3_6RC BYT6_6RC BYT3_8RC BYT6_8RC

FREQUENCIES VARIABLES=BYT3_2RC BYT6_2RC

FREQUENCIES VARIABLES=BYT3_1RC BYT6_1RC

RECODE F2RTRPRG (1=3) (2=2) (99=999) (3 thru 6=0) INTO HSPRGTYPE_RC.

RECODE F4ATT4YR (1=1) (2=0) (-9 thru -3=999) INTO PSEenrollment_RC.

RECODE F2RTRPRG (1=3) (2=2) (99=999) (3 thru 6=0) INTO HSPRGTYPE_RC.

LOGISTIC REGRESSION VARIABLES PSEenrollment_RC

RECODE NOMSECT (1=1) (2 thru 3=0) (8 thru 9=999) INTO NOMSECT_RC.

FREQUENCIES VARIABLES=F1T310A1 F1T310B1 F1T310C1 F1T310D1 F1T310E1 F1T310F1 F1T310G1

Figure 1a.2, Correlations of Cultural Capitol to High School Completion.

HSSTAT_RC_N N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

SCIENCE STANDARDIZED SCORE Graduated HS 11382 62.7174 22.22568 .20833

Did not graduate HS 618 75.0273 29.46979 1.18545

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for

Equal -10.227 655.665 .000 -12.30991 1.20361 -14.67331 -9.94651

MATHEMATICS Equal 532.087 .000 - 11998 .000 -10.88772 .92872 - -

Equal -8.777 652.455 .000 -10.88772 1.24045 - -

Gender N Mean Std. Dev Std. Error Mean

MATHEMATICS STANDARDIZED Male 5349 63.2198 21.76001 .29752

Independent Samples Test

Equal 1.554 11296.82 .120 .64560 .41532 - 1.45

Equal 5.109 11345 .000 2.13551 .41798 1.31620 2.95482

Figure 4a.2, Homogeneous Subsets of Motivation of Students Based on Race.

Figure 4a.3, Oneway ANOVA of Motivation of Students Based on Sex.

Figure 4a.4, Homogeneous Subsets of Students Based on Sex

Figures: Question 5 and 5a

Figure 6a.2, Crosstab significance testing.

Figure 6b.2, Crosstab significance.

Figure 6c.2, Crosstab significance.

Figure 6d.2, Crosstab significance.

Figure 7.2, Charts of Race of Low and Non-Low Income Teachers.

Figure 7.3, Certification of Teachers Based on Income.

Figure 8a.2, Regression prediction

Ever enrolled in PSE Percentage

Step 1 Ever enrolled in PSE No 1258 1252 50.1

Yes 810 4927 85.9

Overall Percentage 75.0

a. The cut value is .500

Figure 8a.3, Regression r2

Step -2 Log likelihood Cox & Snell R Square Nagelkerke R Square

1 8727.599a .157 .222

a. Estimation terminated at iteration number 5 because parameter estimates

Attended four-year institution 6082 66% 89%

Did not attend four-year institution 2661 34% 11%