Gender and Educational
Attainment in Schools
Stephen Machin and Sandra McNally
Girls doing much better!
• Headline figure for 2002: 9% gap in
attainment at GCSE (5+ A*-Cs)
• Girls outperforming boys in every subject at
GCSE
• At all stages of education (for all ethnic
groups)
Explanations: media
• ‘Laddish culture’/ ‘macho’ peer groups /
‘too much football’
• ‘Teachers giving up on boys’
• ‘Extinction’ of male teachers at primary
school
• Girls mature earlier
• Coursework element in exams
Some research questions
• At what stage in education is this gap most
important?
• How is gender gap related to changes at
school/exam system or wider social and economic
changes, e.g. higher education and labour market
participation of women; decline in male teachers;
cultural changes
• Can policy make a difference?
• How does gap in school attainment affect
differences in post-compulsory schooling, labour
market outcomes?
What is going on? – Data sources
• National Key Stage data-sets: children
tested at 7, 11, 14 and 16 (GCSE).
• General Household Survey: annual survey
of 9,000 households from 1972
• Longitudinal data-sets: of all children born
in a particular week in March 1958
(National Child Development Study) and
April 1970 (British Cohort Study)
Comparing cohort and national data
1975 national data and the NCDS
5+ O-Levels A-C
National data
NCDS
English O-Level A-C for entrants
National data
NCDS
Maths O-Level A-C for entrants
National data
NCDS
All
Boys
Girls
0.23
0.18
0.22
0.17
0.23
0.18
0.55
0.69
0.66
0.78
0.59
0.76
0.53
0.70
1986 national data and the BCS
5+ O-Levels A-C
National data
BCS
English O-Level A-C for all
National data:
BCS
Maths O-Level A-C for all
National data: % leavers
BCS
All
Boys
Girls
0.27
0.31
0.26
0.32
0.27
0.31
0.41
0.43
0.35
0.39
0.46
0.46
0.32
0.33
0.35
0.37
0.30
0.30
Gender differences at end of Primary school
NCDS Age 11 in
1969
Average regressions
Maths
Reading
Quantile
regressions
10th percentile
Maths
Reading
50th percentile
Maths
Reading
90th percentile
Maths
Reading
BCS Age 10 in
1980
KS2
Age 10/ 11 in 2002
.83 (.49)
-.3 (.49)
2.73 (.53)
-4.03 (.51)
2.48 (.07)
-4.14 (.07)
-3 (1.4)
0 (1.42)
0 (.58)
-4 (.59)
0 (.59)
-3 (.57)
3 (2.98)
0 (5.87)
3 (2.98)
-3 (1.5)
4 (1.49)
-7 (3.44)
2 (1.15)
3 (1.66)
3 (.87)
-3 (.86)
5 (.58)
-3 (1.45)
Notes: Coefficient on dummy for boys reported; Standard errors in parentheses; Sample sizes are NCDS Maths 14129,
NCDS Reading 14133, BCS Maths 11706, BCS Reading 12775, KS2 1996 Maths 539074, KS2 1996 Reading 535711,
KS2 1998 Maths 539074, KS2 1998 Reading 574152, KS2 2002 Maths 611396, KS2 Reading 608674.
Raw gender differential over time: secondary schools
1+A*-C
(1) 1974 NCDS
(2) 1986 BCS
(3) 1998 KS Data
(4) 2002 KS Data
-0.059
(0.008)
-0.030
(0.012)
-0.094
(0.001)
-0.089
(0.001)
5+
A*-C
-0.018
(0.006)
0.009
(0.011)
-0.097
(0.001)
-0.111
(0.001)
Maths
A*-C
0.042
(0.006)
0.068
(0.011)
-0.010
(0.001)
-0.034
(0.001)
English
A*-C
-0.090
(0.007)
-0.072
(0.012)
-0.035
(0.001)
-0.060
(0.001)
Notes: Marginal effect on dummy for boys reported; Standard errors in parentheses; Sample sizes are (1) 14311 (cols 1-4) 11987 (cols 5-6);
(2) 6949 (cols 1-4); 5621 (col.6); (3) 551,046 (cols 1-2); 528780; 491488; (4) 586356 (cols 1-2) 571301; 527051.
Gender differential in secondary school: added value model
(1) 1974 NCDS
(2) 1986 BCS
(3) 2002 KS Data
1+A*-C
5+A*-C
Maths
A*-C
English
A*-C
-0.08
(0.009)
-0.045
(0.013)
-0.083
(0.001)
-0.021
(0.004)
-0.008
(0.011)
-0.137
(0.002)
0.019
(0.003)
0.053
(0.012)
-0.049
(0.002)
-0.113
(0.007)
-0.098
(0.013)
-0.087
(0.002)
Notes: Marginal effect on dummy for boys reported; Standard errors in parentheses; Sample sizes are (1) 14311 (cols 1-4) 11987 (cols 5-6); (2) 6949 (cols 1-4);
5621 (col.6); (3) 586356 (cols 1-2) 571301; 527051.Controls for reading score, age 11, maths score, age 11, missing variable dummies for Maths and English
Implications
• Gaps appear to have widened out in
secondary school years over time.
• English: wide gap in favour of girls that
persists over time.
• Maths: gender gap changes over time (in
favour of boys in 70s and 80s, in favour of
girls in 90s and 00s)
Economic framework
• Education of children viewed as family
investment (Becker model..)
• Children begin life with ‘inherited’ ability.
Parents make investments….influenced by
preferences, income and fertility.
• Children’s ability and level of parental
income and home investment determine
schooling attained by children
Higher education of mothers
• Effect through income – higher income,
more education
• Effect on home investment –
quantity/quality
• Tastes/attitude to education of children
Most research suggests that mother’s
education is more influential than father’s;
and has a bigger influence on girl’s
education
Education of mothers, by survey year
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1998 2000
Higher education
Other education
Link between income and the gender
differential?
• Relationship between income and education
has changed over time – much stronger now
• Has this benefited girls more than boys? –
depends on mechanism
- At least one study showing that increases in
household income lead to greater
investment in girls’ schooling (Glick and
Sahn, 2000) – but developing country
context.
Does Parental Education and Income Explain Gender Gaps in Age 16 Attainment?
(1) Basic Value Added
Specification
(2) (1) Plus Parents’
Education
(3) (1) Plus Parental Income
(4) (1) Plus Parents’
Education and Parental
Income
5+ A-C O Levels
(Coefficient, SE, on Male)
NCDS Age 16
BCS70 Age16
-.021
-.008
(.004)
(.011)
-.020
-.011
(.004)
(.011)
-.018
-.008
(.004)
(.014)
-.018
-.010
(.004)
(.014)
Notes: Sample sizes range from 9025 in (4) to 14257 in (1) for NCDS and from 4846 in (4) to 7307 in (1) for BCS70. The same
pattern of results emerge if restricted to the smallest sample size within each cohort. All specifications include age 10/11 maths and
reading test scores.
Does parental education and income explain gender gap
at age 16? Evidence from the GHS
Controls
None
Survey Obs
Coef
s
77-79
1467 -0.002
78-80
1506
0
79-81
1593
0.007
80-82
1516
0.026
81-83
1396
0.029
82-84
1221
0.026
83-85
1148
0.001
84-86
1129 -0.004
85-87
1097 -0.028
86-88
975
-0.042
87-89
857
-0.067
88-90
771
-0.05
89-91
746
-0.066
90-92
718
-0.071
91-93
666
-0.12
92-94
696
-0.089
93-95
709
-0.124
94-96
790
-0.095
S.E.
[0.021]
[0.021]
[0.020]
[0.021]
[0.022]
[0.024]
[0.025]
[0.025]
[0.026]
[0.026]
[0.026]
[0.026]
[0.027]
[0.028]
[0.029]
[0.032]
[0.034]
[0.035]
Parental
Education
Earnings
Parental
education &
Earnings
Coef
Coef
Coef
-0.007
-0.002
0
0.024
0.03
0.025
0.002
-0.005
-0.031
-0.038
-0.063
-0.041
-0.066
-0.062
-0.106
-0.077
-0.126
-0.116
S.E.
[0.018]
[0.020]
[0.020]
[0.021]
[0.022]
[0.024]
[0.025]
[0.025]
[0.026]
[0.026]
[0.026]
[0.026]
[0.027]
[0.028]
[0.030]
[0.033]
[0.036]
[0.037]
-0.004
-0.001
0.005
0.026
0.029
0.029
0.002
-0.003
-0.028
-0.038
-0.068
-0.044
-0.061
-0.055
-0.114
-0.097
-0.135
-0.111
S.E.
[0.021]
[0.021]
[0.021]
[0.021]
[0.022]
[0.024]
[0.025]
[0.025]
[0.026]
[0.026]
[0.026]
[0.026]
[0.027]
[0.028]
[0.030]
[0.032]
[0.035]
[0.036]
-0.007
0
0.003
0.031
0.035
0.031
0.005
-0.002
-0.032
-0.038
-0.064
-0.038
-0.063
-0.055
-0.105
-0.078
-0.128
-0.121
S.E.
[0.018]
[0.020]
[0.020]
[0.021]
[0.022]
[0.024]
[0.025]
[0.025]
[0.026]
[0.026]
[0.026]
[0.026]
[0.027]
[0.028]
[0.030]
[0.033]
[0.036]
[0.037
Research on male/female characteristics with
impact on educational attainment
• Attributes: Girls: more attentive; longer
concentration span; give fewer discipline
problems; but less confident than boys
• Learning styles: ‘Boys show greater adaptability
to more traditional approaches to
learning…memorising abstract, unambiguous
facts that have to be acquired quickly…willing to
sacrifice deep understanding for correct answers
achieved at speed’
Coursework vs. exams
- Study of GCSE Maths (Stobart, 1992): Boys
achieve a small mark advantage in exams, which
offset girls’ small advantage in coursework.
- Creswell (1990): 1989 GCSE exams in English,
Maths and Science. Girls’ marks for coursework
higher; Maths and Science: Boys’ marks for exams
higher.
- Ranking of subjects in terms of coursework
(Stobart et al. 1992), Improved performance of
girls directly related to the weighting and type of
coursework
Coursework vs. exams
• Elwood (1995): study of GCSE Maths and
English. Gender differential present in courses
when coursework element was reduced; gender
gap most pronounced for syllabuses not 100%
assessed by coursework.
• In English, restriction imposed in 1994 from
100% to 40% coursework - performance gap did
not reduce.
Influence of method of assessment
Multiple choice assessment: The Third
International Mathematics and Science
Study (TIMSS) – boys doing considerably
better than girls in Maths and Science,
whereas doing about the same in GCSE
(Key, Harris and Fernandes, 1996)
The % of 17 year olds passing at least five GCSE/O-levels with grade A-C, by survey year
60
50
40
Boys
Girls
30
20
10
0
1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
Conclusion
• Descriptive analysis shows girls doing better over
time, and that the change in gender gaps largely
driven by changes at secondary school level.
• Shift in gender differential after the introduction
of GCSEs – likely to be the most important
explanation for growth in the gender gap and
suggests policy can matter.
• Testing this further? - Most straightforward way
would be to compare English students to students
of another comparable exam system (Republic of
Ireland?) before and after the introduction of
GCSEs in England