Despite prevailing norms of gender equity in education, boys and girls continue to perform differently in school. This study examines patterns of gender differences in student outcomes during elementary school, and evaluates the potential for addressing gender gaps through investments in programs that address educational disadvantage prior to kindergarten entry. Our analytic strategy is to examine, over time, the impact of investments in two state-wide early childhood initiatives on gender differences in math, reading, and special education placement in grades three through five.  We examine in detail how early education effects on gender gaps may be related to a student’s family background.

North Carolina has actively pursued early childhood policies to help children prepare for school, and to reduce achievement gaps.  These policies supported two state-wide early childhood initiatives during our study period (1993-2010): Smart Start (SS) provided funding to improve childcare services at the county level for all children between the ages of 0-5; More at Four (MAF) provided funding for pre-school slots for disadvantaged four-year-olds.

Conceptual Framework

Trends in Gender Gaps

Trends in 4th grade NAEP scores over time indicate an increasing gender similarity in math and a consistent female advantage in reading. In NC, boys’ and girls’ math achievement converged early; by 2013, there was no mean difference.  In contrast, boys’ disadvantage in reading scores has remained steady, with less narrowing of the gender gap over time as compared with the US trends. In NC in 2013, girls averaged 7 points higher in reading NAEP scores; this difference indicates a gender gap of over half of a grade level.

How Early Childhood Education can Reduce Gender Gaps

Gender gaps in educational outcomes, particularly as they persist across grade levels, may be related to differences in learning and growth opportunities for boys and girls that result in lesser school readiness among boys (Diprete & Jennings, 2011; Entwisle et al., 2007). We suggest that early education programs can mitigate these differences, through interventions that address deficits of the cognitive and pro-social skills needed for academic success in the elementary grades. Within this framework, we hypothesize that gender differences in school readiness skills are more pronounced among economically disadvantaged students, and that the impact of early interventions will reduce a potential “double disadvantage” of boys from poor families.  

Early education provides opportunities for enhancing early cognitive skills; if provided in a high quality setting, these interventions may compensate for a potential lack of early intellectual stimulation in less advantaged homes (Hart & Risley, 1995; Dodge & Haskins, 2015).  Net of economic disadvantage and social/behavioral skills, there is limited evidence of gender differences in cognitive abilities prior to school entry. However, gender role orientation to different types of early childhood activities may determine preferences and practices that carry over to school readiness in language and numeracy skills (Orr, 2011).  High quality early childhood programs with well-balanced curricula are likely to mitigate these gendered behavior patterns, which have been shown to be more prevalent among children with less educated parents (Buchmann & Diprete, 2006;  Entwisle et al., 2007). 

In a prior study, we found that early childhood programs significantly reduce the likelihood of placements for disabilities and delays that are related to social and behavioral skills (Authors, 2015).  We thus suggest that early gains in social skills will benefit boys to a greater extent than girls in terms of special education placements.

Buchmann, C., DiPrete, T.A., McDaniel, A. (2008). Gender inequalities in education. Annual Review of Sociology, 34, 319-337. DiPrete, T.A. & Jennings, J.L. (2012) Social and behavioral skills and the gender gap in early educational achievement. Social Science Research, 41, 1-15. Dodge, K.A., & Haskins, R. (2015). Children and government. In R.M. Lerner, M.H. Bornstein, & T. Leventhal (Eds), Handbook of child psychology and developmental science, volume four, ecological settings and processes, 7th edition. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Entwisle, D.R., Alexander, K.L., & Olson, L.S. (2007). Early schooling: the handicap of being poor and male. Sociology of Education, 80, 114-138. Fryer, R.G., & Levitt, S.D. (2010). An empirical analysis of the gender gap in mathematics. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 2, 201-240. Hart, B., & Risley, T.R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American children. Baltimorte, MD: Brookes Publishing. Hyde, J.S., Lindberg, S.M., Linn, M.C., Ellis, A.B, & Williams, C.C. (2008). Gender similarities characterize math performances. Science, 321, 494-495. Husain, M., & Millimet, D.L. (2009). The mythical ‘boy’ crisis? Economics of Education Review, 28, 38-48. Loveless, T. (2015). Girls, Boys, and Reading. Brown Center Report on American Education, 3, 3-25.. Lubienski, S.T, Robinson, J.P., Crane, C.C., & Colleen, M.G. Girls’ and boys’ mathematics achievement, affect, and experiences: Findings from ECLS-K. (2013). Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 44, 634-645. Orr, A.J. (2011). Gendered capital: Childhood socialization and the “boy crisis” in education. Sex Roles, 65, 271-284. Ou, S., Reynolds, A.J. (2010). Mechanisms of effects of an early intervention program on educational attainment: A gender subgroup analysis. Children and Youth Services Review, 32, 1064-1076. Rich, M. (2014, July 20). Obama to report widening of initiative for Black and Latino boys. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com Robinson, J.P., & Lubienski, S.T. (2011). The development of gender achievement gaps in mathematics and reading during elementary and middle school: Examining direct cognitive assessments and teacher ratings. American Educational Research Journal, 48, 268-302. Sommers, C.H. (2013). The War against Boys: How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men. New York: Simon & Schuster.