Gender and Educational Inequity: Impact of Early Education Programs on Academic Performance Gaps

Author(s):

Clara Muschkin(presenting / submitting)Helen Ladd Kenneth Dodge

Conference:

ECER 2016

Network:

05. Children and Youth at Risk and Urban Education

Format:

Paper

Session Information

05 SES 10, Paper Session

Paper Session

Time:

2016-08-25

15:30-17:00

Room:

OB-E0.01

Chair:

Mark Hadfield

Contribution

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.

Method

Data We explore the community-wide effects of these two early education initiatives on gender differences in academic outcomes among children enrolled in third grade between 1995 and 2010, using administrative student data and information on variation across counties and over time in the availability and penetration of these programs. Information about students and the schools that they attend is drawn from administrative public school data. In order to identify the county in which a child was born and eligible to receive early education services, we link the education data to individual birth records. The outcome variables in our models are drawn from the educational administrative data files. A third data set contains administrative records of funding levels by county by year, for Smart Start and More at Four. Information on school characteristics and district expenditures is drawn from the NCES Common Core of Data. Analysis Rather than evaluating the effects of participation in an early education program on educational outcomes among the children who were directly involved, we test the effects for all children of investments in these two initiatives with state-wide implementation in North Carolina. We specify OLS models for the test score outcomes and logistic regression models predictive of a special education placement or of being retained in grade, with program investments and gender as predictors in each model. We then estimate models that test for heterogeneity of program effects by gender and mother’s education level. Unadjusted gender differences in student outcomes favor girls in all but grade 3 math scores, and are statistically significant; differences are most pronounced among students with less educated mothers (23 percent of the sample).

Expected Outcomes

In the basic model for math scores, gender is not a significant predictor in Grade 3, but girls scored significantly higher in grades 4 and 5. The main effects of MAF and SS indicate that program investments improved math scores across grades. Program and mother’s education effects are similar; however, the female effect on reading is positive and significant across all grades. Program by gender interaction terms indicate whether the programs have an impact on gender differences in math and reading scores. This interaction term is negative across grades, indicating that the impact of program funding on reading and math scores was significantly higher for boys than for girls. The predicted female advantage in grades three and four reading, while significant at all levels, declines with increases in funding levels for both Smart Start and MAF. A similar pattern emerges for math scores. Comparing students whose mother has a lower education level with other students, we note that the female advantage in reading is consistently largest in the low mother’s education group, and that the program effects are positive and significant for all students across grades. Only among the less educated mothers group does SS funding have a significantly larger impact for boys than girls; the impact of MAF is significantly higher for boys among all groups except among fifth graders with less educated mothers. The logistic regression models predictive of special education placement generate a similar pattern of effects. Allocations for MAF and SS significantly reduce the likelihood that a student will have an exceptionality classification, across all grades. Also across grades, boys are more than twice as likely as girls to have a special education placement. In contrast to the OLS models, these results indicate that program benefits do not vary consistently by gender.

References

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.

Author Information

Clara Muschkin (presenting / submitting)

Duke University

Sanford School of Public Policy

Durham

Helen Ladd

Duke University, United States of America

Kenneth Dodge