by Edward Cranswick
A recent analysis of third grade achievement in literacy and numeracy shows that there remain significant differences in performance between genders, and that this early discrepancy may have negative ramifications for future educational development.
The paper, by Deborah A. Cobb-Clark and Julie Moschion, appeared in the European Journal of Population Economics and seeks to uncover the origin of the gender performance-gap in third-grade numeracy and reading. It is based off data from the Longitudinal Survey of Australian Children “in which information on child development reported by parents and teachers is linked to each child’s results on a national, standardized achievement test.”
Interestingly, the paper finds that gender advantages in either literacy or numeracy are not equal across contexts, but rather interact with the socioeconomic status (SES) of the children in question.
In particular, the authors found that girls in low- and middle-SES families have an advantage over boys in reading, whereas boys in high-SES families have an advantage in numeracy.
The finding of such a significant SES component to gender discrepancies in educational achievement undercuts simplistic notions of inherent differences between boys and girls – notions that may still exercise a strong hold over parents and teachers in terms of pedagogical practice as well as the expectations they have of boys and girls.
The early emergence of a gender disparity in achievement is problematic because it “is likely to be perpetuated and spill over into other educational outcomes”. The authors note that an early underperformance among girls in mathematics may have knock-on effects, including:
- A diminished likelihood that they enrol in maths and science classes in high school; leading to
- Fewer women completing science and technology degrees in university; leading to
- Fewer women employed in technology-related occupations.
The authors highlight the importance of the difference between educational “endowments” (the natural skills or dispositions that students bring to a subject) and the ways in which such endowments are best realised – or transformed into test results. They write that currently boys have an advantage in the way in which their endowments are translated into higher test scores (a factor which becomes more pronounced in higher SES circumstances).
While they don’t come to firm conclusions as to what is to be done, they note that mathematics may be more susceptible of upward improvement than literacy because “highly structured” and thus more dependent on teacher and principal interventions.
Achieving greater equality – particularly in the science- and tech-related fields – starts with education. Teachers should remain open and reflective when considering the roll of SES in limiting the horizons of their female students in particular – and continue to challenge preconceived notions that limit female achievement at an early age.