Post on 16-May-2023
1 23
International Review of Education ISSN 0020-8566 Int Rev EducDOI 10.1007/s11159-013-9352-6
Gender differences in primary andsecondary education: Are girls reallyoutperforming boys?
Geert Driessen & Annemarie van Langen
1 23
Your article is protected by copyright and all
rights are held exclusively by Springer Science
+Business Media Dordrecht. This e-offprint
is for personal use only and shall not be self-
archived in electronic repositories. If you
wish to self-archive your work, please use the
accepted author’s version for posting to your
own website or your institution’s repository.
You may further deposit the accepted author’s
version on a funder’s repository at a funder’s
request, provided it is not made publicly
available until 12 months after publication.
Gender differences in primary and secondaryeducation: Are girls really outperforming boys?
Geert Driessen • Annemarie van Langen
� Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013
Abstract A moral panic has broken out in several countries after recent studies
showed that girls were outperforming boys in education. Commissioned by the
Dutch Ministry of Education, the present study examines the position of boys and
girls in Dutch primary education and in the first phase of secondary education over
the past ten to fifteen years. On the basis of several national and international large-
scale databases, the authors examined whether one can indeed speak of a gender
gap, at the expense of boys. Three domains were investigated, namely cognitive
competencies, non-cognitive competencies, and school career features. The results
as expressed in effect sizes show that there are hardly any differences with regard to
language and mathematics proficiency. However, the position of boys in terms of
educational level and attitudes and behaviour is much more unfavourable than that
of girls. Girls, on the other hand, score more unfavourably with regard to sector and
subject choice. While the present situation in general does not differ very much
from that of a decade ago, it is difficult to predict in what way the balances might
shift in the years to come.
Keywords Gender gap � Boys problem � Primary and secondary education �Large-scale databases � Empirical analyses � The Netherlands
Resume Disparites entre les sexes dans l’enseignement primaire et secondaire :
les filles devancent-elles vraiment les garcons ? – Des etudes recentes signalant que
les filles distanceraient les garcons a l’ecole engendre une panique morale dans
plusieurs pays. La presente recherche, realisee a la demande du ministere
G. Driessen (&) � A. van Langen
ITS, Radboud University Nijmegen, P.O. Box 9048, 6500 KJ Nijmegen, The Netherlands
e-mail: g.driessen@its.ru.nl
URL: www.geertdriessen.nl
A. van Langen
e-mail: a.v.langen@its.ru.nl
123
Int Rev Educ
DOI 10.1007/s11159-013-9352-6
Author's personal copy
neerlandais de l’education, examine la position des garcons et des filles dans
l’enseignement primaire et le premier cycle secondaire de ce pays, au cours des dix
a quinze dernieres annees. S’appuyant sur plusieurs bases de donnees nationales et
internationales a grande echelle, les auteurs explorent si l’on peut veritablement
parler d’un clivage au detriment des garcons. Cette analyse a porte sur trois
domaines, a savoir les competences cognitives, les competences non cognitives et
les caracteristiques du parcours scolaire. Les resultats obtenus exprimes en tailles
d’effets revelent qu’il n’existe guere de differences quant aux competences
linguistiques et mathematiques. Neanmoins, la position des garcons en termes de
niveau educatif, d’attitudes et de comportements est beaucoup plus defavorable que
celle des filles. En revanche, ces dernieres s’orientent encore vers les filieres et
matieres dites typiquement feminines. La situation actuelle n’est globalement pas
tres eloignee de celle observee il y a dix ans, et il est difficile de prevoir de quelle
maniere les ecarts evolueront dans les annees a venir.
Zusammenfassung Geschlechtsunterschiede in der Primar- und Sekundarbildung:
Sind Madchen wirklich besser als Jungen? – Nachdem einige Studien zu dem Er-
gebnis gekommen sind, dass Madchen bessere Schulleistungen erbringen als Jungen,
ist in mehreren Landern großes Wehgeschrei ausgebrochen. In der vorliegenden
Studie, die vom niederlandischen Bildungsministerium in Auftrag gegeben wurde,
hat man die Leistungen von Jungen und Madchen in der niederlandischen Primar-
stufe und Sekundarstufe I im Verlauf der letzten zehn bis funfzehn Jahre miteinander
verglichen. Anhand mehrerer großer nationaler und internationaler Datenbanken
untersuchten die Autoren, ob man wirklich von einem geschlechtsspezifischen Ge-
falle sprechen kann, bei dem die Jungen den Kurzeren ziehen. Es wurden drei Ko-
mpetenzbereiche untersucht, und zwar kognitive Kompetenzen, nichtkognitive
Fahigkeiten und Besonderheiten des schulischen Werdegangs. Die Ergebnisse,
ausgedruckt in Effektgroßen, zeigen, dass es bei der Sprachbeherrschung und den
mathematischen Kompetenzen kaum Unterschiede gibt. In puncto Bildungsstand
und Einstellungen und Verhaltensweisen jedoch fallen die Jungen weit hinter die
Madchen zuruck. Die Madchen andererseits erzielen schlechtere Ergebnisse bei der
Wahl der Fachrichtungen und der Facher. Die Situation hat sich in den letzten
zehn Jahren im Allgemeinen wenig verandert, doch eine Prognose, wie sich das
Gleichgewicht in den kommenden Jahren verschieben wird, gestaltet sich schwierig.
Resumen Diferencias de genero en la educacion primaria y secundaria: >las ninas
realmente estan superando a los ninos? – Despues de que unos estudios recientes
indicaban que las ninas estaban superando a los varones en el ambito escolar, en
diversos paıses se ha desatado una especie de panico moral. Encargado por el
Ministerio de Educacion de los Paıses Bajos, el presente estudio examina la situ-
acion de ninos y ninas en la educacion primaria y en la primera fase de la educacion
secundaria de los Paıses Bajos a lo largo de los ultimos diez a quince anos. Apo-
yandose en diversas bases de datos de gran escala, nacionales e internacionales, los
autores verificaron si efectivamente se puede hablar de una brecha de genero, de una
divergencia en desmedro de los varones. Se investigaron tres ambitos, a saber:
G. Driessen, A. van Langen
123
Author's personal copy
competencias cognitivas, competencias no cognitivas y caracterısticas de la carrera
escolar. Los resultados, expresados en tamanos del efecto, mostraron que apenas
hay diferencias en cuanto a capacidades en lenguas y matematicas. Sin embargo, la
situacion de los ninos en cuanto a nivel educativo, actitudes y conducta es mucho
mas desfavorable que la de las ninas. Por otra parte, las ninas presentaron puntajes
mas desfavorables en cuanto a su eleccion de areas y asignaturas. Si bien la situ-
acion presente, en general, no difiere demasiado de la de una decada atras, es difıcil
predecir como y en que forma las balanzas podrıan inclinarse en los anos venideros.
Introduction
Underachieving boys?
Starting in the 1990s, a moral panic has broken out in several countries after studies
showed that girls were outperforming boys in education. This phenomenon was called
‘‘the boys problem’’ and attracted much media and political attention (Smith 2003).
Concern for differences between boys and girls in education is not really new. What is
new, however, is the fact that while in earlier days the underachievement of girls was of
central interest, now it is the deteriorating position of boys which is causing concern. The
Gender differences in primary and secondary education
123
Author's personal copy
amount of attention and perspective employed vary according to the sociopolitical and
economic context and thus from country to country. In the UK and Australia the topic
has been on the agenda for a number of years now and has led to policy measures to
reverse this development, while in countries like the Netherlands and France the
phenomenon of ‘‘failing boys’’ is a rather recent one (Freeman 2004; House of
Representatives 2002; Jha and Kelleher 2006; Lynch and Feeley 2009; OECD 2009;
Skelton et al. 2007).
Much of the discussion pertaining to ‘‘the gender gap’’ now focuses on the
question whether boys do indeed underachieve in education and score below girls in
all educational stages and subject areas. The problem is that in the debates opinions
are not always substantiated with robust empirical evidence. In addition, informa-
tion on possible differences between boys and girls is in many cases only presented
in a fragmented way. As a consequence the risk of overestimating differences and
unjustified generalisations is very real. An important finding by Janet Hyde (2005),
for instance, is that with respect to mathematics proficiency the differences between
boys and girls are much smaller than the individual variability, i.e. differences
between pupils in general. Therefore some researchers are of the opinion that the
problem is being approached far too indiscriminately (Mensah and Kiernan 2010).
According to them, the conclusion should be that with regard to some aspects, boys
outperform girls, while with regard to other aspects, girls do better than boys.
Another point of discussion is whether differences between boys and girls have
increased or not during the last couple of decades. According to David Gillborn and
Heidi Mirza (2000), ‘‘the gender gap’’ has widened over the years in favour of girls,
but Stephen Gorard et al. (1999) do not share this opinion, and wonder whether boys
did indeed do better than girls in the 1970s and 1980s. Other authors relativise the
gender differences and point to the fact that all pupils have progressed, boys as well
as girls (Younger et al. 2002). Another relevant question is whether gender-specific
differences in educational careers are unique for certain countries or whether they
are a universal phenomenon. If the former is true, this may point to (negative)
effects of specific education systems.
To put possible gender differences into perspective, some scholars draw attention
to the influence of two other factors that traditionally play an important role in the
explanation of educational inequality, namely a pupil’s social milieu and ethnicity
(Dekkers et al. 2000). Debbie Epstein et al. (1998) argue that differences in
achievement according to gender are much smaller than those attributed to milieu
and ethnicity. In line with this, we distinguish two forms of educational inequality
(Van Langen 2005). The first one is vertical educational inequality, which relates to
unequal opportunities among certain groups in society to reach a high education
level. Indicators are achievement in primary and secondary school, level of
secondary education, grade retention, early drop-out, and graduation. The second
one is horizontal educational inequality, which concerns the differences between
groups with respect to the distribution over educational sectors, which may lead –
even given comparable vertical positions – to unequal opportunities for further
training, education and employment. Indicators are the choice of specific sectors and
subjects within an education level (Van Langen and Driessen 2006).
G. Driessen, A. van Langen
123
Author's personal copy
Explanations for underachievement
In the ongoing discussion, various explanations are given for the underachievement
of boys. Three levels are discerned. What is remarkable is that some of these
explanations are the same as those which were until recently put forward for the
explanation for the underachievement of girls. This suggests that such explanations
are either universal or opportunistic.
At individual pupil level, biological and genetic explanations were originally put
forward: gender differences were seen as the result of innate differences between boys and
girls (Younger and Warrington 2005). However, opponents pointed to the possibility of
the differential influence of the environment (the so-called nature–nurture debate).1 The
biological-genetic explanation lost much ground when it became apparent that gender
differences in attainment vary considerably over time as well as among countries (Arnot
et al. 1999). The suggestion that boys and girls supposedly have differing aptitudes for
particular learning styles – competitive versus cooperative – has also been dismissed in
several studies. Other possible, explanatory pupil variables relate to attitudinal factors
such as interest and motivation. Many national and international studies do indeed reveal
that such variables partly form the basis of gender differences in education. However, once
again the question is whether these differences are innate or whether their occurrence is
partly due to the influence of socialisation (Van Langen 2005). Recently, neurological and
physiological research has made significant progress in understanding brain structures and
functioning. On the basis of this, some authors distinguish between a male and female
brain and conclude that this distinction has far-reaching consequences for boys’ and girls’
cognitive functioning and learning (Baron-Cohen 2003). Other scholars are opposed to
this what they call ‘‘neuromyth’’ (Hyde 2005). The Organisation for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD) agrees and feels that such conclusions are
incomplete, extrapolated beyond the evidence, or simply false (OECD 2007a). This does
not mean that this strand of research is without merit; in fact it is promising, but much more
evidence is needed before hard conclusions can be drawn.
At the second level of influence – that of the family and social environment – the
explanations put forward relate chiefly to the gender-specific preferences and behaviour
that boys and girls supposedly develop as the result of gender-stereotyped child-rearing
and the influence of the peer group (Roger and Duffield 2000). Some studies suggest that
parental involvement and support are greater for girls than for boys. One explanation is
that it is mostly the mothers who support the children and that they have a preference for
their own sex. In particular, much weight is ascribed to the influence of peers, i.e. boys
aspire to an ideal male image which clashes with the culture of a school, while girls
develop an ideal female image which fits in very well (Van Houtte 2004a).
At the third level of influence – that of the school and teacher/class – explanations in
the 1970s and 1980s were chiefly sought for why girls were lagging behind. This was
supposedly the result of the ‘‘hidden’’ curriculum,2 low expectations of teachers, and so
1 The so-called nature-nurture debate concerns the extent to which particular aspects of behaviour are a
product of either inherited (i.e. genetic: nature) or acquired (i.e. learned: nurture) characteristics.2 The ‘‘hidden’’curriculum refers to norms, values and behaviours which are being taught but which are
not openly and officially laid down in the written curriculum.
Gender differences in primary and secondary education
123
Author's personal copy
on (Barow 2004; Fan 2011). Nowadays, as a result of the numerical, cultural and
political feminisation of education, the school culture is said to work in favour of girls,
except when choosing science subjects and courses. Thus far research has not come up
with any unequivocal proof of this so-called feminisation effect (Carrington et al. 2008;
Driessen 2007; Skelton 2012). In some studies the numerical presence of girls in a school
is put forward as a possible explanation. It was found, for example, that the larger the
proportion of girls, the higher the boys’ achievements, and that this finding can be
ascribed to the general pupils’ study culture3 (Van Houtte 2004b).
Finally, explanations have been advanced that are linked to the social context.
The fact that gender differences vary in size among countries implies that there must
be influences based on this context (Van Langen et al. 2006). Explanations relate, on
the one hand, to characteristics of education systems (level of differentiation and
specialisation) and, on the other, to characteristics of the job market and general
social attitudes towards gender equality and emancipation.
Strategies to combat underachievement
We mentioned earlier that some countries have taken policy measures to combat
boys’ underachievement. The intervention strategies are arranged into three
categories. It is noteworthy that many interventions implemented in the 1970s
and 1980s to fight the educational lag of girls have now returned in a different guise
to combat the educational lag of boys.
The first category relates to pedagogic-didactic measures (James 2007). For
instance a successful intervention from the past was to train teachers to deter gender
stereotype behaviour by pupils when using computers. Projects are carried out to
stimulate boys’ interest in literacy, and thus their self-confidence, by using an
integrated approach towards reading, writing, speaking and listening, interactive
class activity and ICT. Both recently and in the past pedagogic-didactic means have
been sought which would fit the presumed specific learning style of boys (now) or
girls (in the past). However, this never produced any real results.
The second category relates to sociocultural interventions (Martino 2008). These
are especially intended to stimulate the motivation and interest of the gender lagging
behind. Currently the chief aim of these is to alter the anti-school attitude and
disruptive behaviour of boys. Earlier on, similar strategies were used to influence
the gender stereotype choices of girls and their attitude towards science subjects –
with few concrete results, however.
The third category includes organisational interventions (Buchmann et al. 2008). In the
current situation, these relate to the ‘‘de-feminisation’’ of education by hiring more male
teachers and introducing single-sex classes for certain subjects so that pupils (boys) do not
feel inhibited by the opposite sex (girls). The latter has already been tried out in England
and initial results seem promising. In the past, research into single-sex classes and schools
3 The general study culture includes attitudes towards school and schooling. A positive study culture is
characterised by, for instance, doing your homework, not displaying disruptive behaviour in the
classroom, not playing truant, and being enthusiastic about continuing your studies.
G. Driessen, A. van Langen
123
Author's personal copy
has been carried out, but the presumed positive effects – with girls in mind at the time –
have never proved conclusive.
Research questions
In the Netherlands, many newspaper articles on ‘‘the gender gap’’ have appeared in
recent years. In Parliament, concern was raised as to the impending unfavourable
position of boys. The Dutch Ministry of Education therefore commissioned us in
2010 to conduct a scientific study into possible differences between boys and girls in
primary and the first phase of secondary education (4- to 16-year-olds). The two
main research questions were:
• To what degree does the position of boys in primary and secondary education
differ from that of girls?
• Have any differences between boys and girls increased during the last decades?
This article represents the main outcomes of the commissioned study; for more
information see Driessen and Van Langen (2010). In the following sections we first
present information on the data we used and the method we employed. To be better able
to situate the findings, we then provide an overview of the Dutch education system. The
main section deals with the results of the analysis of possible gender differences. In the
final section we summarise our findings and draw some conclusions.
Data and method
For our quantitative data analysis, we used data from four sources:
• large-scale nation-wide cohort studies (the PRIMA, VOCL and COOL4 cohort
studies, each with data from 20,000 to 55,000 pupils; for more information on
these studies see Driessen et al. 2009; Jungbluth et al. 1996; Kuyper and Van der
Werf 2005, 2007; Zijsling et al. 2009);
• national databases with population data provided by the Ministry of Education
specifically for this study and complemented by data from Statistics Netherlands
(2010);
• National Assessment of Educational Achievement studies carried out by CITO, the
Dutch Central Institute for Test Development (two studies: PPON and JPO5; see
Heesters et al. 2007a, b, 2008; Hemker and Van Weerden 2009; Janssen et al. 2005);
and
4 PRIMA stands for cohortonderzoek Primair onderwijs [cohort study Primary Education]. VOCL stands
for Voortgezet Onderwijs Cohort Leerlingen [cohort study Secondary Education Pupils]. COOL stands
for Cohortonderzoek Onderwijsloopbanen 5–18 [cohort study Educational Careers of 5–18-year-olds.5 PPON stands for Periodieke Peiling van het Onderwijsniveau [Periodic Assessment Educational Level]
and JPO stands for Jaarlijks Peilingsonderzoek van het Onderwijsniveau [Yearly Assessment Educational
Level].
Gender differences in primary and secondary education
123
Author's personal copy
• international comparative studies (PIRLS, TIMSS and PISA6; see Mullis et al.
2007; Martin et al. 2008; OECD 2007b).
We analysed three domains:
• cognitive competencies (achievement test scores);
• non-cognitive competencies (e.g. behaviour, motivation); and
• school career outcomes (e.g. type of secondary education, subject choice).
To facilitate comparison of different kinds of quantitative outcome measures, we
transformed the differences between boys and girls, where appropriate, into so-
called standardised effect-sizes (ES; Cohen’s d). According to Jacob Cohen (1988),
an ES of 0.20 can be interpreted as ‘‘small’’, an ES of 0.50 as ‘‘medium’’ and an ESof 0.80 as ‘‘large’’. In our context, a positive (?) ES points to higher scores for boys,
a negative (-) ES to higher scores for girls.
The Dutch education system
Dutch primary education is for 4- to 12-year-olds and consists of eight grades. When
the children are in the final grade of primary school, they are given a
recommendation with respect to the most suitable type of secondary education. In
addition to regular primary education, special needs support is provided by special
primary education.
In the secondary education system, the pupils are streamed into separate tracks.
In regular secondary education, three basic tracks are discerned:
• VMBO: pre-vocational secondary education (age 12–16; four years), which
comprises four learning pathways:
– basic vocational programme (BBL);
– middle-management vocational programme (KBL);
– combined programme (GL);
– theoretical programme (TL).
• HAVO: senior general secondary education (age 12–17; four years);
• VWO: pre-university education (age 12–18; six years).7
6 PIRLS stands for the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study, an international study of reading
achievement in US-American 4th-grade students and their international peers conducted by the
International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA). TIMSS stands for the
Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study, also conducted by IEA, which assesses the
mathematics and science achievement of US-American 4th- and 8th-grade students compared to that of
students in other countries. PISA stands for the Programme for International Student Assessment, an
international study conducted by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
It assesses 15-year-olds’ competencies every three years in three key subjects, namely reading,
mathematics and science, on an international scale.7 VMBO stands for Voorbereidend Middelbaar Beroepsonderwijs. BBL stands for BasisberoepsgerichteLeerweg. KBL stands for Kaderberoepsgerichte Leerweg. GL stands for Gemengde Leerweg. TL stands
for Theoretische Leerweg. HAVO stands for Hoger Algemeen Voortgezet Onderwijs. VWO stands for
Voorbereidend Wetenschappelijk Onderwijs.
G. Driessen, A. van Langen
123
Author's personal copy
In the VMBO track, Learning support (LWOO) is available for pupils who are
lagging behind or have other problems but who are nonetheless deemed capable of
obtaining a VMBO certificate. Practical training (PRO) is available for pupils who
are not expected to obtain a VMBO certificate. Further special needs support is
provided by special secondary schools.
Depending on the level of secondary education attended, pupils can progress to a
middle-level vocational or general education (MBO; two to four years) or a higher
level education, namely higher professional education (HBO; four years) or
university education (WO; four to six years).8 The basic structure of the Dutch
educational system is depicted in Fig. 1.
Results
Cognitive competencies
Primary education
Information on achievement in primary education comes from the national cohort
studies PRIMA and COOL and from the CITO National Assessment of Educational
Achievement studies PPON and JPO. Table 1 summarises the results of our
comparison of various achievement test scores. From this table it can be concluded
that the cognitive competencies of boys and girls in primary education do differ, but
Primary education
Pre-university education
(VWO)
Senior general secondary education
(HAVO)Pre-vocational secondary
education (VMBO)
Senior secondary vocational education (MBO)
Higher professional education (HBO)
University (WO)
Basic secondary education
Age 4
Age 12
Age 18
Sp
ecia
l p
rim
ary
ee
du
ca
tio
n
Sp
ecia
l se
co
nd
ary
ed
uca
tio
n
Practicaltraining (PRO)
Fig. 1 An overview of the Dutch education system. Source: Ministerie van OCW (2007)
8 LWOO stands for Leerwegondersteunend Onderwijs. PRO stands for Praktijkonderwijs. MBO stands
for Middelbaar Beroepsonderwijs. HBO stands for Hoger Beroepsonderwijs. WO stands for
Wetenschappelijk Onderwijs.
Gender differences in primary and secondary education
123
Author's personal copy
these differences in general amount to no more than ‘‘small’’ (ES = 0.20), and in
some instances ‘‘medium’’ (ES = 0.50). The relative position of boys and girls with
regard to domain or subject varies. In general boys have an advantage in the
domains of mathematics, world studies and English language, while girls have a
lead in the domains of (Dutch) language and reading.
Table 1 Summary effect sizes of gender differences in cognitive competencies in Dutch primary
education
Domain Grade Year ES
Language 2 1994 -0.21
2000 -0.22
2007 -0.14
8 1994 -0.01
2000 -0.04
2007 -0.07
Mathematics 2 1994 -0.10
2000 -0.05
2007 -0.04
8 1994 0.28
2000 0.26
2007 0.29
Reading 8 2000 -0.18
2007 -0.18
Final test – Total 8 1994 0.09
2000 -0.08
2007 -0.02
Final test – Language 8 2000 -0.31
2007 -0.28
Final test – Mathematics 8 2000 0.24
2007 0.34
Final test – Study skills 8 2000 -0.21
2007 0.00
Final test – World studies 8 2000 0.43
2007 0.37
Mathematics (22 subtests) 8 2004 -0.33 – 0.52
Reading (5 subtests) 8 2005 -0.24 – -0.04
English (5 subtests) 8 2006 0.22 – 0.51
Language 8 2008 -0.37 – 0.23
Mathematics 8 2008 0.43 – 0.52
Sources: PRIMA 1994/95 (Jungbluth et al. 1996) and 2000/01 (Driessen et al. 2002); COOL 2007/08
(Driessen et al. 2009); PPON 2004, 2005 and 2006 (Janssen et al. 2005; Heesters et al. 2007a, 2008); JPO
2007/08 (Hemker and Van Weerden 2009)
G. Driessen, A. van Langen
123
Author's personal copy
In the international studies PIRLS of 2006 (Mullis et al. 2007) and TIMSS of
2007 (Martin et al. 2008; Mullis et al. 2008), the 9- and 10-year-olds were
assessed with regard to reading comprehension (literary, information, total) and
mathematics and science. The effect sizes were -0.12, -0.18 and -0.15, and
0.16 and 0.17, respectively, and thus comparable to the ones found in Dutch
national studies.
Special needs pupils
In the PRIMA measurement round of 2004/05, the teachers of grades 2, 4, 6 and 8
identified their pupils with special needs (Smeets et al. 2007). Two categories were
distinguished: the 10 per cent of pupils who scored lowest with regard to language
proficiency, and the 10 per cent who scored lowest with regard to mathematics
proficiency. Boys were in the language special needs category somewhat more often
(12 per cent vs. 10 per cent) while girls were in the mathematics special needs
category somewhat more often (12 per cent vs. 9 per cent respectively).
In the CITO PPON study of 2005, 12- and 13-year-olds in special primary education
were tested for their language achievement; six different domains were distinguished
(Heesters et al. 2007b). The results show that in some domains boys do better while
girls do better in others. Boys do better especially in vocabulary (ES = 0.33), girls in
literacy (ES = -0.39). In general, the differences are however small to very small.
Secondary education
Information on achievement in secondary education is available from the cohort
studies VOCL and COOL. Table 2 summarises the findings for pupils in grade 3.
The picture that arises from this table is fairly comparable to that of the achievement
data in primary education.
In the PISA measurement round of 2006 the 15-year-olds were assessed for their
science, mathematics and reading skills (OECD 2007b, c). The effect sizes for
differences between the Dutch boys and girls were 0.08, 0.15 and -0.25, respectively.
Table 2 Summary effect sizes
of gender differences in
cognitive competencies in grade
3 of Dutch secondary education
Sources: VOCL (Kuyper and
Van der Werf 2005, 2007;
Zijsling et al. 2009); COOL
2007/08 (Driessen et al. 2009)
Domain Year ES
Vocabulary 2008 0.05
Spelling of verbs 2008 -0.48
English 2008 -0.05
Text comprehension 2002 -0.24
Reading comprehension 2008 -0.28
Mathematics 2002 0.09
Mathematics 2008 0.12
General basic skills 2002 -0.27
Cognitive abilities 2008 -0.04
Gender differences in primary and secondary education
123
Author's personal copy
Non-cognitive competencies
Primary education
In the PRIMA and COOL cohort studies, the teachers were asked to evaluate their
pupils with regard to a number of attitudinal and behavioural aspects. In addition,
the pupils also self-assessed their attitudes and behaviour. Table 3 presents the
effect sizes of the gender comparisons. Pertaining to social behaviour and work
attitude, girls were evaluated substantially more favourably than boys. In addition to
that, the gender difference in work attitude increases during the course of primary
education. What is striking regarding motivation is that boys are much more focused
on competition than girls. Girls in general do better on well-being (feeling
Table 3 Summary effect sizes
of gender differences in non-
cognitive competencies in Dutch
primary education
Sources: PRIMA 1994/95
(Jungbluth et al. 1996) and
2000/01 (Driessen et al. 2002);
COOL 2007/08 (Driessen et al.
2009)
Domain Grade Year ES
Well-being 2 1994 -0.23
2000 -0.22
8 1994 -0.25
2000 -0.29
Well-being with teacher 8 2007 -0.15
Well-being with pupils 8 2007 -0.01
Self-efficacy 2 1994 -0.08
2000 -0.04
8 1994 0.03
2000 -0.01
8 2007 0.18
Social behaviour 2 1994 -0.29
2000 -0.41
2007 -0.34
8 1994 -0.39
2000 -0.48
2007 -0.39
Work attitude 2 1994 -0.39
2000 -0.44
2007 -0.44
8 1994 -0.41
2000 -0.63
2007 -0.62
Mastery 8 2007 -0.03
Performance/competition 2007 0.39
Social motivation 2007 -0.19
Extrinsic motivation 2007 0.10
Task orientation 8 2007 -0.12
G. Driessen, A. van Langen
123
Author's personal copy
comfortable within the school environment) and task orientation, but these
differences are rather small.
Special needs pupils
In the PRIMA measurement round of 2004/05 the teachers of grades 2, 4, 6 and 8
evaluated their special needs pupils with regard to nine learning, behavioural and
physical problems (Smeets et al. 2007). Boys were considered as pupils with special
needs much more often (30 per cent) than girls (22 per cent). Girls more often show
language and mathematics delays and internalising problem behaviour (74 vs. 61
per cent, and 49 vs. 43 per cent, respectively). Boys more often demonstrate a
problematic work attitude (67 per cent vs. 56 per cent), externalising problem
behaviour (47 per cent vs. 21 per cent) and autistic behaviour (8 per cent vs. 3 per
cent).
In the COOL measurement round of 2007/08, the teachers were asked whether
they provided extra care for their pupils (Driessen et al. 2009). In grade 2, 24 per
cent of the boys were reported to be special needs pupils while this applied to 18 per
cent of the girls. In grade 8 the percentage of special needs boys was about the same,
but the percentage of special needs girls had increased to 23 per cent. It should be
mentioned, however, that in the years between grades 2 and 8, more boys than girls
had been referred to special education.
Secondary education
The instruments to gauge non-cognitive competencies used in secondary education
to a large extent were the same as those that were used in primary education. The
Table 4 Summary effect sizes
of gender differences in non-
cognitive competencies in grade
3 of Dutch secondary education
Sources: VOCL (Kuyper and
Van der Werf 2005, 2007;
Zijsling et al. 2009); COOL
2007/08 (Driessen et al. 2009)
Domain Year ES
Well-being with teachers 2001 -0.08
Class atmosphere -0.21
Well-being with teachers 2007 -0.02
Well-being with pupils 0.06
Extraversion 2007 -0.24
Mildness -0.75
Orderliness -0.06
Emotional stability 0.63
Autonomy 0.00
Achievement orientation 2001 -0.08
Mastery 2007 -0.13
Performance/competition 0.40
Social motivation -0.36
Extrinsic motivation 0.08
Self-efficacy 0.29
Task orientation -0.11
Gender differences in primary and secondary education
123
Author's personal copy
resulting effect sizes are presented in Table 4. This table shows that with regard to
some of the non-cognitive competencies, substantial gender differences exist in
secondary education. Boys evaluate themselves as considerably less mild (peace-
able) and at the same time emotionally much more stable than girls, and according
to themselves they also have more self-confidence. With regard to motivation, the
same picture as in primary education emerges, albeit to a stronger extent: boys are
driven by considerably stronger feelings of competition while girls are more socially
motivated.
School career characteristics
Primary education
On the basis of data from the cohort studies PRIMA and COOL, the share of pupils
with a recommendation for the VMBO theoretical pathway or higher was computed
for the school years 1994/95, 2000/01 and 2007/08 (Jungbluth et al. 1996; Driessen
et al. 2002, 2009). Analyses show that in 2007/08 there are somewhat more boys
than girls with such a recommendation (51.3 per cent vs. 50.3 per cent respectively).
Special needs pupils
Pupils with special needs in regular education may be assessed and then either
receive a personal budget which is intended to pay for staffing and equipment costs
and any adaptations that may be necessary to meet the child’s needs in a regular
school, or receive a referral for admission to a special school. From the PRIMA
cohort study of 2004/05 it emerges that 3.8 per cent of all special needs pupils
receive a personal budget and 7.3 per cent of them are in a referral procedure for
special education (Smeets et al. 2007). There are many more boys than girls with a
special budget or in a referral procedure (5 per cent vs. 2 per cent, and 8 per cent vs.
6 per cent, respectively).
National data offer insight into the distribution of boys and girls across special
education (Smeets et al. 2007). In special primary education, two-thirds of the pupil
population consists of boys. In special secondary education, even 72 per cent of the
population are boys and their share is on the rise. More detailed data show that
especially in schools for pupils with behavioural problems boys are strongly
overrepresented; in 2009 their share amounted to about 80 per cent (Statistics
Netherlands 2010).
Secondary education
Using national population data provided by the Ministry of Education,9 the school
careers of the cohort of pupils who had started in grade 1 of secondary education in
the school year 2005/06 (N = 192,474) were followed for four years.
9 The datafile was specifically put together by the Ministry for this study and is the source for all of the
findings reported in this section of the paper.
G. Driessen, A. van Langen
123
Author's personal copy
When they start in secondary education, boys are on average older than girls,
especially the category of 13-year-old boys are over-represented (25.7 per cent vs.
19.6 per cent). Such age differences indicate that boys have repeated classes in
primary education more often than girls.
During the first year in secondary education, gender differences in level of
education are rather small. This, in part, is a result of the Dutch education system
where the first year is often a broad transition year (or basic secondary education).
In the years following this first year, however, clear differences appear. In the fourth
year, the gender difference at the pre-university level (VWO) increases to 4.2 per
cent at the expense of boys (18.8 per cent vs. 23.0 per cent). At the senior general
secondary education level (HAVO) there also are fewer boys (19.6 per cent vs. 21.2
per cent). Boys’ representation is stronger especially in practical training courses
(PRO) (1.5 per cent vs. 1.0 per cent), in the basic vocational programme (BBL; 14.7
per cent vs. 11.4 per cent) and also among early school-leavers (drop-out; 4.8 per
cent vs. 3.5 per cent).
The data pertaining to the Learning support facility (LWOO) show that boys
need this support more than girls (34.9 vs. 32.8 per cent).
Regarding the non-delayed transition from one grade to another, regardless of the
level, girls in nearly all instances perform somewhat better than boys. A delayed
transition is a result of either repeating a class or early school-leaving. Especially in
the transition from the general track (designated as AVO,10 which combines
VMBO, HAVO and VWO), big gender differences in repeating classes can be
observed, with boys having to repeat a class more often than girls (e.g. the transition
from year 2 to year 3: 4.7 per cent vs. 2.1 per cent).
When pupils move on to another school year, they can continue either in the
same school level or in a lower or higher level; in addition, they can leave the school
without any qualification (early school leaving/drop-out). In practical training
courses (PRO), girls continue in a higher level much more often than boys (e.g.
from year 2 to year 3: 7.2 per cent vs. 3.7 per cent). In VMBO girls also more often
continue in a higher level (e.g. from year 1 to year 2: 6.7 per cent vs. 3.4 per cent).
In AVO boys more often continue in a lower level (e.g. from year 1 to year 2: 6.2
per cent vs. 3.0 per cent, and from year 2 to year 3: 8.0 per cent vs. 5.7 per cent). For
an overview see Table 5.
In the school year of 2008/09, the pupils in the VMBO track who were not
delayed by having to repeat classes sat their final examinations. There were hardly
any gender differences in pass rates.
At the end of the second year, VMBO pupils have to choose one of four sectors.
There are substantial gender differences with regard to the sector Engineering and
Technology on the one hand and the sector Care and Welfare on the other (in
2008/09 the differences between boys and girls were 46.7 per cent vs. 2.5 per cent,
and 6.6 per cent vs. 54.1 per cent respectively). Regarding the Engineering and
Technology sector it should be mentioned that in 2004 the gender difference was
even more pronounced (53.2 per cent vs. 1.7 per cent).
10 AVO stands for Algemeen Voortgezet Onderwijs [literal translation: general secondary education].
Gender differences in primary and secondary education
123
Author's personal copy
In the third or fourth year, HAVO and VWO track pupils have to choose one of
four subject combinations. More boys than girls choose the Science combinations
(55.0 per cent vs. 42.2 per cent) and more girls than boys choose the Society
combinations (57.8 per cent vs. 45.0 per cent).
Conclusions
In the present study we examined the position of boys and girls in Dutch primary
education and in the first phase of secondary education. On the basis of several
national and international large-scale databases we investigated whether one can
indeed speak of a gender gap, at the expense of boys. Three domains were
investigated, namely cognitive competencies, non-cognitive competencies and
school career features.
The results show that regarding cognitive competencies over the last ten to fifteen
years girls have done better than boys in reading and language. The differences in
general are small though and apply in both primary education and in the first phase
of secondary education. Boys do better than girls in mathematics and science, but
the differences for these subjects are even smaller than for reading and language.
Table 5 Transitions from one school year to the next in Dutch secondary education (cohort of 2005/06;
in percentages)
PRO1 VMBO AVO
Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls
Transition to 2006/07
Lower level – – 2.4 1.5 6.2 3.0
Same level 91.2 89.9 92.2 90.3 92.9 95.7
Higher level 2.2 5.0 3.4 6.7 0.4 0.8
Drop-out 6.5 5.2 2.0 1.5 0.5 0.4
Transition to 2007/08
Lower level – – 5.7 4.0 8.0 5.7
Same level 92.3 88.5 86.9 87.0 90.9 93.1
Higher level 3.7 7.2 5.1 7.3 0.5 0.8
Drop-out 4.0 4.4 2.2 1.7 0.6 0.4
Transition to 2008/09
Lower level – – 3.2 2.8 6.6 7.2
Same level 87.9 88.6 91.5 92.4 92.0 91.6
Higher level 2.4 2.8 2.0 2.4 0.4 0.4
Drop-out 9.7 8.5 3.2 2.4 1.0 0.8
Source: Ministry of Education; datafile specifically put together by the Ministry for this study
1 No transition to lower level possible
PRO = Praktijkonderwijs; VMBO = Voorbereidend Middelbaar Beroepsonderwijs; AVO = AlgemeenVoortgezet Onderwijs
G. Driessen, A. van Langen
123
Author's personal copy
Gender differences pertaining to non-cognitive competencies are sometimes
substantial and point to a more unfavourable position of boys than girls. In primary
education boys are being evaluated as being much weaker than girls with regard to
work attitude and social behaviour, and this is so in grade 8 even more than in grade
2. Among special needs pupils boys show much more behavioural and attitudinal
problems. In secondary education boys evaluate themselves as being less peaceable
than girls and as engaging in conflicts more often. Boys also indicate that they feel
more emotionally stable and have more self-confidence. And while girls are more
socially motivated, boys are more motivated by competition.
At the start of secondary education, boys’ schooling is far more delayed than
girls’. In addition, far more boys than girls participate in special education, in a
practical training programme, or are in need of learning support. They also more
often than girls have to repeat a year or become an early school leaver. More girls
than boys participate in the upper levels of secondary schooling, i.e. those that
directly prepare pupils for higher education. Male pupils overwhelmingly choose
science/technology and economics/business courses. Female pupils opt more for
socially relevant courses (healthcare, welfare), languages or education, with only a
limited number selecting science/technology. In the pre-vocational track there are
hardly any gender differences in pass rates.
These findings with respect to the cognitive and non-cognitive competences and the
school career features cover the last ten to fifteen years. In general it can be said that there
are no indications that the present situation differs very much from that of a decade ago.
In the introduction of this article we made a distinction between vertical and
horizontal inequality (Van Langen 2005). The former refers to unequal opportu-
nities among certain groups in society to reach a high education level, while the
latter relates to an unequal division of social groups across tracks, sectors and
subjects within all education levels. The results do indicate that there is currently a
certain degree of vertical educational inequality based on gender that works against
boys. Their position in relation to education participation level, lagging behind
academically and returns on education is more unfavourable nowadays than that of
girls. At the same time our study shows a persistent horizontal educational
inequality based on gender regarding the way the genders are very differently
distributed across sectors and courses. In view of the global pursuit of a knowledge
economy and the current shortage of professional staff for science-related work on
the job market, this inequality is chiefly to the disadvantage of girls, even though
this is not an unchangeable ‘‘given’’. Moreover, it is noteworthy that the improved
vertical education position of girls, especially their falling behind less in
mathematics, appears to have had little impact on this horizontal inequality.
Compared to other countries, the vertical lead of Dutch girls is fairly limited
(Van Langen and Driessen 2006). Their attainment shortfall for arithmetic and
mathematics when compared to boys appears greater for instance than in England or
Flanders, and is perhaps linked to the remarkably low number of girls and women
choosing science subjects in the Netherlands. Also women here are less robustly
overrepresented in higher education than in a number of other western countries
such as Sweden, Finland, Denmark and Ireland (European Commission 2009;
Younger and Warrington 2005; Van de gaer 2006).
Gender differences in primary and secondary education
123
Author's personal copy
The current gender inequality in education appears to be based mainly on the
gender stereotype identity and attitudes of boys and girls developing in interaction
with their environment. Interventions via family, school, teachers and government
should focus on this interaction, but so far this is proving to be a difficult task.
An important note needs to be added to gender-related vertical educational
inequality in that this is many more times smaller than that related to social class
and ethnicity. In the privileged social/ethnic backgrounds there is no such thing as
‘‘a boys problem’’, and the question is whether it makes sense to label it as such.
Much will depend on developments in the coming years. Will the catching up of
girls continue, or is this the result of a wave of emancipation that has already more
or less reached its maximum effect?
References
Arnot, M., David, M., & Weiner, G. (1999). Closing the gender gap. Postwar education and socialchange. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Baron-Cohen, S. (2003). The essential difference. Men, women and the extreme male brain. London:
Allen Lane, Penguin Books.
Barow, S. (2004). The hidden curriculum in the classroom. In M. Paludi (Ed.), Praeger guide to thepsychology of gender. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
Buchmann, C., DiPrete, T., & McDaniel, A. (2008). Gender inequalities in education. Annual Review ofSociology, 34, 319–337.
Carrington, B., Tymms, P., & Merrell, C. (2008). Role models, school improvement and the ‘‘gender
gap’’—do men bring out the best in boys and women the best in girls? British Educational ResearchJournal, 34(3), 315–327.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Dekkers, H., Bosker, R., & Driessen, G. (2000). Complex inequalities of educational opportunities. A
large-scale longitudinal study on the relation between gender, social class, ethnicity, and school
success. Educational Research and Evaluation, 6(1), 59–82.
Driessen, G. (2007). The feminization of primary education: Effects of teachers’ sex on pupil
achievement, attitudes and behaviour. International Review of Education, 53(2), 183–203.
Driessen, G., Mulder, L., Ledoux, G., Roeleveld, J., & Van der Veen, I. (2009). CohortonderzoekCOOL5–18. Technisch rapport basisonderwijs, eerste meting 2007/08. Nijmegen: ITS/Amsterdam:
SCO-Kohnstamm Instituut.
Driessen, G. & Van Langen, A. (2010). De onderwijsachterstand van jongens. Omvang, oorzaken eninterventies. Nijmegen: ITS.
Driessen, G., Van Langen, A., & Vierke, H. (2002). Basisonderwijs: Veldwerkverslag, leerlinggegevensen oudervragenlijsten. Basisrapportage PRIMA-cohort-onder-zoek. Vierde meting 2000–2001.Nijmegen: ITS.
Epstein, D., Elwood, J., Hey, V., & Maw, J. (Eds.). (1998). Failing boys? Issues in gender andachievement. Buckingham: Open University Press.
European Commission (2009). Gender and education (and employment). Gendered imperatives and theirimplications for women and men. Lessons from research for policy makers. Retrieved February 25,
2010, from www.nesse.fr/nesse/activities/reports.
Fan, W. (2011). Social influences, school motivation and gender differences: An application of the
expectancy-value theory. Educational Psychology, 31(2), 157–175.
Freeman, C. (2004). Trends in educational equity of girls & women. Washington, DC: USDE.
Gillborn, D., & Mirza, H. (2000). Educational inequality. Mapping race, class and gender. A synthesis ofresearch evidence. London: Ofsted.
Gorard, S., Rees, G., & Salisbury, J. (1999). Reappraising the apparent underachievement of boys at
School. Gender and Education, 11(4), 441–454.
G. Driessen, A. van Langen
123
Author's personal copy
Heesters, K., Feddema, M., Van der Schoot, F., & Hemker, B. (2008). Balans van het Engels aan heteinde van de basisschool 3. Uitkomsten van de derde peiling in 2006. Arnhem: Cito.
Heesters, K., Van Berkel, S., Krom, R., Van der Schoot, F., & Hemker, B. (2007b). Balans van hetleesonderwijs in het speciaal basisonderwijs 3. Uitkomsten van de derde peiling in 2005. Arnhem:
Cito.
Heesters, K., Van Berkel, S., Van der Schoot, F., & Hemker, B. (2007a). Balans van het leesonderwijsaan het einde van de basisschool 4. Uitkomsten van de vierde peiling in 2005. Arnhem: Cito.
Hemker, B., & Van Weerden, J. (2009). Peiling van de rekenvaardigheid en de taalvaardigheid injaargroep 8 en jaargroep 4 in 2008. Jaarlijks Peilingsonderzoek van het Onderwijsniveau –
Technische rapportage. Arnhem: Cito.
House of Representatives (2002). Boys: Getting it right. Report on the inquiry into the education of boys.
Canberra: House of Representatives.
Hyde, J. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60(6), 581–592.
James, A. (2007). Teaching the male brain. How boys think, feel, and learn in school. Thousand Oaks:
Corwin Press.
Janssen, J., Van der Schoot, F. & Hemker, B. (2005). Balans van het reken-wiskundeonderwijs aan heteinde van de basisschool 4. Uitkomsten van de vierde peiling in 2004. Arnhem: Cito.
Jha, J., & Kelleher, F. (2006). Boys’ underachievement in education: An exploration in selectedCommonwealth Countries. London: Commonwealth Secretariat and Commonwealth Foundation.
Jungbluth, P., Van Langen, A., Peetsma, P., & Vierke, H. (1996). Leerlinggegevens basisonderwijs enspeciaal onderwijs. Technische rapportage PRIMA-cohort-onderzoek 1994/95. Amsterdam/Nijme-
gen: SCO/ITS.
Kuyper, H., & Van der Werf, M. (2005). VOCL’99-3. Prestaties en opvattingen van leerlingen in dederde klas van het voortgezet onderwijs. Groningen: GION/RUG.
Kuyper, H., & Van der Werf, M. (2007). De resultaten van VOCL’89, VOCL’93 en VOCL’99:Vergelijkende analyses van prestaties en rendement. Groningen: GION/RUG.
Lynch, K., & Feeley, M. (2009). Gender and education (and employment). Gendered imperatives andtheir implications for women and men. Lessons from research for policy makers. Brussels: European
Commission.
Martin, M., Mullis, I., & Foy, P. (2008). TIMSS 2007. International science report. Findings from IEA’sTrends in International Mathematics and Science Study at the fourth and eighth grades. Chestnut
Hill: Boston College.
Martino, W. (2008). Boys’ underachievement: Which boys are we talking about? Retrieved February 25,
2010, from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/literacynumeracy/inspire/research/Martino.pdf.
Mensah, F., & Kiernan, K. (2010). Gender differences in educational attainment: Influences of the family
environment. British Educational Research Journal, 36(2), 239–260.
Ministerie van OCW (2007). The education system in the Netherlands 2007. Den Haag: Ministerie van
OCW.
Mullis, I., Martin, M., & Foy, P. (2008). TIMSS 2007. International mathematics report. Findings fromIEA’s Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study at the fourth and eighth grades.
Chestnut Hill: Boston College.
Mullis, I., Martin, M., Kennedy, A., & Foy, P. (2007). PIRLS 2006. International report IEA’s Progressin International Reading Literacy Study in primary schools in 40 countries. Chestnut Hill: Boston
College.
OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development). (2007a). Understanding the brain:The birth of a learning science. Paris: OECD.
OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development). (2007b). PISA 2006. Sciencecompetencies for tomorrow’s world. Volume 1: Analysis. Paris: OECD.
OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development). (2007c). PISA 2006. Volume 2:Data. Paris: OECD.
OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development). (2009). Equally prepared for life?How 15-year-old boys and girls perform in school. Paris: OECD.
Roger, A., & Duffield, J. (2000). Factors underlying persistent gendered option choices in school science
and technology in Scotland. Gender and Education, 12(3), 367–383.
Skelton, C. (2012). Men teachers and the ‘‘feminised’’ primary school: A review of the literature.
Educational Review, 64(1), 1–19.
Skelton, C., Francis, B., & Valkanova, Y. (2007). Breaking down the stereotypes: Gender andachievement in schools. London: Roehampton University.
Gender differences in primary and secondary education
123
Author's personal copy
Smeets, E., Van der Veen, I., Derriks, M., & Roeleveld, J. (2007). Zorgleerlingen en leerlingenzorg op debasisschool. Nijmegen/Amsterdam: ITS/SCO-Kohnstamm Instituut.
Smith, E. (2003). Failing boys and moral panics: Perspectives on the underachievement battle. BritishJournal of Educational Studies, 51(3), 282–295.
Statistics Netherlands (2010). Retrieved February 25, 2010, from http://statline.cbs.nl/statweb/.
Van de gaer, E. (2006). Gender differences in academic achievement. The role of school engagement,group composition, and educational choices. Leuven: Katholieke Universiteit.
Van Houtte, M. (2004a). Why boys achieve less at school than girls: The difference between boys’ and
girls’ academic culture. Educational Studies, 30(2), 159–173.
Van Houtte, M. (2004b). Gender context of the school and the study culture, or how the presence of girls
affects the achievement of boys. Educational Studies, 30(4), 409–423.
Van Langen, A. (2005). Unequal participation in mathematics and science education. Nijmegen: ITS.
Van Langen, A., Bosker, R., & Dekkers, H. (2006). Exploring cross-national differences in gender gaps in
education. Educational Research and Evaluation, 12(2), 155–177.
Van Langen, A., & Driessen, G. (2006). Sekseverschillen in onderwijsloopbanen. Een internationaalcomparatieve trendstudie. ITS: Nijmegen.
Younger, M., & Warrington, M. (2005). Raising boys’ achievement. Nottingham: DfES.
Younger, M., Warrington, M., & McLellan, R. (2002). The ‘‘problem’’ of ‘‘under-achieving boys’’: Some
responses from English secondary schools. School Leadership & Management, 22(4), 389–405.
Zijsling, D., Keuning, J., Kuyper, H., Van Batenburg, T., & Hemker, B. (2009). CohortonderzoekCOOL5–18. Technisch rapport eerste meting in het derde leerjaar van het voortgezet onderwijs.
Groningen/Arnhem: RUG/Cito.
The authors
Geert Driessen received a teacher’s degree before continuing on to study educational theory. His PhD
thesis focused on ethnic minority pupils in primary education. He is an educational researcher at ITS
(Institute for Applied Social Sciences) of Radboud University Nijmegen in the Netherlands. He was/is
involved in a number of large-scale cohort studies in primary and secondary education. He also performed
policy evaluations with regard to Bilingual Education Programmes, Early Childhood Education
Programmes and Educational Disadvantage Policy. His major research interests include education in
relation to ethnicity, social milieu and gender.
Annemarie van Langen studied educational theory. Her PhD thesis focused on the unequal participation
of boys and girls in mathematics and science education. She is an educational researcher at ITS (Institute
for Applied Social Sciences) of Radboud University Nijmegen in the Netherlands. In addition to the
theme of gender differences in primary, secondary and tertiary education, her research interests include
the study of school effectiveness and educational opportunities for ethnic minorities and low-SES pupils.
She was/is involved in several large-scale cohort studies in primary and secondary education.
G. Driessen, A. van Langen
123
Author's personal copy