Gender differences in primary and secondary education: Are girls really outperforming boys?

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: [email protected]

URL: www.geertdriessen.nl

A. van Langen

e-mail: [email protected]

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


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


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).


123


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.


123


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.


123


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].


123


• 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.


123


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.


123


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)


123


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


123


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


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


123


comfortable within the school environment) and task orientation, but these

differences are rather small.


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


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


123


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).


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.


123


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].


123


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


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


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


123


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).


123


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.


123


http://www.nesse.fr/nesse/activities/reports

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.


123


http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/literacynumeracy/inspire/research/Martino.pdf

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.


123


http://statline.cbs.nl/statweb/

Gender differences in primary and secondary education: Are girls really outperforming boys?

Documents

Transcript of Gender differences in primary and secondary education: Are girls really outperforming boys?