gender differences in primary and secondary education: are ... · gender differences in primary and...

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

Geert Driessen • Annemarie van Langen

Published online: 30 March 2013! Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Abstract A moral panic has broken out in several countries after recent studiesshowed that girls were outperforming boys in education. Commissioned by theDutch Ministry of Education, the present study examines the position of boys andgirls in Dutch primary education and in the first phase of secondary education overthe 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 gendergap, at the expense of boys. Three domains were investigated, namely cognitivecompetencies, non-cognitive competencies, and school career features. The resultsas expressed in effect sizes show that there are hardly any differences with regard tolanguage and mathematics proficiency. However, the position of boys in terms ofeducational level and attitudes and behaviour is much more unfavourable than thatof girls. Girls, on the other hand, score more unfavourably with regard to sector andsubject choice. While the present situation in general does not differ very muchfrom that of a decade ago, it is difficult to predict in what way the balances mightshift 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 queles filles distanceraient les garcons a l’ecole engendre une panique morale dansplusieurs pays. La presente recherche, realisee a la demande du ministere

G. Driessen (&) ! A. van LangenITS, Radboud University Nijmegen, P.O. Box 9048, 6500 KJ Nijmegen, The Netherlandse-mail: [email protected]: www.geertdriessen.nl

A. van Langene-mail: [email protected]

123

Int Rev Educ (2013) 59:67–86DOI 10.1007/s11159-013-9352-6

neerlandais de l’education, examine la position des garcons et des filles dansl’enseignement primaire et le premier cycle secondaire de ce pays, au cours des dixa quinze dernieres annees. S’appuyant sur plusieurs bases de donnees nationales etinternationales a grande echelle, les auteurs explorent si l’on peut veritablementparler d’un clivage au detriment des garcons. Cette analyse a porte sur troisdomaines, a savoir les competences cognitives, les competences non cognitives etles caracteristiques du parcours scolaire. Les resultats obtenus exprimes en taillesd’effets revelent qu’il n’existe guere de differences quant aux competenceslinguistiques et mathematiques. Neanmoins, la position des garcons en termes deniveau educatif, d’attitudes et de comportements est beaucoup plus defavorable quecelle des filles. En revanche, ces dernieres s’orientent encore vers les filieres etmatieres dites typiquement feminines. La situation actuelle n’est globalement pastres eloignee de celle observee il y a dix ans, et il est difficile de prevoir de quellemaniere 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 vorliegendenStudie, 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 miteinanderverglichen. Anhand mehrerer großer nationaler und internationaler Datenbankenuntersuchten 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, nichtkognitiveFahigkeiten und Besonderheiten des schulischen Werdegangs. Die Ergebnisse,ausgedruckt in Effektgroßen, zeigen, dass es bei der Sprachbeherrschung und denmathematischen Kompetenzen kaum Unterschiede gibt. In puncto Bildungsstandund Einstellungen und Verhaltensweisen jedoch fallen die Jungen weit hinter dieMadchen zuruck. Die Madchen andererseits erzielen schlechtere Ergebnisse bei derWahl der Fachrichtungen und der Facher. Die Situation hat sich in den letztenzehn Jahren im Allgemeinen wenig verandert, doch eine Prognose, wie sich dasGleichgewicht in den kommenden Jahren verschieben wird, gestaltet sich schwierig.

Resumen Diferencias de genero en la educacion primaria y secundaria: >las ninasrealmente estan superando a los ninos? – Despues de que unos estudios recientesindicaban que las ninas estaban superando a los varones en el ambito escolar, endiversos paıses se ha desatado una especie de panico moral. Encargado por elMinisterio 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 educacionsecundaria 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, losautores verificaron si efectivamente se puede hablar de una brecha de genero, de unadivergencia en desmedro de los varones. Se investigaron tres ambitos, a saber:

68 G. Driessen, A. van Langen

123

competencias cognitivas, competencias no cognitivas y caracterısticas de la carreraescolar. Los resultados, expresados en tamanos del efecto, mostraron que apenashay diferencias en cuanto a capacidades en lenguas y matematicas. Sin embargo, lasituacion de los ninos en cuanto a nivel educativo, actitudes y conducta es muchomas desfavorable que la de las ninas. Por otra parte, las ninas presentaron puntajesmas 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 difıcilpredecir 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 studiesshowed 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 isnew, however, is the fact that while in earlier days the underachievement of girls was ofcentral interest, now it is the deteriorating position of boys which is causing concern. The

Gender differences in primary and secondary education 69

123

amount of attention and perspective employed vary according to the sociopolitical andeconomic context and thus from country to country. In the UK and Australia the topichas been on the agenda for a number of years now and has led to policy measures toreverse this development, while in countries like the Netherlands and France thephenomenon of ‘‘failing boys’’ is a rather recent one (Freeman 2004; House ofRepresentatives 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 thequestion whether boys do indeed underachieve in education and score below girls inall educational stages and subject areas. The problem is that in the debates opinionsare not always substantiated with robust empirical evidence. In addition, informa-tion on possible differences between boys and girls is in many cases only presentedin a fragmented way. As a consequence the risk of overestimating differences andunjustified generalisations is very real. An important finding by Janet Hyde (2005),for instance, is that with respect to mathematics proficiency the differences betweenboys and girls are much smaller than the individual variability, i.e. differencesbetween pupils in general. Therefore some researchers are of the opinion that theproblem is being approached far too indiscriminately (Mensah and Kiernan 2010).According to them, the conclusion should be that with regard to some aspects, boysoutperform girls, while with regard to other aspects, girls do better than boys.

Another point of discussion is whether differences between boys and girls haveincreased or not during the last couple of decades. According to David Gillborn andHeidi 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 boysdid indeed do better than girls in the 1970s and 1980s. Other authors relativise thegender differences and point to the fact that all pupils have progressed, boys as wellas girls (Younger et al. 2002). Another relevant question is whether gender-specificdifferences in educational careers are unique for certain countries or whether theyare 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 attentionto the influence of two other factors that traditionally play an important role in theexplanation of educational inequality, namely a pupil’s social milieu and ethnicity(Dekkers et al. 2000). Debbie Epstein et al. (1998) argue that differences inachievement according to gender are much smaller than those attributed to milieuand ethnicity. In line with this, we distinguish two forms of educational inequality(Van Langen 2005). The first one is vertical educational inequality, which relates tounequal opportunities among certain groups in society to reach a high educationlevel. Indicators are achievement in primary and secondary school, level ofsecondary education, grade retention, early drop-out, and graduation. The secondone is horizontal educational inequality, which concerns the differences betweengroups with respect to the distribution over educational sectors, which may lead –even given comparable vertical positions – to unequal opportunities for furthertraining, education and employment. Indicators are the choice of specific sectors andsubjects within an education level (Van Langen and Driessen 2006).


123

Explanations for underachievement

In the ongoing discussion, various explanations are given for the underachievementof boys. Three levels are discerned. What is remarkable is that some of theseexplanations are the same as those which were until recently put forward for theexplanation for the underachievement of girls. This suggests that such explanationsare either universal or opportunistic.

At individual pupil level, biological and genetic explanations were originally putforward: gender differences were seen as the result of innate differences between boys andgirls (Younger and Warrington 2005). However, opponents pointed to the possibility ofthe differential influence of the environment (the so-called nature–nurture debate).1 Thebiological-genetic explanation lost much ground when it became apparent that genderdifferences in attainment vary considerably over time as well as among countries (Arnotet al. 1999). The suggestion that boys and girls supposedly have differing aptitudes forparticular learning styles – competitive versus cooperative – has also been dismissed inseveral studies. Other possible, explanatory pupil variables relate to attitudinal factorssuch as interest and motivation. Many national and international studies do indeed revealthat such variables partly form the basis of gender differences in education. However, onceagain the question is whether these differences are innate or whether their occurrence ispartly due to the influence of socialisation (Van Langen 2005). Recently, neurological andphysiological research has made significant progress in understanding brain structures andfunctioning. On the basis of this, some authors distinguish between a male and femalebrain and conclude that this distinction has far-reaching consequences for boys’ and girls’cognitive functioning and learning (Baron-Cohen 2003). Other scholars are opposed tothis what they call ‘‘neuromyth’’ (Hyde 2005). The Organisation for EconomicCooperation and Development (OECD) agrees and feels that such conclusions areincomplete, extrapolated beyond the evidence, or simply false (OECD 2007a). This doesnot mean that this strand of research is without merit; in fact it is promising, but much moreevidence is needed before hard conclusions can be drawn.

At the second level of influence – that of the family and social environment – theexplanations put forward relate chiefly to the gender-specific preferences and behaviourthat boys and girls supposedly develop as the result of gender-stereotyped child-rearingand the influence of the peer group (Roger and Duffield 2000). Some studies suggest thatparental involvement and support are greater for girls than for boys. One explanation isthat it is mostly the mothers who support the children and that they have a preference fortheir own sex. In particular, much weight is ascribed to the influence of peers, i.e. boysaspire to an ideal male image which clashes with the culture of a school, while girlsdevelop 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 inthe 1970s and 1980s were chiefly sought for why girls were lagging behind. This wassupposedly 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 aproduct 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 arenot openly and officially laid down in the written curriculum.


123

on (Barow 2004; Fan 2011). Nowadays, as a result of the numerical, cultural andpolitical 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 upwith 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 schoolis put forward as a possible explanation. It was found, for example, that the larger theproportion of girls, the higher the boys’ achievements, and that this finding can beascribed 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 mustbe influences based on this context (Van Langen et al. 2006). Explanations relate, onthe one hand, to characteristics of education systems (level of differentiation andspecialisation) and, on the other, to characteristics of the job market and generalsocial attitudes towards gender equality and emancipation.

Strategies to combat underachievement

We mentioned earlier that some countries have taken policy measures to combatboys’ underachievement. The intervention strategies are arranged into threecategories. It is noteworthy that many interventions implemented in the 1970sand 1980s to fight the educational lag of girls have now returned in a different guiseto combat the educational lag of boys.

The first category relates to pedagogic-didactic measures (James 2007). Forinstance a successful intervention from the past was to train teachers to deter genderstereotype behaviour by pupils when using computers. Projects are carried out tostimulate boys’ interest in literacy, and thus their self-confidence, by using anintegrated approach towards reading, writing, speaking and listening, interactiveclass activity and ICT. Both recently and in the past pedagogic-didactic means havebeen sought which would fit the presumed specific learning style of boys (now) orgirls (in the past). However, this never produced any real results.

The second category relates to sociocultural interventions (Martino 2008). Theseare especially intended to stimulate the motivation and interest of the gender laggingbehind. Currently the chief aim of these is to alter the anti-school attitude anddisruptive behaviour of boys. Earlier on, similar strategies were used to influencethe 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 thecurrent situation, these relate to the ‘‘de-feminisation’’ of education by hiring more maleteachers and introducing single-sex classes for certain subjects so that pupils (boys) do notfeel inhibited by the opposite sex (girls). The latter has already been tried out in Englandand 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 ischaracterised by, for instance, doing your homework, not displaying disruptive behaviour in theclassroom, 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 inrecent years. In Parliament, concern was raised as to the impending unfavourableposition of boys. The Dutch Ministry of Education therefore commissioned us in2010 to conduct a scientific study into possible differences between boys and girls inprimary and the first phase of secondary education (4- to 16-year-olds). The twomain research questions were:

• To what degree does the position of boys in primary and secondary educationdiffer 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 moreinformation see Driessen and Van Langen (2010). In the following sections we firstpresent information on the data we used and the method we employed. To be better ableto situate the findings, we then provide an overview of the Dutch education system. Themain section deals with the results of the analysis of possible gender differences. In thefinal 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 cohortstudies, each with data from 20,000 to 55,000 pupils; for more information onthese studies see Driessen et al. 2009; Jungbluth et al. 1996; Kuyper and Van derWerf 2005, 2007; Zijsling et al. 2009);

• national databases with population data provided by the Ministry of Educationspecifically for this study and complemented by data from Statistics Netherlands(2010);

• National Assessment of Educational Achievement studies carried out by CITO, theDutch Central Institute for Test Development (two studies: PPON and JPO5; seeHeesters 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 standsfor Voortgezet Onderwijs Cohort Leerlingen [cohort study Secondary Education Pupils]. COOL standsfor 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 EducationalLevel].


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, wetransformed 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. Whenthe children are in the final grade of primary school, they are given arecommendation with respect to the most suitable type of secondary education. Inaddition to regular primary education, special needs support is provided by specialprimary 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), whichcomprises 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 readingachievement in US-American 4th-grade students and their international peers conducted by theInternational Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA). TIMSS stands for theTrends in International Mathematics and Science Study, also conducted by IEA, which assesses themathematics and science achievement of US-American 4th- and 8th-grade students compared to that ofstudents in other countries. PISA stands for the Programme for International Student Assessment, aninternational 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 standsfor Theoretische Leerweg. HAVO stands for Hoger Algemeen Voortgezet Onderwijs. VWO stands forVoorbereidend Wetenschappelijk Onderwijs.


123

In the VMBO track, Learning support (LWOO) is available for pupils who arelagging behind or have other problems but who are nonetheless deemed capable ofobtaining a VMBO certificate. Practical training (PRO) is available for pupils whoare not expected to obtain a VMBO certificate. Further special needs support isprovided by special secondary schools.

Depending on the level of secondary education attended, pupils can progress to amiddle-level vocational or general education (MBO; two to four years) or a higherlevel education, namely higher professional education (HBO; four years) oruniversity education (WO; four to six years).8 The basic structure of the Dutcheducational system is depicted in Fig. 1.

Results

Cognitive competencies

Primary education

Information on achievement in primary education comes from the national cohortstudies PRIMA and COOL and from the CITO National Assessment of EducationalAchievement studies PPON and JPO. Table 1 summarises the results of ourcomparison of various achievement test scores. From this table it can be concludedthat 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 prim

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 standsfor Middelbaar Beroepsonderwijs. HBO stands for Hoger Beroepsonderwijs. WO stands forWetenschappelijk Onderwijs.


123

these differences in general amount to no more than ‘‘small’’ (ES = 0.20), and insome instances ‘‘medium’’ (ES = 0.50). The relative position of boys and girls withregard to domain or subject varies. In general boys have an advantage in thedomains of mathematics, world studies and English language, while girls have alead in the domains of (Dutch) language and reading.

Table 1 Summary effect sizes of gender differences in cognitive competencies in Dutch primaryeducation

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); JPO2007/08 (Hemker and Van Weerden 2009)


123

In the international studies PIRLS of 2006 (Mullis et al. 2007) and TIMSS of2007 (Martin et al. 2008; Mullis et al. 2008), the 9- and 10-year-olds wereassessed with regard to reading comprehension (literary, information, total) andmathematics and science. The effect sizes were -0.12, -0.18 and -0.15, and0.16 and 0.17, respectively, and thus comparable to the ones found in Dutchnational studies.

Special needs pupils

In the PRIMA measurement round of 2004/05, the teachers of grades 2, 4, 6 and 8identified their pupils with special needs (Smeets et al. 2007). Two categories weredistinguished: the 10 per cent of pupils who scored lowest with regard to languageproficiency, and the 10 per cent who scored lowest with regard to mathematicsproficiency. 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 needscategory 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 educationwere tested for their language achievement; six different domains were distinguished(Heesters et al. 2007b). The results show that in some domains boys do better whilegirls do better in others. Boys do better especially in vocabulary (ES = 0.33), girls inliteracy (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 cohortstudies 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 achievementdata in primary education.

In the PISA measurement round of 2006 the 15-year-olds were assessed for theirscience, mathematics and reading skills (OECD 2007b, c). The effect sizes fordifferences between the Dutch boys and girls were 0.08, 0.15 and -0.25, respectively.

Table 2 Summary effect sizesof gender differences incognitive competencies in grade3 of Dutch secondary education

Sources: VOCL (Kuyper andVan der Werf 2005, 2007;Zijsling et al. 2009); COOL2007/08 (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 theirpupils with regard to a number of attitudinal and behavioural aspects. In addition,the pupils also self-assessed their attitudes and behaviour. Table 3 presents theeffect sizes of the gender comparisons. Pertaining to social behaviour and workattitude, girls were evaluated substantially more favourably than boys. In addition tothat, the gender difference in work attitude increases during the course of primaryeducation. What is striking regarding motivation is that boys are much more focusedon competition than girls. Girls in general do better on well-being (feeling

Table 3 Summary effect sizesof gender differences in non-cognitive competencies in Dutchprimary education

Sources: PRIMA 1994/95(Jungbluth et al. 1996) and2000/01 (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 thesedifferences are rather small.


In the PRIMA measurement round of 2004/05 the teachers of grades 2, 4, 6 and 8evaluated their special needs pupils with regard to nine learning, behavioural andphysical problems (Smeets et al. 2007). Boys were considered as pupils with specialneeds much more often (30 per cent) than girls (22 per cent). Girls more often showlanguage and mathematics delays and internalising problem behaviour (74 vs. 61per cent, and 49 vs. 43 per cent, respectively). Boys more often demonstrate aproblematic work attitude (67 per cent vs. 56 per cent), externalising problembehaviour (47 per cent vs. 21 per cent) and autistic behaviour (8 per cent vs. 3 percent).

In the COOL measurement round of 2007/08, the teachers were asked whetherthey provided extra care for their pupils (Driessen et al. 2009). In grade 2, 24 percent of the boys were reported to be special needs pupils while this applied to 18 percent 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 bementioned, however, that in the years between grades 2 and 8, more boys than girlshad been referred to special education.

Secondary education

The instruments to gauge non-cognitive competencies used in secondary educationto a large extent were the same as those that were used in primary education. The

Table 4 Summary effect sizesof gender differences in non-cognitive competencies in grade3 of Dutch secondary education

Sources: VOCL (Kuyper andVan der Werf 2005, 2007;Zijsling et al. 2009); COOL2007/08 (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 tosome of the non-cognitive competencies, substantial gender differences exist insecondary education. Boys evaluate themselves as considerably less mild (peace-able) and at the same time emotionally much more stable than girls, and accordingto themselves they also have more self-confidence. With regard to motivation, thesame picture as in primary education emerges, albeit to a stronger extent: boys aredriven by considerably stronger feelings of competition while girls are more sociallymotivated.

School career characteristics

Primary education

On the basis of data from the cohort studies PRIMA and COOL, the share of pupilswith a recommendation for the VMBO theoretical pathway or higher was computedfor the school years 1994/95, 2000/01 and 2007/08 (Jungbluth et al. 1996; Driessenet al. 2002, 2009). Analyses show that in 2007/08 there are somewhat more boysthan 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 eitherreceive a personal budget which is intended to pay for staffing and equipment costsand any adaptations that may be necessary to meet the child’s needs in a regularschool, or receive a referral for admission to a special school. From the PRIMAcohort study of 2004/05 it emerges that 3.8 per cent of all special needs pupilsreceive a personal budget and 7.3 per cent of them are in a referral procedure forspecial education (Smeets et al. 2007). There are many more boys than girls with aspecial 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 specialeducation (Smeets et al. 2007). In special primary education, two-thirds of the pupilpopulation consists of boys. In special secondary education, even 72 per cent of thepopulation are boys and their share is on the rise. More detailed data show thatespecially in schools for pupils with behavioural problems boys are stronglyoverrepresented; in 2009 their share amounted to about 80 per cent (StatisticsNetherlands 2010).

Secondary education

Using national population data provided by the Ministry of Education,9 the schoolcareers of the cohort of pupils who had started in grade 1 of secondary education inthe 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 thefindings 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 inprimary education more often than girls.

During the first year in secondary education, gender differences in level ofeducation are rather small. This, in part, is a result of the Dutch education systemwhere 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 fourthyear, the gender difference at the pre-university level (VWO) increases to 4.2 percent at the expense of boys (18.8 per cent vs. 23.0 per cent). At the senior generalsecondary education level (HAVO) there also are fewer boys (19.6 per cent vs. 21.2per 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; 14.7per cent vs. 11.4 per cent) and also among early school-leavers (drop-out; 4.8 percent vs. 3.5 per cent).

The data pertaining to the Learning support facility (LWOO) show that boysneed this support more than girls (34.9 vs. 32.8 per cent).

Regarding the non-delayed transition from one grade to another, regardless of thelevel, girls in nearly all instances perform somewhat better than boys. A delayedtransition is a result of either repeating a class or early school-leaving. Especially inthe transition from the general track (designated as AVO,10 which combinesVMBO, HAVO and VWO), big gender differences in repeating classes can beobserved, with boys having to repeat a class more often than girls (e.g. the transitionfrom 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 thesame school level or in a lower or higher level; in addition, they can leave the schoolwithout any qualification (early school leaving/drop-out). In practical trainingcourses (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 oftencontinue 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: 6.2per cent vs. 3.0 per cent, and from year 2 to year 3: 8.0 per cent vs. 5.7 per cent). Foran overview see Table 5.

In the school year of 2008/09, the pupils in the VMBO track who were notdelayed by having to repeat classes sat their final examinations. There were hardlyany 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 andTechnology on the one hand and the sector Care and Welfare on the other (in2008/09 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 andTechnology sector it should be mentioned that in 2004 the gender difference waseven 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 offour 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 Societycombinations (57.8 per cent vs. 45.0 per cent).

Conclusions

In the present study we examined the position of boys and girls in Dutch primaryeducation and in the first phase of secondary education. On the basis of severalnational and international large-scale databases we investigated whether one canindeed speak of a gender gap, at the expense of boys. Three domains wereinvestigated, namely cognitive competencies, non-cognitive competencies andschool career features.

The results show that regarding cognitive competencies over the last ten to fifteenyears girls have done better than boys in reading and language. The differences ingeneral are small though and apply in both primary education and in the first phaseof secondary education. Boys do better than girls in mathematics and science, butthe 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 sometimessubstantial and point to a more unfavourable position of boys than girls. In primaryeducation boys are being evaluated as being much weaker than girls with regard towork attitude and social behaviour, and this is so in grade 8 even more than in grade2. Among special needs pupils boys show much more behavioural and attitudinalproblems. In secondary education boys evaluate themselves as being less peaceablethan girls and as engaging in conflicts more often. Boys also indicate that they feelmore emotionally stable and have more self-confidence. And while girls are moresocially motivated, boys are more motivated by competition.

At the start of secondary education, boys’ schooling is far more delayed thangirls’. In addition, far more boys than girls participate in special education, in apractical training programme, or are in need of learning support. They also moreoften than girls have to repeat a year or become an early school leaver. More girlsthan boys participate in the upper levels of secondary schooling, i.e. those thatdirectly prepare pupils for higher education. Male pupils overwhelmingly choosescience/technology and economics/business courses. Female pupils opt more forsocially relevant courses (healthcare, welfare), languages or education, with only alimited number selecting science/technology. In the pre-vocational track there arehardly any gender differences in pass rates.

These findings with respect to the cognitive and non-cognitive competences and theschool career features cover the last ten to fifteen years. In general it can be said that thereare 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 andhorizontal inequality (Van Langen 2005). The former refers to unequal opportu-nities among certain groups in society to reach a high education level, while thelatter relates to an unequal division of social groups across tracks, sectors andsubjects within all education levels. The results do indicate that there is currently acertain degree of vertical educational inequality based on gender that works againstboys. Their position in relation to education participation level, lagging behindacademically and returns on education is more unfavourable nowadays than that ofgirls. At the same time our study shows a persistent horizontal educationalinequality based on gender regarding the way the genders are very differentlydistributed across sectors and courses. In view of the global pursuit of a knowledgeeconomy and the current shortage of professional staff for science-related work onthe job market, this inequality is chiefly to the disadvantage of girls, even thoughthis is not an unchangeable ‘‘given’’. Moreover, it is noteworthy that the improvedvertical education position of girls, especially their falling behind less inmathematics, 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 andmathematics when compared to boys appears greater for instance than in England orFlanders, and is perhaps linked to the remarkably low number of girls and womenchoosing science subjects in the Netherlands. Also women here are less robustlyoverrepresented in higher education than in a number of other western countriessuch 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 thegender stereotype identity and attitudes of boys and girls developing in interactionwith their environment. Interventions via family, school, teachers and governmentshould 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 educationalinequality in that this is many more times smaller than that related to social classand 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 ofgirls continue, or is this the result of a wave of emancipation that has already moreor 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 ‘‘gendergap’’—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 schoolsuccess. Educational Research and Evaluation, 6(1), 59–82.

Driessen, G. (2007). The feminization of primary education: Effects of teachers’ sex on pupilachievement, 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 theexpectancy-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 of

research 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 het

einde 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 selected

Commonwealth Countries. London: Commonwealth Secretariat and Commonwealth Foundation.Jungbluth, P., Van Langen, A., Peetsma, P., & Vierke, H. (1996). Leerlinggegevens basisonderwijs en

speciaal 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: EuropeanCommission.

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. ChestnutHill: 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 familyenvironment. British Educational Research Journal, 36(2), 239–260.

Ministerie van OCW (2007). The education system in the Netherlands 2007. Den Haag: Ministerie vanOCW.

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: BostonCollege.

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 scienceand 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 internationaal

comparatieve 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). Cohortonderzoek

COOL5–18. 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 PhDthesis 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/isinvolved in a number of large-scale cohort studies in primary and secondary education. He also performedpolicy evaluations with regard to Bilingual Education Programmes, Early Childhood EducationProgrammes and Educational Disadvantage Policy. His major research interests include education inrelation to ethnicity, social milieu and gender.

Annemarie van Langen studied educational theory. Her PhD thesis focused on the unequal participationof boys and girls in mathematics and science education. She is an educational researcher at ITS (Institutefor Applied Social Sciences) of Radboud University Nijmegen in the Netherlands. In addition to thetheme of gender differences in primary, secondary and tertiary education, her research interests includethe 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/

Copyright of International Review of Education / Internationale Zeitschrift fürErziehungswissenschaft is the property of Springer Science & Business Media B.V. and itscontent may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without thecopyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or emailarticles for individual use.

gender differences in primary and secondary education: are ... · gender differences in primary and...

Documents