IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/edecon/v30y2022i5p481-508.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Grading practices, gender bias and educational outcomes: evidence from Italy

Author

Listed:
  • Adriana Di Liberto
  • Laura Casula
  • Sara Pau

Abstract

We study if the Italian school system suffers from gender bias when judging students. To this aim, we use a differences-in-differences approach that compares the teachers' assessments and the standardized test scores that the students receive during the school year. We have census data for all Italian fifth and sixth graders in two different subjects, math and language, that include a rich set of additional controls. Our evidence reveals that, since primary school, boys are graded less favourably than girls in both math and language. This result is also confirmed for middle school students (sixth graders), and it holds even when (a) we separate the analysis between the most and least developed Italian regions, (b) we control for possible gender-specific attitude towards cheating and teachers' manipulation and (c) we introduce class and school fixed effects in the models. Comparing the results obtained across different levels of schooling and subjects, we cannot clearly identify the role of specific mechanisms in determining the gender bias. Overall the analysis suggests further study on the role of teachers' characteristics.

Suggested Citation

  • Adriana Di Liberto & Laura Casula & Sara Pau, 2022. "Grading practices, gender bias and educational outcomes: evidence from Italy," Education Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(5), pages 481-508, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:edecon:v:30:y:2022:i:5:p:481-508
    DOI: 10.1080/09645292.2021.2004999
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/09645292.2021.2004999
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/09645292.2021.2004999?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:edecon:v:30:y:2022:i:5:p:481-508. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/CEDE20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.