IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/qld/uq2004/487.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Together or Separate: Disentangling the Effects of Single-Sex Schooling from the Effects of Single-Sex Schools

Author

Abstract

To separately identify the effects of single-sex “schooling” versus single- sex “schools”, we exploit two unusual experiments in South Korea: students are randomly assigned to academic high schools within districts regardless of school types, and some schools changed their types from single-sex to coeducational over time. While the overall effects of attending a single-sex school are positive for both boys and girls, these are driven by the differences in resources between school types, rather than classroom gender composition per se. We find that coed (versus single-sex) classroom teaching itself has positive effects for boys, and neutral or negative effects for girls.

Suggested Citation

  • Do Won Kwak & Hyejin Ku, 2013. "Together or Separate: Disentangling the Effects of Single-Sex Schooling from the Effects of Single-Sex Schools," Discussion Papers Series 487, School of Economics, University of Queensland, Australia.
    • Handle: RePEc:qld:uq2004:487
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://economics.uq.edu.au/files/45823/487.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jackson, C. Kirabo, 2012. "Single-sex schools, student achievement, and course selection: Evidence from rule-based student assignments in Trinidad and Tobago," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(1), pages 173-187.
    2. Claudia Goldin & Lawrence F. Katz & Ilyana Kuziemko, 2006. "The Homecoming of American College Women: The Reversal of the College Gender Gap," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 20(4), pages 133-156, Fall.
    3. Hyunjoon Park & Jere Behrman & Jaesung Choi, 2013. "Causal Effects of Single-Sex Schools on College Entrance Exams and College Attendance: Random Assignment in Seoul High Schools," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 50(2), pages 447-469, April.
    4. Changhui Kang & Cheolsung Park & Myoung-Jae Lee, 2007. "Effects of ability mixing in high school on adulthood earnings: quasiexperimental evidence from South Korea," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 20(2), pages 269-297, April.
    5. Bayer, Patrick & McMillan, Robert, 2012. "Tiebout sorting and neighborhood stratification," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(11), pages 1129-1143.
    6. Joseph G. Altonji & Todd E. Elder & Christopher R. Taber, 2005. "Selection on Observed and Unobserved Variables: Assessing the Effectiveness of Catholic Schools," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 113(1), pages 151-184, February.
    7. Marianne Bertrand & Jessica Pan, 2013. "The Trouble with Boys: Social Influences and the Gender Gap in Disruptive Behavior," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 32-64, January.
    8. Scott E. Carrell & Marianne E. Page & James E. West, 2010. "Sex and Science: How Professor Gender Perpetuates the Gender Gap," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 125(3), pages 1101-1144.
    9. Nicole M. Fortin & Philip Oreopoulos & Shelley Phipps, 2015. "Leaving Boys Behind: Gender Disparities in High Academic Achievement," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 50(3), pages 549-579.
    10. Diane Whitmore, 2005. "Resource and Peer Impacts on Girls' Academic Achievement: Evidence from a Randomized Experiment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(2), pages 199-203, May.
    11. Booth, Alison & Nolen, Patrick, 2012. "Choosing to compete: How different are girls and boys?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 81(2), pages 542-555.
    12. repec:fth:prinin:366 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Patrick Bayer & Fernando Ferreira & Robert McMillan, 2007. "A Unified Framework for Measuring Preferences for Schools and Neighborhoods," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 115(4), pages 588-638, August.
    14. Victor Lavy & Analia Schlosser, 2011. "Mechanisms and Impacts of Gender Peer Effects at School," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 3(2), pages 1-33, April.
    15. Eric P. Bettinger & Bridget Terry Long, 2005. "Do Faculty Serve as Role Models? The Impact of Instructor Gender on Female Students," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(2), pages 152-157, May.
    16. Joseph G. Altonji & Todd E. Elder & Christopher R. Taber, 2005. "An Evaluation of Instrumental Variable Strategies for Estimating the Effects of Catholic Schooling," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 40(4), pages 791-821.
    17. Caroline Hoxby, 2000. "Peer Effects in the Classroom: Learning from Gender and Race Variation," NBER Working Papers 7867, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Kim, Taejong & Lee, Ju-Ho & Lee, Young, 2008. "Mixing versus sorting in schooling: Evidence from the equalization policy in South Korea," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 27(6), pages 697-711, December.
    19. Victor Lavy & Analía Schlosser, 2011. "Corrigendum: Mechanisms and Impacts of Gender Peer Effects at School," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 3(3), pages 268-268, July.
    20. David Card & Alan B. Krueger, 1996. "School Resources and Student Outcomes: An Overview of the Literature and New Evidence from North and South Carolina," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 10(4), pages 31-50, Fall.
    21. Miguel Urquiola, 2005. "Does School Choice Lead to Sorting? Evidence from Tiebout Variation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(4), pages 1310-1326, September.
    22. Muriel Niederle & Lise Vesterlund, 2007. "Do Women Shy Away From Competition? Do Men Compete Too Much?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 122(3), pages 1067-1101.
    23. Thomas S. Dee, 2007. "Teachers and the Gender Gaps in Student Achievement," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 42(3).
    24. Thomas J. Nechyba, 2000. "Mobility, Targeting, and Private-School Vouchers," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(1), pages 130-146, March.
    25. Epple, Dennis & Romano, Richard E, 1998. "Competition between Private and Public Schools, Vouchers, and Peer-Group Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 88(1), pages 33-62, March.
    26. David Card & Alan Krueger, 1996. "School Resources and Student Outcomes: An Overview of the Literature and New Evidence from North and South Carolina," Working Papers 745, Princeton University, Department of Economics, Industrial Relations Section..
    27. Behrman, Jere R & Birdsall, Nancy, 1983. "The Quality of Schooling: Quantity Alone is Misleading," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 73(5), pages 928-946, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Fawaz, Yarine & Lee, Junhee, 2022. "Rank comparisons amongst teenagers and suicidal ideation," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 44(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Dustmann, Christian & Ku, Hyejin & Kwak, Do Won, 2018. "Why Are Single-Sex Schools Successful?," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 79-99.
    2. Doris, Aedín & O’Neill, Donal & Sweetman, Olive, 2013. "Gender, single-sex schooling and maths achievement," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 104-119.
    3. Delaney, Judith M. & Devereux, Paul J., 2021. "Gender and Educational Achievement: Stylized Facts and Causal Evidence," IZA Discussion Papers 14074, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    4. Park, Hyunjoon & Behrman, Jere R. & Choi, Jaesung, 2018. "Do single-sex schools enhance students’ STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) outcomes?," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 35-47.
    5. Seul-Ki Kim & Young-Chul Kim, 2021. "Coed vs Single-Sex Schooling: An Empirical Study on Mental Health Outcomes," Working Papers 2103, Nam Duck-Woo Economic Research Institute, Sogang University (Former Research Institute for Market Economy).
    6. Eisenkopf, Gerald & Hessami, Zohal & Fischbacher, Urs & Ursprung, Heinrich W., 2015. "Academic performance and single-sex schooling: Evidence from a natural experiment in Switzerland," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 123-143.
    7. Sohn, Hosung, 2016. "Mean and distributional impact of single-sex high schools on students’ cognitive achievement, major choice, and test-taking behavior: Evidence from a random assignment policy in Seoul, Korea," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 155-175.
    8. Briole, Simon, 2021. "Are girls always good for boys? Short and long term effects of school peers’ gender," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    9. Rodríguez-Planas, Nuria & Sanz-de-Galdeano, Anna & Terskaya, Anastasia, 2022. "Gender norms in high school: Impacts on risky behaviors from adolescence to adulthood," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 196(C), pages 429-456.
    10. Massimo Anelli & Giovanni Peri, 2019. "The Effects of High School Peers’ Gender on College Major, College Performance and Income," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 129(618), pages 553-602.
    11. Pregaldini, Damiano & Backes-Gellner, Uschi & Eisenkopf, Gerald, 2020. "Girls’ preferences for STEM and the effects of classroom gender composition: New evidence from a natural experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 178(C), pages 102-123.
    12. Dewan, Prerna & Ray, Tridip & Roy Chaudhuri, Arka & Tater, Kirti, 2024. "Gender peer effects in high schools: Evidence from India," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 220(C), pages 470-494.
    13. Simone Balestra & Aurélien Sallin & Stefan C. Wolter, 2023. "High-Ability Influencers? The Heterogeneous Effects of Gifted Classmates," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 58(2), pages 633-665.
    14. Anelli, Massimo & Peri, Giovanni, 2015. "Peers' Composition Effects in the Short and in the Long Run: College Major, College Performance and Income," IZA Discussion Papers 9119, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    15. Chhaochharia, Vidhi & Du, Mengqiao & Niessen-Ruenzi, Alexandra, 2022. "Counter-stereotypical female role models and women’s occupational choices☆," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 196(C), pages 501-523.
    16. Rodríguez-Planas, Núria & Sanz-de-Galdeano, Anna & Terskaya, Anastasia, 2018. "Independent Thinking and Hard Working, or Caring and Well Behaved? Short- and Long-Term Impacts of Gender Identity Norms," IZA Discussion Papers 11694, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    17. Hyunjoon Park & Jere Behrman & Jaesung Choi, 2013. "Causal Effects of Single-Sex Schools on College Entrance Exams and College Attendance: Random Assignment in Seoul High Schools," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 50(2), pages 447-469, April.
    18. Daniel Borbely & Jonathan Norris & Agnese Romiti, 2023. "Peer Gender and Schooling: Evidence from Ethiopia," Journal of Human Capital, University of Chicago Press, vol. 17(2), pages 207-249.
    19. Soohyung Lee & Lesley J. Turner & Seokjin Woo & Kyunghee Kim, 2014. "All or Nothing? The Impact of School and Classroom Gender Composition on Effort and Academic Achievement," NBER Working Papers 20722, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    20. Susanne Link, 2012. "Single-Sex Schooling and Student Performance: Quasi-Experimental Evidence from South Korea," ifo Working Paper Series 146, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:qld:uq2004:487. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: SOE IT (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/decuqau.html .

    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.