IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ude/wpaper/0324.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Gender differences in teachers' assessments and blind test results – evidence from Uruguay

Author

Listed:
  • Marisa Bucheli

  • Florencia Amábile

  • Carmen Estrades

Abstract

This paper analyzes the existence of gender bias by public school teachers in Uruguay when grading students in the third and sixth years of primary level. The econometric strategy consists of estimating the effect of gender on the course score (non-blind outcome) when controlling by blind test scores and other relevant characteristics. We do not obtain evidence about a bias in the third year. However, we find an average bias in favor of girls in the sixth year, which responds to biases in the middle of the distribution of abilities (the extreme abilities are not gender-biased when assessed). The average results are robust to several checks. We rule out that sixth-year bias is mainly driven by statistical discrimination or explicit beliefs on talent gender stereotypes.

Suggested Citation

  • Marisa Bucheli & Florencia Amábile & Carmen Estrades, 2024. "Gender differences in teachers' assessments and blind test results – evidence from Uruguay," Documentos de Trabajo (working papers) 0324, Department of Economics - dECON.
    • Handle: RePEc:ude:wpaper:0324
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12008/43686
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • I24 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education - - - Education and Inequality
    • J16 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics - - - Economics of Gender; Non-labor Discrimination

    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:ude:wpaper:0324. 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: Andrea Doneschi or the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/derauuy.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.