MECHANISMS AND IMPACTS OF GENDER PEER EFFECTS AT SCHOOL Victor Lavy Hebrew University Analía Schlosser Tel Aviv University February 2010

MECHANISMS AND IMPACTS OF MECHANISMS AND IMPACTS OF GENDER PEER EFFECTS AT SCHOOLGENDER PEER EFFECTS AT SCHOOL

Victor Lavy Hebrew University

Analía Schlosser Tel Aviv University

February 2010

GENDER PEER EFFECTS IN THE CLASSROOM

Social scientists, policy makers, and parents have long

been concerned with the consequences of classroom

gender composition.

General view: social interactions between genders at

school play an important role in academic achievement

and career choices.

However, little scientific evidence supports these beliefs.

Not much is known about the mechanisms of gender

peer-effects.

“Our goal is to create all-girls public schools and college guidance programs in New York City and to create a network of top quality schools across the nation.…

The YWL Network currently includes four all-girls public schools in New York City, Chicago and Philadelphia and an affiliate school in Dallas. To expand options and opportunities, our Foundation seeks to build on our success and to extend our impact on public education.”

# of girls’ schools

# of boys’ schools

% boys in mixed schools

London 83 61 55%

Inner London 36 21 59%

Camden 4 1 61%

Islington 3 2 71%

Southwark 4 1 65%

Examine the extent of gender peer effects in the

educational production function (within a mixed gender environment) Looking separately at boys and girls.Explore the effects on achievements in different

stages of the schooling cycle: primary, middle, and high school.

Identify mechanisms of gender peer effects.Explore these mechanisms to assess role of

composition versus changes in students’ behavior.

OBJECTIVES OF THE PAPER

Observational studies based on comparison between students, mainly of girls, in single-sex and coed classes: reviews by U.S. Dept. of Education (2005), AAUW (1998).Mixed evidence.No account for selection or unobserved confounding

factors.Virtually no research on the effects for boys.

Quasi-experimental evidence within a mixed gender environment for elementary schools:Hoxby (2000): students have higher achievement when

they have more female peers.

STUDIES ON THE EFFECTS OF CLASSROOM GENDER COMPOSITION

RELATED RESEARCH OF PEER EFFECTS ON ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT

Experimental evidence: Sacerdote (2001); Zimmerman (2003)

Changes in student’s peer composition: Hanushek et al. (2003); Hoxby & Weingarth (2005); Gibbons & Telhaj (2006); Lavy, Silva & Weinhardt (2009).

Within school variation: Angrist & Lang (2004); Gould, Lavy & Paserman (2005); Arcidiacono & Nicholson (2005); Ammermueller & Pischke (2006), Lavy, Paserman & Schlosser (2008).

Little empirical evidence on mechanisms See for e.g., Lazear (2001) model.

Rely on within school variation in the proportion of female students across adjacent cohorts.

Examine whether cohort-to-cohort changes in outcomes within the same grade and school are systematically associated with cohort-to-cohort changes in the proportion of female students.

The proportion of female students is measured at the grade and not at the class level because the latter might be endogenous.

Use placebo treatments for falsification tests: replace actual treatment with the proportion of girls in the t-1 and t+1 cohort in the same school.

IDENTIFICATION STRATEGY

We use repeated cross-sectional data to estimate a reduced-

form equation separately for boys and girls

(1)

yigst outcome of student i, in grade g, school s, and year t

αg grade effect; βs school effect; γt year effect

xigst student covariates

Sgst cohort covariates

Pgst proportion of female students in grade g, school s,

and year t

Models at the HS level include also school specific time trends. Standard errors are clustered at the school level.

IDENTIFICATION STRATEGY

Outcomes: High school: students achievement in matriculation exams

for the 1993-2003 cohorts. Elementary and middle schools: national tests and

questionnaires administered by the MOE for 2002-2005. Student’s questionnaire (grades 5th through 9th). Teacher’s questionnaire (all teachers). Student’s tests scores in math, science, Hebrew, and

English (5th and 8th grades). Students background characteristics: administrative records

collected by the Israeli MOE.Each record includes: student ID, school and class ID, and student demographics (gender, parental education, number of siblings, year of immigration, and ethnicity).

DATA

A. What originates the variation in the prop. female? Table A1: Decomposition of variance within and between

schools.

Figure 1a: Natural fluctuations in the prop. female across incoming cohorts that persist through their progression to higher grades. Similar to variation across cohorts within residential areas.

Figure 1b: Simulated within school SD similar to actual within school SD.

Figure 2: Larger variation in the prop. female in small schools but still sizeable in large schools.

Figure 3: Variation in the periphery of the country and in large metropolitan areas.

EVIDENCE ON THE VALIDITY OF THE IDENTIFICATION STRATEGY

B. Is this variation correlated with other changes across cohorts? Table 1: Balancing tests show that within school

changes in the prop. of female students are uncorrelated with any other changes in students background characteristics.

EVIDENCE ON THE VALIDITY OF THE IDENTIFICATION STRATEGY (cont.)

C. Do parents/students react to the prop. of female classmates by leaving a school? Unlikely in Elementary school or Middle school given

that there is no school choice.

Table 2: The likelihood that a boy/girl leaves a school is unrelated to the prop. female in his/her initial grade.

Nevertheless, at the high school level we use the prop. female students in 10th grade.

Virtually same results when limiting samples to towns that have only one school.

EVIDENCE ON THE VALIDITY OF THE IDENTIFICATION STRATEGY (cont.)

Table 3a: Descriptive stats. on matriculation outcomes: girls have higher achievements except in sciences.

Results for matriculation outcomes: Positive effects of the prop. female. Similar magnitude for boys and girls.

Table 3b: Falsification regressions with placebo treatments show no effect.

Table 4:: Heterogeneous effects by parental education and immigration status. Larger benefits for students with lower parental education and new immigrants.

RESULTS: EFFECTS ON HIGH SCHOOL ACHIEVEMENT

RESULTS: EFFECTS ON HIGH SCHOOL ACHIEVEMENT (cont.)

Table A2: Heterogeneous effects by school size: :

Similar effects in small and large schools suggesting that our results are relevant for schools of all sizes.

Non-linear effects:• Table A3: Evidence on within school switches across

quintiles over time.

• Table A4:: Impacts that grow with the increase in the prop. female. Largest when girls become a majority in the class (above 58 percent).

Table 5:

Primary school: significant effects on math and

science for boys and girls; similar estimates by

gender; no effect on language subjects.

10 points increase in the prop. female

increase in avg. score in math & science by 3.3% SD.

Middle school: positive effects on girls and boys’

math and English test scores, only significant for

girls.

RESULTS: EFFECTS ON PRIMARY AND MIDDLE SCHOOL ACHIEVEMENT

Table 6 - Learning Environment: Less disruptions and less violence. Improved inter-student relationships. Improved teacher-student relationships.

Table 7 – Students’ FE estimates: using variation in the : using variation in the prop. female at the transition from elem. school to MS:prop. female at the transition from elem. school to MS:

Results remarkably similar to school FE results.Results remarkably similar to school FE results.

RESULTS: MECHANISMS

RESULTS: MECHANISMS (cont.)

Table 8 - Teacher Work Sentiments:: Less teaching fatigue / burnout.

No effect on teachers workload or work satisfaction.

Table 9:: Improved classroom environment due to

compositional change or due to changes in students’

behaviour?

Tables A6 & A8 - Falsification TestsTables A6 & A8 - Falsification Tests:: no effects.

RESULTS: MECHANISMS (cont.)

Three main contributions of the paper:

1. Estimate gender peer effects on student achievements in elementary, middle schools, and high school. Both boys and girls have higher achievement when they

have a higher prop. of female peers. The effects are similar for both genders and appear at

the three levels of education. Larger benefits for students with lower parental

education and new immigrants.

SUMMARY


1. Estimate gender peer effects on student achievements in elementary, middle schools, and high school.

2. Look into the “black box” by exploring the mechanisms of gender peer effects. A higher prop. of girls leads to an improved learning

environment.

SUMMARY


1. Estimate gender peer effects on student achievements in elementary, middle schools, and high school.

2. Look into the “black box” by exploring the mechanisms of gender peer effects.

3. Provide evidence showing that the improvement in classroom environment is driven by a change in the composition of students and not by changes in students behavior.

SUMMARY

Social choice of single sex classes or schools is not clear: the gain for girls from classroom gender segregation is offset by the loss for boys.

Inter- and intra-school resource allocation should consider variation in the proportion of female students across schools and grades.

Our results provide direct evidence of the possible consequences of imbalanced sex ratios in coed public schools.

We also provide indirect evidence showing that a better learning environment leads to higher achievement.

Important to distinguish between peer effects originated by congestion effects and those caused by changes in individual behavior.

IMPLICATIONS

Table A1. Decomposition of Variance in the Proportion of Female Students

Sum of squares

Share of total DF

Sum of squares

Share of total DF

Sum of squares

Share of total DF

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

Between 7.7 32% 1,009 3.2 38% 394 27.2 85% 263

Within 16.5 68% 2,890 5.2 62% 1,683 4.9 15% 1,635

Total 24.2 3,899 8.4 2,077 32.0 1,899

Avg. enrollment 60 143 210

Secular and religiouselementary schools Secular middle schools Secular high schools

Table 1. Balancing Tests for the Proportion FemaleElementary schools Middle schools High schools

Schoolfixed effects

Schoolfixed effects

Schoolfixed effects +

school time trendsDependent variable (2) (4) (7)

Father's years of schooling -0.245 0.184 -0.097(0.228) (0.361) (0.414)

Mother's years of schooling -0.283 -0.647 -0.133(0.236) (0.435) (0.403)

Number of siblings 0.023 -0.379 0.012(0.077) (0.315) (0.254)

New immigrant 0.006 0.002 0.036(0.006) (0.012) (0.021)

EthnicityIsrael 0.007 -0.022 -0.059

(0.022) (0.029) (0.030)

Asia/Africa -0.014 -0.007 0.038(excluding Ethiopia) (0.015) (0.021) (0.025)

Ethiopia 0.012 -0.002 -0.001(0.009) (0.009) (0.004)

Europe/America -0.026 0.032 -0.002(excluding FSU) (0.012) (0.020) (0.018)

Former Soviet Union (FSU) 0.021 -0.001 0.024(0.014) (0.027) (0.028)

Number of students 213,393 270,857 404,929

Number of schools 1,010 264395

Table 2. School Transfers and Drop-outs as a Function of the Prop. of Female Students

Females Males Females Males Females Males(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

Outcome means

Left the school in t+1 0.075 0.082 0.049 0.056 0.066 0.097

Regression estimates

Left the school in t+1 -0.028 -0.002 0.024 0.028 -0.023 -0.001(0.029) (0.032) (0.041) (0.045) (0.024) (0.030)

High schools

(10th grade)

Elementary schools

(1st grade)

Middle schools

(7th grade)

Table 3: Descriptive Statistics: Matriculation Exams Outcomes in High Schools

Females Males Females Males Females Males Females Males(1) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11)

1993 0.510 65.2 59.0 0.585 0.502 19.3 17.9 0.579 0.668

1994 0.515 66.7 60.9 0.567 0.505 19.6 18.6 0.557 0.655

1995 0.509 67.2 61.2 0.576 0.488 20.1 18.7 0.556 0.633

1996 0.506 68.2 62.1 0.585 0.499 20.4 18.9 0.576 0.619

1997 0.508 70.3 65.0 0.644 0.535 21.0 19.7 0.575 0.614

1998 0.509 71.0 65.6 0.642 0.536 21.2 19.8 0.588 0.596

1999 0.507 71.8 65.1 0.666 0.552 21.4 19.9 0.604 0.591

2000 0.505 72.2 65.3 0.678 0.559 21.5 19.8 0.607 0.584

All 0.508 69.2 63.1 0.619 0.523 20.6 19.2 0.581 0.619

Matriculation statusAverage score

Proportion of female students

Number of advanced level

subjects in science

Number of credit units10th grade

cohort

Table 3a. Estimates of the Effect of Proportion Female on Scholastic Outcomes in High School

Outcomemeans Full model

Outcomemeans Full model

(1) (2) (4) (5) (12)

Average Score 69.2 6.314 63.1 7.918 0.599(2.142) (2.702)

Matriculation status 0.619 0.099 0.523 0.049 0.501(0.041) (0.045)

Number of credit units 20.6 1.455 19.2 1.389 0.979(0.855) (1.050)

0.581 0.141 0.619 0.227 0.295(0.072) (0.076)

0.559 0.086 0.473 0.084 0.794(0.047) (0.046)

Year effects Y YSchool Fixed Effects Y YSchool Time Trend Y YEnrollment (2nd Poly) Y YIndividual Pupil Controls Y YCohort Mean Controls Y Y

Number of students 205,891 199,038Number of schools 264 264

H0: πFem=π

Males

p-value

Number of advanced level subjects in science

Matriculation diploma that meets university requirements

MalesFemales

Table 3b. Falsification Tests for the Effect of Proportion Female on Scholastic Outcomes in High School

Prop. femalein t-1

Prop. femalein t+1

Prop. femalein t-1

Prop. femalein t+1

Outcome (7) (8) (9) (10)

Average score 3.117 -1.686 0.220 -0.040(2.249) (2.564) (2.920) (2.644)

Matriculation status 0.021 0.028 0.016 -0.004(0.043) (0.046) (0.045) (0.047)

Number of credit units 0.369 0.080 -0.663 0.410(0.871) (0.898) (1.112) (0.985)

0.026 -0.001 -0.018 0.012(0.075) (0.066) (0.075) (0.074)

Matriculation diploma that meets 0.006 0.018 0.036 0.026university requirements (0.039) (0.043) (0.042) (0.045)

MalesFemales


Table 4. Heterogeneous Effects by SES

Low parental education

High parental education(avg.>12)

New immigrants

Low parental education

High parental education(avg.>12)

New immigrants

Outcome (2) (3) (4) (6) (7) (8)

Average score 8.168 3.113 34.066 11.509 3.168 5.897

(2.639) (2.960) (11.278) (3.628) (2.822) (13.697)65.43 75.33 53.62 58.21 70.52 47.95

Matriculation status 0.135 0.032 0.221 0.050 0.017 0.233(0.055) (0.048) (0.138) (0.063) (0.055) (0.142)

0.518 0.769 0.481 0.407 0.679 0.401

Number of credit units 2.142 0.022 8.496 1.328 0.420 3.967(1.114) (1.083) (3.834) (1.416) (1.123) (4.815)

18.78 23.49 16.55 16.67 22.75 15.65

Number of advanced level 0.101 0.110 0.255 0.120 0.319 0.209subjects in science (0.073) (0.112) (0.249) (0.085) (0.108) (0.269)

0.369 0.883 0.469 0.375 0.941 0.507

Matriculation diploma that 0.097 0.047 0.259 0.078 0.054 0.083meets university requirements (0.058) (0.053) (0.134) (0.061) (0.055) (0.125)

0.437 0.736 0.385 0.343 0.648 0.315

Number of students 115,949 82,577 13,729 107,616 83,665 12,787

Females Males

Table A2. Heterogeneous effects by School Size

Outcomemeans

School fixed

effectsOutcome

means

School fixed

effectsOutcome

means

School fixed

effectsOutcome

means

School fixed

effectsOutcome (2) (3) (4) (5) (7) (8) (9) (10)

Average score 66.63 5.062 70.17 6.601 60.25 11.943 64.22 4.570(3.050) (2.957) (3.992) (3.607)

Matriculation status 0.561 0.070 0.642 0.111 0.461 0.025 0.547 0.080(0.060) (0.056) (0.061) (0.065)

Number of credit units 19.58 1.680 21.01 1.033 17.88 1.817 19.69 1.228(1.108) (1.231) (1.401) (1.492)

Number of advanced 0.444 0.042 0.634 0.221 0.476 0.202 0.675 0.248subjects in science (0.081) (0.113) (0.083) (0.118)

Matriculation diploma 0.490 0.063 0.586 0.094 0.403 0.052 0.500 0.123that meets university requirements

(0.062) (0.069) (0.058) (0.069)

Avg. SD(prop. female) 0.061 0.039 0.061 0.039

Females MalesAverage enrollment

<200Average enrollment

>=200Average enrollment

<200Average enrollment

>=200

Table A4. Nonlinear Estimates of the Effect of Proportion Female on Matriculation Outcomes

Quintile II III IV V II III IV V

Min. 0.446 0.503 0.541 0.587 0.446 0.503 0.541 0.587Max. 0.503 0.541 0.587 1 0.503 0.541 0.587 1Mean 0.479 0.522 0.561 0.652 0.479 0.522 0.561 0.652Median 0.481 0.522 0.560 0.631 0.481 0.522 0.560 0.631

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

Average Score 0.667 0.709 0.861 1.608 1.143 0.643 1.341 1.954(0.567) (0.616) (0.613) (0.676) (0.509) (0.537) (0.567) (0.698)

Matriculation status 0.007 0.003 0.006 0.026 0.007 0.001 0.005 0.013

(0.010) (0.010) (0.010) (0.012) (0.008) (0.008) (0.009) (0.012)

0.310 0.392 0.348 0.576 0.350 0.241 0.348 0.593(0.218) (0.226) (0.228) (0.254) (0.210) (0.213) (0.220) (0.284)

0.006 0.023 0.024 0.042 0.032 0.040 0.045 0.058(0.017) (0.018) (0.018) (0.020) (0.015) (0.015) (0.015) (0.021)

0.003 0.003 0.004 0.024 0.011 0.008 0.013 0.021(0.010) (0.010) (0.011) (0.012) (0.009) (0.009) (0.009) (0.012)

Matriculation diploma that meets university requirements


Note: The mean prop. female in Q1 is 0.309 and the median is 0.345.

MalesFemales

Number of credit units

Table A3. Quintiles of the Proportion Femalein High Schools

Quintile 1 Quintile 2 Quintile 3 Quintile 4 Quintile 5

Range 0.000-0.446 0.446-0.503 0.503-0.541 0.541-0.587 0.587-1.000Mean 0.309 0.479 0.522 0.561 0.652Median 0.345 0.481 0.522 0.56 0.631

Number of students 64,994 84,770 95,525 87,610 72,030

Quintile 1 24 70 56 36 22

Quintile 2 1 124 103 58Quintile 3 1 126 71

Quintile 4 0 93

Quintile 5 8

B. School Transitions Across Quintiles

A. Summary Statistics

Table 5. Estimates of the Effect of Proportion Female on Achievement in Elementary and Middle schools

Females Males Females Males(3) (7) (3) (7)

Math 0.366 0.218 0.773 0.360(0.155) (0.159) (0.282) (0.283)

Science and Technology 0.301 0.432 -0.088 -0.190(0.169) (0.167) (0.307) (0.329)

Hebrew 0.078 0.131 0.335 0.031(0.148) (0.157) (0.249) (0.326)

English 0.077 -0.088 0.540 0.295(0.172) (0.156) (0.229) (0.260)

Average score in 0.350 0.310 0.327 0.123Math and Science (0.135) (0.142) (0.256) (0.279)

Average score in 0.098 0.065 0.390 0.174Hebrew and English (0.132) (0.132) (0.200) (0.255)

8th grade 5th grade

Table 6. Estimates of the Effect of Proportion Female on the Classroom Environment


Classroom disruption and violence

1 4.88 4.85 -0.254 -0.218(0.089) (0.080)

2 3.28 3.37 -0.669 -0.525(0.114) (0.111)

3 1.67 1.74 -0.247 -0.239(0.071) (0.075)

Average effect -0.302 -0.233

(0.058) (0.049)

School fixed effects

Full sample (5th through 9th grade)

Outcome means

Frequently the classroom is noisy and not conducive to learning

There are many fights among students in my classroom

Sometimes I'm scared to go to school because there are violent students

Inter-student relationships

4 5.16 5.13 0.293 0.097(0.068) (0.060)

5 4.33 4.10 0.440 0.316(0.088) (0.085)

Average effect 0.302 0.155(0.057) (0.049)

Students in my class help each other

I feel well adjusted socially in my class

c 1Kc

Kc

k 1

kc kc

Table 6. Estimates of the Effect of Proportion Female on the Classroom Environment (cont.)


Teacher-student relationships6 4.26 4.21 -0.240 -0.282

(0.109) (0.105)

7 4.11 3.97 0.153 0.326(0.090) (0.091)

8 4.10 3.93 0.158 0.293(0.088) (0.088)

0.146 0.220(0.067) (0.059)

Number of students 241,416 242,834

Number of schools 1,302 1,302

Average effect (sign of item 6 is reversed)

Students frequently talk back to teachers

There is mutual respect between teachers and students

There are good relationships between teachers and students

School fixed effectsFull sample (5th through 9th grade)

Outcome means

We follow 5th and 6th grade elementary school students from years 2002 & 2003 to middle school in 2004 & 2005.

We examine how changes in the proportion of female peers (due to transition from ES to MS) are associated with changes in students assessments of the classroom environment.

(3)

ES = Elementary School; MS=Middle Schoolyigst outcome of student i, in grade g, school s, and cohort t

αg grade effect

γt cohort effect

βs school effect (elementary + middle school)

xigst student covariates

Sgst cohort covariates

Pgst prop. female

EFFECTS ON CLASSROOM ENVIRONMENT: STUDENT’S FIXED EFFECTS ESTIMATES

Table 7. Student’s FE Estimates of the Effects on the Classroom Environment

Females Males(1) (2)

Classroom disruption and violence1 -0.337 -0.230

(0.214) (0.222)

2 -0.838 -0.486(0.278) (0.293)

3 -0.323 -0.271(0.195) (0.230)

Average effect -0.321 -0.195(0.107) (0.091)

Inter-students relationships4 0.399 -0.045

(0.189) (0.191)

5 0.455 0.058(0.210) (0.256)

Average effect 0.301 0.001(0.111) (0.116)

Teachers-students relationships6 -0.386 -0.388

(0.255) (0.245)

7 0.202 0.326

(0.204) (0.253)

8 0.345 0.403(0.214) (0.229)

0.211 0.229(0.115) (0.112)





I feel well adjusted socially in my class

Students in my class help each other


Sometimes I'm scared to go to school because there are violent students

Average effect (sign of item 6 is reversed)

Table 8. Estimates of the Effect of Proportion Female on Teachers’ Fatigue and Job Satisfaction

Number of teachers

Number of schools

I feel burned-out

I feel that I have too much

workloadI am satisfied with my work

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

means 17,529 1,038 2.564 4.180 5.456(s.d.) (1.488) (1.472) (0.817)

Full sample 17,529 1,038 -0.265 -0.017 0.006

(0.188) (0.176) (0.092)

Math & grammar teachers 16,837 1,037 -0.380 -0.039 0.032

(0.193) (0.178) (0.094)

1st through 4th grade teachers 10,611 1,030 -0.637 -0.180 -0.002(0.244) (0.238) (0.117)

A. Effects of the proportion of female students (elementary schools)

Table 8. Estimates of the Effect of Proportion Female on Teachers’ Fatigue and Job Satisfaction (cont.)

Number of teachers

Number of schools

I feel burned-out

I feel that I have too

much workloadI am satisfied with my work

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

6,844 1,001 0.238 0.054 -0.158(0.041) (0.043) (0.022)

6,844 1,001 0.150 0.074 -0.091(0.030) (0.031) (0.017)

6,844 1,001 0.190 0.056 -0.091(0.030) (0.033) (0.017)

6,844 1,001 -0.332 -0.079 0.180(0.042) (0.041) (0.023)

6,844 1,001 -0.345 -0.087 0.179(0.043) (0.042) (0.024)





B. Within school associations with classroom environment (grades 5th and 6th)


Table 9. Estimates of the Effect of Proportion Female on Student's Behavior


Self-discipline1 4.905 4.867 0.048 -0.005

(0.058) (0.058)

2 5.722 5.542 0.035 -0.006(0.031) (0.044)

3 1.392 2.210 0.060 0.228(0.053) (0.082)

4 2.855 3.082 0.206 -0.019(0.104) (0.101)

5 4.783 4.480 -0.080 0.173(0.093) (0.096)

-0.029 -0.009

(0.043) (0.041)

I know what behavior is allowed or forbidden in school

When I have a problem at school there is always someone I can turn to (from the teaching staff)

Outcome means

This year I was involved in many fights

Sometimes the teachers treat me badly

Average effect(signs of items 3,4 are reversed)


I understand well my teachers scholastic requirements


Table 9. Estimates of the Effect of Proportion Female on Student's Behavior (cont.)


Study Efforts6 3.260 3.000 0.086 0.056

(0.085) (0.091)

7 2.222 2.060 0.049 0.006(0.092) (0.087)

8 3.046 2.765 0.045 0.109(0.089) (0.095)

9 2.152 2.115 0.102 -0.078(0.092) (0.092)

Average effect 0.052 0.015(0.049) (0.047)



Weekly hours spent on homework in Math

Weekly hours spent on homework in English

Weekly hours spent on homework in Science and Technology

Weekly hours spent on homework in Hebrew

Outcome means

Table A7. Student FE Estimates of the Effect of Proportion Female on Own Behavior

Females Males(1) (2)

Self-discipline1 0.143 -0.045

(0.150) (0.165)

2 -0.064 0.034(0.102) (0.136)

3 0.026 0.192(0.143) (0.234)

4 0.155 0.269(0.265) (0.254)

5 -0.118 0.230(0.230) (0.234)

-0.030 -0.026(0.081) (0.075)

Study Efforts6 0.007 -0.117

(0.241) (0.231)

7 0.058 -0.066(0.218) (0.232)

8 -0.106 -0.004(0.249) (0.255)

9 0.405 -0.111(0.229) (0.261)

Average effect 0.058 -0.042(0.102) (0.098)

Weekly hours spent on homework in English

Weekly hours spent on homework in Science and Technology

Weekly hours spent on homework in Hebrew

I know what behavior is allowed or forbidden in school

When I have a problem at school there is always someone I can turn to (from the teaching staff)

This year I was involved in many fights

I understand well my teacher's scholastic requirements

Sometimes the teachers treat me badly

Weekly hours spent on homework in Math

Average effect(signs of items 3,4 are reversed)

Figure 1a: Variation in the Proportion Female within Schools and within Neighborhoods, 2002-2006

05

1015

0 .1 .2 .3.062

1st grade 5th grade

avg. cohort size in 1st grade=61.516 - avg. cohort size in 5th grade=62.203

05

1015

0 .1 .2 .3.056

Age 6 By Zip Code

average cohort size =80.493

Figure 1b: Actual and Simulated Within School Standard Deviation in Elementary Schools

05

10

15

0 .1 .2 .3 .4.061

Actual Simulated

Figure 2: Within School Standard Deviation in the Proportion Female by School Size

A. Elementary Schools

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

Average annual enrollment

B. Middle Schools

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400


C. High Schools

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800


Figure 3: Within School Standard Deviation in the Proportion Female by Town Size

C. High Schools

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

- 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000

Town Size

A. Elementary Schools

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

- 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000

Town Size

B. Middle Schools

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

- 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000

Town Size

+

+ +

Documents

MECHANISMS AND IMPACTS OF GENDER PEER EFFECTS AT SCHOOL Victor Lavy Hebrew University Analía Schlosser Tel Aviv University February 2010