Girls outperform boys in math in low-income school districts while boys do better than girls in math in wealthier districts, according to a study from researchers at Stanford University and the Learning Policy Institute.
The researchers don’t know why these gaps exist but hypothesize that students in wealthier districts may be more influenced by gender norms.
The research shows that in the places where “privileged” families cluster — wealthier school districts where men earn more than women, have higher levels of education and are more likely to work in business or science — boys outperform girls in math by a larger margin than in other communities.
The findings are based on data from more than 260 million state tests given to students in grades three through eight in 10,000 U.S. school districts.
The study found that in the U.S., on average, there is no gender gap in math scores, writes Jenny Anderson in a study summary article for Quartz Media.
Anderson writes that in test after test, in the U.S. and around the world, girls tend to do better on reading, but findings of a gap in math have been mixed.
Anderson writes, “Since international, national or state-level data can obscure local differences, Stanford and the Learning Policy Institute created the most comprehensive U.S. district-level education data set ever to see what impact local communities have.”
Dr. Sean Reardon, a professor at Stanford University’s Graduate School of Education and the lead author of the study said the goal was “to map the patterns of gender achievement gaps across the entire country in order to develop a better sense of what kinds of communities and school districts most commonly provide equal educational opportunities for girls and boys.”
The results, based on tests from the 2008-09 through 2014-15 school years, suggest that achievement gaps may not be as fueled by subject as they are by parents, schools or communities.
Anderson writes there is no way to know from the study what caused girls to do worse than boys in richer neighborhoods, but the authors posed a few ideas.
Perhaps role models matter — maybe boys see their fathers working more and earning more and that fires them up to perform better in math or girls see mothers working less or earning less and internalize a message that they should try less.
Perhaps parents with resources react to small preferences young kids express about activities — shaped no doubt by societal gender norms — and reinforce those through activities, sending Jason to robotics club and Jade to ballet, according to Anderson.
Or, it’s possible schools in wealthier neighborhoods treat boys differently, encouraging them more than girls in math.