Many studies have investigated whether students in charter schools differ systematically from those in traditional public schools with respect to prior achievement, special education, or English Language Learner status. None, however, has examined gender differences in charter school enrollment. Using data for all U.S. public schools over 11 years, we find charters enroll a higher fraction of girls, a gap that has grown steadily over time and is larger in secondary grades and KIPP schools. We then analyze longitudinal student-level data from North Carolina to examine whether differential rates of attrition explain this gap. We find boys are more likely than girls to exit charters once enrolled, and gender differences in attrition are larger than in traditional schools. However, the difference is not large enough to explain the full enrollment gap between charter and traditional schools in North Carolina, suggesting gaps exist from initial matriculation.
AbdulkadiroğluA.AngristJ. D.DynarskiS. M.KaneT. J.PathakP. A. (2011). Accountability and flexibility in public schools: Evidence from Boston’s charters and pilots. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 126, 699-748.
2.
AngristJ. D.DynarskiS. M.KaneT. J.PathakP. A.WaltersC. R. (2010). Inputs and impacts in charter schools: KIPP Lynn. The American Economic Review, 100, 239-243.
3.
AngristJ. D.PathakP. A.WaltersC. R. (2013). Explaining charter school effectiveness. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 5(4), 1-27.
4.
Baltimore City Public Schools. (2009). Charter school report: 2005-06 to 2007-08 school years. Baltimore, MD: Division of Research Assessment and Accountability, Baltimore City Public Schools.
5.
BertrandM.PanJ. (2013). The trouble with boys: Social influences and the gender gap in disruptive behavior. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 5(1), 32-64.
6.
BettsJ. R.TangY. E. (2008). Value-added and experimental studies of the effect of charter schools on student achievement: A literature review. Seattle, WA: Center for Reinventing Public Education.
7.
BifulcoR.LaddH. F. (2006). The impacts of charter schools on student achievement: Evidence from North Carolina. Education Finance and Policy, 1, 50-90.
8.
BifulcoR.LaddH. F.RossS. L. (2009). The effects of public school choice on those left behind: Evidence from Durham, North Carolina. Peabody Journal of Education, 84, 130-149.
9.
BlackS. E.DevereuxP. J.SalvanesK. G. (2013). Under pressure? The effect of peers on outcomes of young adults. Journal of Labor Economics, 31, 119-153.
10.
BookerK.GillB.ZimmerR.SassT. R. (2009). Achievement and attainment in Chicago charter schools. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
11.
BookerK.GilpatricS. M.GronbergT.JansenD. (2008). The effect of charter schools on traditional public school students in Texas: Are children who stay behind left behind?Journal of Urban Economics, 64, 123-145.
12.
BroughmanS. P.SwaimN. L.KeatonP. W. (2008). Characteristics of private schools in the United States: Results from the 2005–2006 private school universe survey (NCES 2008-315). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
13.
BuchmannC.DiPreteT. A.McDanielA. (2008). Gender inequalities in education. Annual Review of Sociology, 34, 319-337.
14.
BuckleyJ.SchneiderM. (2005). Are charter school students harder to educate? Evidence from Washington, D.C. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 27, 365-380.
15.
ChahnazarianA. (1988). Determinants of the sex ratio at birth: Review of recent literature. Social Biology, 35, 214-235.
16.
CongerD.LongM. C. (2013). Gender gaps in college enrollment: The role of gender sorting across public high schools. Educational Researcher, 42, 371-380.
17.
DeeT. S.FuH. (2004). Do charter schools skim students or drain resources?Economics of Education Review, 23, 259-271.
18.
DiPreteT. A.BuchmannC. (2013). The rise of women: The growing gender gap in education and what it means for America’s schools. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
19.
DiPreteT. A.JenningsJ. L. (2012). Social and behavioral skills and the gender gap in early educational achievement. Social Science Research, 41, 1-15.
20.
DobbieW.FryerR. G. (2011). Are high-quality schools enough to increase achievement among the poor? Evidence from the Harlem Children’s Zone. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 3(3), 158-187.
21.
HalpernD. F. (1997). Sex differences in intelligence: Implications for education. American Psychologist, 52, 1091-1102.
22.
HanushekE. A.KainJ. F.RivkinS. G. (2004). Disruption versus Tiebout improvement: The costs and benefits of switching schools. Journal of Public Economics, 88, 1721-1746.
23.
HanushekE. A.KainJ. F.RivkinS. G.BranchG. F. (2007). Charter school quality and parental decision making with school choice. Journal of Public Economics, 91, 823-848.
24.
HastingsJ. S.KaneT. J.StaigerD. O. (2006). Gender and performance: Evidence from school assignment by randomized lottery. The American Economic Review, 96, 232-236.
25.
HauserR. M. (2004). Progress in schooling. In NeckermanK. M. (Ed.), Social inequality (pp. 271-318). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
26.
HoxbyC. M. (2000, August). Peer effects in the classroom: Learning from gender and race variation (NBER Working Paper No. 7867). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved from http://www.pugetsound.edu/files/resources/4244_APA_Color.pdf.
27.
HoxbyC. M.MurarkaS. (2007). New York City’s charter schools overall report. Cambridge, MA: New York City Charter Schools Evaluation Project.
28.
HoxbyC. M.MurarkaS. (2009, April). Charter schools in New York City: Who enrolls and how they affect their students’ achievement (NBER Working Paper No. 14852). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
29.
HoxbyC. M.RockoffJ. E. (2005, May). The impact of charter schools on student achievement (Working paper). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
30.
ImbermanS. A. (2011). The effect of charter schools on achievement and behavior of public school students. Journal of Public Economics, 95, 850-863.
31.
JacksonC.BissetM. (2005). Gender and school choice: Factors influencing parents when choosing single-sex or co-educational independent schools for their children. Cambridge Journal of Education, 35, 195-211.
32.
JacksonC. K. (2012). Single-sex schools, student achievement, and course selection: Evidence from rule-based student assignments in Trinidad and Tobago. Journal of Public Economics, 96, 173-187.
33.
JenningsJ. L.BeveridgeA. A. (2009). How does test exemption affect schools’ and students’ academic performance?Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31, 153-175.
34.
LavyV.SchlosserA. (2011). Mechanisms and impacts of gender peer effects at school. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 3(2), 1-33.
35.
LongM. C.CongerD. (2013). Gender sorting across K–12 schools in the United States. American Journal of Education, 119, 349-372.
36.
MachinS.TelhajS.WilsonJ. (2006). The mobility of English school children. Fiscal Studies, 27, 253-280.
37.
MartinJ.HamiltonB. E.VenturaS. J.OstermanM. J. K.MathewsT. J. (2013). Births: Final data for 2011. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics.
38.
Nichols-BarrerI.GillB. P.GleasonP.TuttleC. C. (2012). Student selection, attrition, and replacement in KIPP Middle Schools. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research.
39.
NoblitG. W.CorbettD. (2001). North Carolina charter school evaluation report. Raleigh, NC: Evaluation Section, Division of Accountability Services, Instructional and Accountability Services.
40.
RaymondM. (2009). Multiple choice: Charter school performance in 16 states. Stanford, CA: Center for Research on Education Outcomes.
41.
SchwartzA. E.StiefelL.CordesS. A. (in press). Moving matters: The causal effect of school mobility on student performance. Education Finance and Policy.
42.
SnyderT. D.DillowS. A. (2013). Digest of Education Statistics 2012 (NCES 2014-015). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
43.
ThernstromA.ThernstromS. (2003). No excuses: Closing the racial gap in learning. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
44.
TuttleC. C.GillB.GleasonP.KnechtelV.Nichols-BarrerI.ReschA. (2013). KIPP middle schools: Impacts on achievement and other outcomes. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research.
45.
WeiherG. R.TedinK. L. (2002). Does choice lead to racially distinctive schools? Charter schools and household preferences. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 21, 79-92.
46.
WhitmoreD. (2005). Resource and peer impacts on girls’ academic achievement: Evidence from a randomized experiment. The American Economic Review, 95, 199-203.
XuZ.HannawayJ.D’SouzaS. (2009). Student transience in North Carolina: The effect of school mobility on student outcomes using longitudinal data. Washington, DC: Urban Institute/CALDER Center.
49.
ZimmerR. W.GillB.BookerK.LavertuS.SassT. R.WitteJ. (2009). Charter schools in eight states: Effects on achievement, attainment, integration, and competition. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
50.
ZimmerR. W.GuarinoC. M. (2013). Is there empirical evidence that charter schools “push out” low-performing students?Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 35, 461-480.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
