IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecoedu/v52y2016icp155-175.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Sohn, Hosung

Abstract

Single-sex schooling has been considered in many countries as a way to promote student achievement. This paper estimates the mean and distributional impact of single-sex high schools on students’ cognitive achievement, major choice, and test-taking behavior—by exploiting the random assignment policy adopted in Seoul, Korea. Based on administrative data for a period of seven years, I find that, on average, the positive effects of single-sex schooling on test scores are small, especially when the parental and teacher sorting are accounted for. Although the magnitude of the estimated effects is small, I find that the effect is relatively larger for students in quantiles 0.5–0.8 of the distribution of test scores. The impact is trivial, on the other hand, for students located at the very bottom and the very top quantiles. Moreover, I do not find any differences, both practically and statistically, in major choice and test-taking behavior.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecoedu:v:52:y:2016:i:c:p:155-175
    DOI: 10.1016/j.econedurev.2016.02.007
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272775716300991
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.econedurev.2016.02.007?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    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. Marianne P. Bitler & Jonah B. Gelbach & Hilary W. Hoynes, 2006. "What Mean Impacts Miss: Distributional Effects of Welfare Reform Experiments," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(4), pages 988-1012, September.
    3. Alan B. Krueger, 1999. "Experimental Estimates of Education Production Functions," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 114(2), pages 497-532.
    4. Sergio Firpo, 2007. "Efficient Semiparametric Estimation of Quantile Treatment Effects," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 75(1), pages 259-276, January.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. William G. Howell & Patrick J. Wolf & David E. Campbell & Paul E. Peterson, 2002. "School vouchers and academic performance: results from three randomized field trials," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(2), pages 191-217.
    8. Thomas S. Dee, 2007. "Teachers and the Gender Gaps in Student Achievement," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 42(3).
    9. Oosterbeek, Hessel & van Ewijk, Reyn, 2014. "Gender peer effects in university: Evidence from a randomized experiment," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 51-63.
    10. Sergio Firpo & Nicole M. Fortin & Thomas Lemieux, 2009. "Unconditional Quantile Regressions," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 77(3), pages 953-973, May.
    11. C. Kirabo Jackson, 2009. "Student Demographics, Teacher Sorting, and Teacher Quality: Evidence from the End of School Desegregation," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 27(2), pages 213-256, April.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. Koenker, Roger W & Bassett, Gilbert, Jr, 1978. "Regression Quantiles," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 46(1), pages 33-50, January.
    15. Charles F. Manski, 1993. "Identification of Endogenous Social Effects: The Reflection Problem," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 60(3), pages 531-542.
    16. Fangwen Lu & Michael L. Anderson, 2015. "Peer Effects in Microenvironments: The Benefits of Homogeneous Classroom Groups," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 33(1), pages 91-122.
    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. 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.
    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. Anne Ardila Brenøe & Ulf Zölitz, 2020. "Exposure to More Female Peers Widens the Gender Gap in STEM Participation," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 38(4), pages 1009-1054.
    2. Lee, Youngju & Nakazawa, Nobuhiko, 2022. "Does single-sex schooling help or hurt labor market outcomes? Evidence from a natural experiment in South Korea," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 214(C).
    3. Karnani, Mohit, 2016. "Freshmen teachers and college major choice: Evidence from a random assignment in Chile," MPRA Paper 76062, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Judith M. Delaney & Paul J. Devereux, 2021. "Gender and Educational Achievement: Stylized Facts and Causal Evidence," Working Papers 202103, School of Economics, University College Dublin.
    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. Eleanor Jawon Choi & Hyungsik Roger Moon & Geert Ridder, 2019. "Within-District School Lotteries, District Selection, and the Average Partial Effects of School Inputs," Korean Economic Review, Korean Economic Association, vol. 35, pages 275-306.
    7. 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.

    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. 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.
    3. 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).
    4. Modena, Francesca & Rettore, Enrico & Tanzi, Giulia, 2021. "Does Gender Matter? The Effect of High Performing Peers on Academic Performances," IZA Discussion Papers 14806, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    5. 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.
    6. Hill, Andrew J., 2017. "The positive influence of female college students on their male peers," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 151-160.
    7. de Gendre, Alexandra & Salamanca, Nicolás, 2020. "On the Mechanisms of Ability Peer Effects," IZA Discussion Papers 13938, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    8. Ozkan Eren, 2017. "Differential Peer Effects, Student Achievement, and Student Absenteeism: Evidence From a Large-Scale Randomized Experiment," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 54(2), pages 745-773, April.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. Jackson, C. Kirabo, 2013. "Can higher-achieving peers explain the benefits to attending selective schools? Evidence from Trinidad and Tobago," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 63-77.
    12. Kien Le & My Nguyen, 2019. "‘Bad Apple’ peer effects in elementary classrooms: the case of corporal punishment in the home," Education Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(6), pages 557-572, November.
    13. Wang, Muwen, 2023. "Opposite-gender friendships and learning performance of students: Evidence from China," International Journal of Educational Development, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    14. Devereux, Paul J. & Delaney, Judith, 2021. "Gender and Educational Achievement: Stylized Facts and Causal Evidence," CEPR Discussion Papers 15753, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    15. Modena, Francesca & Rettore, Enrico & Tanzi, Giulia Martina, 2022. "Asymmetries in the gender effect of high-performing peers: Evidence from tertiary education," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    16. Ozkan Eren, 2016. "Differential Peer Effects, Student Achievement, and Student Absenteeism: Evidence from a Large Scale Randomized Experiment," Departmental Working Papers 2016-01, Department of Economics, Louisiana State University.
    17. Luo, Yiyang & Yang, Songtao, 2023. "Gender peer effects on students’ educational and occupational expectations," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    18. Anne Ardila Brenøe & Ulf Zölitz, 2020. "Exposure to More Female Peers Widens the Gender Gap in STEM Participation," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 38(4), pages 1009-1054.
    19. 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).
    20. 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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Single-sex school; Major choice; Random assignment; Mean and distributional impact;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • I21 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education - - - Analysis of Education
    • 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:eee:ecoedu:v:52:y:2016:i:c:p:155-175. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/econedurev .

    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.