Attitudes towards single parents' children in private and state-dependent private schools: Experimental evidence

Diaz-Serrano, Luis; Flamand, Sabine Article Attitudes towards single parents' children in private and state-dependent private schools: Experimental evidence SERIEs - Journal of the Spanish Economic Association Provided in Cooperation with: Spanish Economic Association Suggested Citation: Diaz-Serrano, Luis; Flamand, Sabine (2023) : Attitudes towards single parents' children in private and state-dependent private schools: Experimental evidence, SERIEs - Journal of the Spanish Economic Association, ISSN 1869-4195, Springer, Heidelberg, Vol. 14, Iss. 2, pp. 223-242, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13209-023-00281-3 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/286576 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ SERIEs (2023) 14:223–242 https://doi.org/10.1007/s13209-023-00281-3 ORIGINAL ARTICLE Attitudes towards single parents’ children in private and state-dependent private schools: experimental evidence Luis Diaz-Serrano1,2 ·Sabine Flamand1 Received: 27 July 2022 / Accepted: 13 April 2023 / Published online: 6 May 2023 © The Author(s) 2023 Abstract Single parenthood is on the rise worldwide. While acceptance of single-parent households is increasing, some authors point out that single-parent families still suffer from negative societal attitudes compared to heterosexual two-parent families, while also being among the most vulnerable groups of society. Motivated by these findings, we study whether private and state-dependent private schools in Catalonia (Spain) are more reluctant to interact with single parents than with heterosexual couples. We conduct a field experiment during the children’s pre-registration period. We create three types of fictitious families (heterosexual couple, single mother, and single father) and send e-mails to schools in which the family structure is made explicit. Our results indicate that schools are more prone to interact with single parents than with heterosexual couples. Keywords Single parents ·Schools ·Discrimination ·Field experiment ·Children JEL Classification H41 ·I20 ·J12 1 Introduction Single parenthood is on the rise everywhere in the world. According to the latest data available, single parents constitute about 15% of households with dependent children in the EU. According to Eurostat, in 2018 Denmark (29%) and Estonia (28%) had the highest proportions of single-parent households among households with children, ahead of Lithuania and Sweden (both 25%), Latvia (23%), the UK (22%), and France BLuis Diaz-Serrano [email protected] 1Department d’Economia, ECO-SOS, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Av. de la Universitat 1, 43204 Reus, Spain 2ECEMIN, Universidad Antonio Nebrija, C/Sta. Cruz de Marcenado, 27, 28015 Madrid, Spain 123 224 SERIEs (2023) 14:223–242 (21%). In contrast, the lowest proportions of single-parent households were in Croatia (6%), Romania (7%), Greece, Slovakia, and Finland (all 8%). In the vast majority of cases, this phenomenon concerns women. In the USA, about 15.76 million children were living with a single mother in 2019 and about 3.23 million children were living with a single father, compared to 7.45 million and 748 thousand in 1970, respectively (Statista). In 2015 there were approximately 13.7 million single parents raising 22.4 million children in the USA, which accounts for approximately 27% of children under 21—see the report “Custodial Mothers and Fathers and Their Child Support” released by the US Census Bureau every 2 years. Given the dramatic increase in the number of single-parent households and given that single parents are among the most economically vulnerable households, we believe that exploring discrimination against single mothers and fathers constitutes an important research agenda.1 Previous research suggests that family structure contributes to the formation of stereotypes (Ganong et al. 1990). The findings from the literature on social attitudes towards single parents are somewhat mixed regarding how those attitudes may vary depending on the gender of the single parent (i.e. single mother vs. single father). Yet, one consistent finding is that compared to standard heterosexual couples, single mothers and fathers alike still suffer from rather negative—or less positive—societal attitudes. Further, such attitudes seem to depend on the pathway leading to single parenthood. In particular, divorced single parents are considered more positively than never-married single parents. In turn, the existence of negative societal attitudes towards single parents may potentially translate into discrimination against them in various areas. Such discrimination can even be institutionalized, to the point of forbidding access to assisted reproduction technologies (ART) for single or non-married individuals. According to Präg and Mills (2017), only half of European countries currently allow single women to use ART and even fewer grant access to lesbian women. Only six out of 22 European countries report that marriage is not a requirement for ART access. While much has been said about single mothers’ participation in the labour market (e.g. González 2004) and the several forms of discrimination they may suffer in the workplace, empirical evidence of discrimination against single-parent families in other contexts is scarce at best. To the best of our knowledge, there are only two articles that have investigated discrimination against this particular group, and both focus on the rental housing market: Lauster and Easterbrook (2011) and Murchie and Pang (2018). Using an online correspondence experiment, these studies find that single mothers and fathers receive significantly less positive responses to inquiries relative to heterosexual couples. In both studies, the authors suggest that single parents are facing discrimination mainly based upon their economic marginalization rather than other forms of prejudice (i.e. this is a case of statistical discrimination). In this paper, we aim to determine whether single parents are being discriminated against regarding their children’s access to private and state-dependent private schools. 1For example, Western et al. (2008) observed that the growing number of single parents increased family income inequality by adding to the number of low-income families. Their analysis covers the period 1975–2005 in the USA. 123 SERIEs (2023) 14:223–242 225 More specifically, we test whether schools are more hesitant to interact with singleparent families than with heterosexual conventional families during the pre-registration period. Note that this is a kind of “subtle” discrimination, as it does not imply that such behaviour from schools would translate into actual discrimination in the administrative admission process. In the context of our sample of schools, where most of them (i.e. the state-dependent private schools) are publicly funded and hence should not charge tuition fees, we expect the financial element to be less salient than in other contexts such as the housing market. However, given the fact that those schools still require a monthly financial contribution from the families, which supposedly is voluntary, we do not rule out the potential existence of negative discrimination towards single parents based on their economic marginalization. Alternatively, negative discrimination towards this family type could also be due to the possible negative attitude of the school towards single parenthood, the expected negative behaviour of children raised in this type of household, or potentially lower academic achievement. Indeed, Barajas (2011), in his critical review of the literature, reveals that a large majority of studies show that children from single-parent families score lower on tests of cognitive functioning and standardized tests, receive lower GPAs, and complete fewer years of school compared to children from two-parent families. Nevertheless, in this schooling context, yet another possibility is that single-parent families benefit from positive discrimination, as schools may perceive this type of family as being more vulnerable in a range of aspects. We create three fictitious profiles: single mother, single father, and heterosexual couple, and send e-mails to schools asking for an interview or visit. E-mails are sent randomly (in pairs: single mother and couple and single father and couple). Our results indicate that single parents benefit from positive discrimination; that is, schools are more prone to interact with them than with heterosexual couples. As far as we know, our analysis is the first to provide evidence of more positive attitudes towards single parents than towards standard heterosexual two-parent families. Further, we observe that the gap in the response rate between single parents and heterosexual couples is higher for single mothers than for single fathers. Finally, our analysis suggests that the probability of response is not conditioned by schools’ characteristics. While our experiment does not allow us to infer why single parents receive more answers than two-parent heterosexual families, we offer some plausible explanations. The rest of the paper is structured as follows: Sect. 2provides some figures regarding single parenthood, while Sect. 3reviews the literature on attitudes and discrimination towards single parents. In Sect. 4, we describe the institutional setting that applies to the schooling system in Catalonia. Section 5states our hypotheses, while in Sect. 6 we explain the experiment. Section 7describes our results. We conclude in Sect. 8. 2 Single parents in Spain: some figures Although two-parent families (within legal marriage or not) form the vast majority of families in Spain, there is an increase in single-parent families. Single parenthood encompasses a variety of profiles, characteristics, and family situations, and 123 226 SERIEs (2023) 14:223–242 the entry routes are multiple: marital breakup, the breakup of a common-law couple, widowhood, or single parenthood by choice. Although, historically, widowed women predominantly formed single-parent families, marital separation is currently the main pathway into single parenthood. According to census data, the proportion of singleparent families in Spain grew from 8.5 to 16.2% of family nuclei between 1981 and 2011 (Castro Martín and Seiz Puyuelo 2014). According to the latest available data from the Continuous Household Survey, elaborated by the Spanish Statistical Office (INE), in 2018, single-parent households in Spain (i.e. formed by one single parent with children) represented 10% of households and mostly consisted of a mother with children. Specifically, there were 1,538,200 such households (81.9% of the total), compared to 340,300 for a father with children. The number of single-parent households increased by 2% compared with 2017, while single-father households grew by 12.3%. In 41.1% of single-mother families, the mother was a widow, in 37.4% separated or divorced, in 15.2% single, and in 6.3% married. In single-father families, 38.6% of fathers were a widow, 41.8% separated or divorced, 8.2% single, and 11.3% married. A 2015 report by Save the Children (Save the Children 2015) reveals that 54% of children living in single-mother households in Spain are in poverty –12.5 percentage points more than for the overall population. Likewise, 65% of single mothers say they face difficulties in making ends meet, more than 75% need to reduce fixed household costs, and 37.8% cannot afford to keep their homes at an adequate temperature. According to the report, these families face a greater risk of falling into poverty, not only because of their economic situation but also due to issues related to employment, housing, health, or lack of a support network. In particular, the lack of work opportunities is a concerning factor. 3 Overview of the literature 3.1 Attitudes towards single parents Existing research on societal views of single parents has documented less positive attitudes towards single parents compared to heterosexual married couples (Bryan et al. 1986; Bennett and Jamieson 1999; Valiquette-Tessier et al. 2016). However, attitudes towards single parents tend to vary depending on how single parenthood is reached. In particular, never-married single parents are viewed more negatively than divorced or widowed single parents. In this regard, Usdansky (2009) observes that during the twentieth century, society exhibited an increasing acceptance towards single-parent families who had reached this family status through divorce. However, this was not so for never-married single-parent families. Another important issue is whether societal attitudes towards single parenthood differ depending on the gender of the custodial parent. In this sense, there is some consensus that motherhood and fatherhood are perceived differently (Valiquette-Tessier et al. 2016) and that these differences in perception persist over time (Ganong et al. 1990). Although the empirical evidence is not unequivocal, generally speaking, attitudes seem to be more positive towards never-married single mothers than towards 123 SERIEs (2023) 14:223–242 227 never-married single fathers (Chima 1999; Emmers-Sommer et al. 2003; Goldscheider and Kaufman 2006; Maier and McGeorge 2014). Maier and McGeorge (2014) report that single mothers are viewed as having more positive internal qualities than single fathers, who are viewed as having better situational qualities, for example, being more materialistic. In contrast, Haire and McGeorge (2012) and DeJean et al. (2012) observe the opposite, that is, that attitudes towards single fathers are more positive than attitudes towards single mothers. More specifically, in contrast with Maier and McGeorge (2014), participants in Haier and McGeorge’s (2012) study viewed single mothers as having worse internal qualities and single fathers as having worse situational attributes. Participants in their study viewed single mothers as being inadequate people, while single fathers were viewed as people facing a challenging situation. Regarding the employability of single parents, Eby et al. (2004) observe that from a labour perspective, single parents were perceived as being more mature and hence more employable for a merit-based job than single individuals without children. However, given that the former were perceived as having more mobility restrictions, they were less likely to be recommended for a job that might imply relocation. 3.2 Is there discrimination against single-parent households? The existence of negative societal attitudes towards single parents might potentially translate into discrimination against them in various areas. Although this is an important issue, literature analysing discrimination against single-parent families is surprisingly scarce. To the best of our knowledge, there are only two articles that have investigated discrimination against this particular group, and they focus on the housing market. Lauster and Easterbrook (2011) conducted an internet field experiment to test for discrimination in the housing market in the metropolitan area of Vancouver (Canada). They sent inquiries made about flats for rent, simulating three fictitious family profiles: heterosexual couples, single fathers, and single mothers. They observe that relative to heterosexual couples, single mothers and single fathers were less likely to receive a positive call-back (14 and 16% less, respectively). The authors argue that owners may perceive single parents as being more economically vulnerable than twoparent families. That is, owners’ attitudes towards single parents can be considered as a case of statistical discrimination rather than prejudiced/taste-based discrimination. More recently, Murchie and Pang (2018) did a similar experiment in the USA and observed that single parents were discriminated against, not only compared to heterosexual couples but also compared to other groups defined by gender, religion, race, and sexuality. Like Lauster and Easterbrook (2011), these authors explain their findings on the grounds of statistical discrimination. In the context of (state-dependent) private schooling, besides the financial argument, one potential motive for discriminating against the children of single parents is the belief that such children will perform poorly from both a cognitive and a non-cognitive point of view; hence, school principals might have a preference for children coming from more conventional family structures. International studies tend to provide evidence that children raised in conventional families have higher grades and educational achievement, and report lower levels of misbehaviour: see Astone and McLanahan 123 228 SERIEs (2023) 14:223–242 (1991) and Lee (1993) for empirical evidence in the USA, Francesconi et al. (2010) for Germany; and Nonoyama-Tarumi (2017) for Japan.2In a cross-country study carried out in 28 OECD countries using PISA data, Woessmann (2015) finds that in nearly all countries, students living in single-parent families have lower achievement in math scores than students living in two-parent families.3All these results are confirmed in the critical review of the literature carried out in Barajas (2011), who finds that, compared to children from two-parent families, children from single-parent families complete fewer years of schooling, receive lower GPAs, and score lower on tests of cognitive functioning and standardized tests.4 4 Institutional setting In Spain, there are three types of schools with respect to their ownership: public, statedependent private, and private. Both private and state-dependent private schools are owned by private entities, but the regional government funds the latter. The education system in Spain is decentralized at the regional level; hence, public expenditures in education are budgeted for by each regional government. The precondition for schools to receive this governmental funding is that they must function with the same rules as public schools. In public schools, the admission of children is not discretionary. Despite the fact that public and state-dependent private schools are not allowed by law to charge any fee, in practice, state-dependent private schools illegally charge families a regular fee, generally on a monthly basis. This illegal practice is a concealed way to discourage low-income families from enrolling their children in those schools. Indeed, this is currently a very controversial issue in Spain. According to the Association of Private and Independent Schools, in Spain, nine out of ten private state-dependent schools illegally charge parents monthly fees, with Catalonia being the region with the highest average monthly fees (202e), followed by Madrid (133e) and the Basque Country (84e) (CEAPA-CICAE 2021). A recent survey of 1495 Spanish households with children carried out in 2021 by the Organization of Consumers and Users (OCU 2021) estimates that the average monthly expenditures per student—for all education levels—are 80ein public schools, while in private state-dependent and 2More specifically, Nonoyama-Tarumi (2017) finds evidence that Japanese sixth-grade students from single-parent families perform worse than those from two-parent families. The author concludes that the performance gap for students of single mothers can be attributed mostly to the lack of economic resources, while for children of single fathers it is due to the lack of parenting resources. Likewise, Kearney and Levine (2017) observed that the main marriage premium for children’s outcomes comes from the mother’s own level of resources. 3Woessmann (2015) uses the 2000 and 2012 PISA waves. In his analysis, there is a group of countries for which this difference is particularly high (above 25 points): the US, the UK, Poland, Japan, the Netherlands, and Belgium. 4However, empirical evidence is not unequivocal. Björklund et al. (2007) carried out an empirical analysis for USA and Sweden. They initially observe that in both countries children living in a not-intact family have a poorer educational achievement; however, these differences become statistically insignificant once unobserved family characteristics are accounted for in the models. The authors conclude that these findings cast doubt on the causal interpretation of the negative link between family structure and child outcomes measured as years of schooling. 123 SERIEs (2023) 14:223–242 229 private schools these expenditures are 230eand 610e, respectively. These expenditures include monthly fees in private schools, or the so-called voluntary contribution in state-dependent private schools, including extra-curricular activities, lunch and breakfast, and school transport. In state-dependent private schools, parents who decide not to pay this “voluntary contribution”—which indeed is masking an illegal fee—claim that their children are excluded from the activities taking place during school time but not in the schoolhouse (CEAPA-CICAE 2021). State-dependent private schools constitute 95% of our sample. According to administrative data coming from the Catalan Statistics Bureau (Idescat), in 2016—the year we ran our experiment—33% of Catalan children attending primary education were enrolled in state-dependent private schools.5Further, unlike in public schools, in private and state-dependent private schools, interaction with parents before admission is common (more than 75% of these schools are Catholic). Private schools do not receive government subsidies, which means that families cover the cost of schooling—although private schools may also receive funding from private institutions and religious orders. These schools use their own, separate enrolment criteria and procedures, which prospective parents have to learn on a case-by-case basis. When applying to public and state-dependent private schools, parents have to fill in their preferences, ranking up to ten schools they have selected. When the number of applications exceeds the available spots in a given school, the priority criteria establish which child takes precedence by giving eligibility scores to families. Access to a school is determined solely by the application of general criteria, and in case of a tie, large or single-parent families receive additional points. General criteria include proximity, family benefits (e.g. siblings already attending the school), minimum income, and disability variables. 5Hypotheses One aspect worth highlighting is the heterogeneity of single-parent families, since they may be the result of divorce, widowhood, or simply an individual’s decision to have a child on his or her own. From the literature we surveyed above, it appears that attitudes towards single parents may vary depending on the particular pathway leading to such status. Yet, as a general conclusion it can be stated that, despite the increasing acceptance of single parenthood, attitudes towards single parents are generally less positive than those towards heterosexual couples. In turn, this fact might potentially translate into discrimination against single parents in various areas. One recurrent issue when studying discrimination is whether discriminated individuals suffer from taste-based or statistical discrimination. However, the motives for discriminating are hard to disentangle empirically. Generally speaking, taste-based discrimination originates in some kind of prejudice against a particular population group or minority. In the context of our research, taste-based discrimination could 5According to data from the Consorci d’Educació de Barcelona, in Barcelona city this figure was even more important, 56%. 123 230 SERIEs (2023) 14:223–242 arise because a person or institution deems a divorce or being a never-married single mother to be reprehensible, which would materialize into schools being reluctant to interact with such families. This kind of prejudice may result from religious or other personal convictions. Our data tell us whether schools are laic or religious; therefore, if we find that religious schools are indeed less prone to interact with single parents, we could reasonably consider this to be the result of taste-based (prejudiced) discrimination. However, and as we do not make the path leading to single parenthood explicit in our fictitious emails, an equally plausible finding is that respondents (religious or not) feel empathetic towards the challenges of single parenthood, especially if they contemplate the possibility that the latter was reached through more dramatic paths such as widowhood—thereby increasing the probability of a response. Therefore, in the context of schooling, both negative and positive taste-based discrimination are plausible alternatives. We mentioned earlier the empirical evidence showing that single parents are discriminated against in the rental housing market compared to households with two heterosexual parents. Surely, we cannot rule out the possibility that owners have a prejudice against single-parent families, but it seems more likely that the average landlord/landlady perceives that single parents are economically vulnerable and hence believes that renting a flat to them may jeopardize rent collection. In such situation, the part offering the service lacks information about potential applicants and decides as a result to discriminate against all individuals belonging to that group. This would be a case of statistical discrimination.6Although the economic motive for discriminating should be less salient in the schooling than in the housing context, it might still play a significant role in the decision of schools not to answer emails from single parents. Indeed, as already mentioned, although state-dependent private schools are officially not allowed to charge tuition fees, the majority of them de facto does so.7There- fore, both private and state-dependent private schools might statistically discriminate against single parents on economic grounds. Further, if schools happen to be reluctant to interact with single parents, it might also be the result of school principals expecting children from single-parent families to exhibit negative behaviour and/or to perform poorly academically, which in turn could undermine the performance of other classmates. Clearly, this would also be a case of statistical discrimination. Therefore, in our schooling context (and unlike the case of taste-based discrimination) it seems reasonable to expect that statistical discrimination would affect negatively single-parent families, irrespective of whether it originates in economic, behavioural, or academic motives. Finally, given that children from single-parent families get extra points regarding the priority criteria for access to state-dependent private schools, it could mediate their probability of receiving an answer or invitation from these schools, also fostering positive discrimination. According to the literature, the gender of a single parent seems to matter in terms of societal approval. Here the findings are not unanimous: while some studies find 6Empirical studies analysing this issue typically cannot distinguish between taste-based and statistical discrimination. 7See Sect. 4for a discussion and some numerical figures. 123 SERIEs (2023) 14:223–242 237 Table 4 Estimation of the determinants of the probability of receiving an invitation Group A: single male parent versus heterosexual couple Group B: single female parent versus heterosexual couple (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Single parent 0.0754*** 0.0754*** 0.0754*** 0.0754*** 0.136*** 0.136*** 0.136*** 0.136*** (0.0277) (0.0278) (0.0278) (0.0279) (0.0234) (0.0234) (0.0235) (0.0236) Email sent the second −0.0150 −0.0104 −0.0123 −0.0391 −0.0414 −0.0372 (0.0365) (0.0372) (0.0371) (0.0289) (0.0288) (0.0284) State-dependent private −0.109 −0.0618 −0.0109 −0.0347 (0.116) (0.119) (0.0528) (0.0533) Religious 0.0319 0.0330 0.0520* 0.0623** (0.0385) (0.0402) (0.0295) (0.0309) 10.000–50.000 −0.211*** 0.0562 (0.0684) (0.0481) 50.000–100.000 −0.130 0.0318 (0.0801) (0.0542) > 100.000 −0.174** 0.0902 (0.0695) (0.0558) Barcelona city −0.140* 0.0229 (0.0719) (0.0458) Constant 0.164*** 0.171*** 0.252** 0.355*** 0.0565*** 0.0757*** 0.0544 0.0220 (0.0213) (0.0281) (0.113) (0.129) (0.0133) (0.0247) (0.0515) (0.0652) Observations 610 610 610 610 602 602 602 602 R-squared 0.009 0.009 0.012 0.034 0.043 0.046 0.052 0.059 Robust standard errors in parentheses; ***p< 0.01, **p< 0.05, *p< 0.1; standard errors are clustered by school 123 238 SERIEs (2023) 14:223–242 the response/invitation rate between single mothers and couples (Group B) is higher than between single fathers and couples (Group A). Note that this finding should be interpreted with caution, since it is due to the significantly lower response rate to couples in Group B. Indeed, in absolute terms, single mothers and single fathers receive practically the same number of responses (Table 2). Regarding the control variables, we observe that catholic schools are more responsive than laic schools (by about 6 percentage points in both Groups A and B). Given that this applies to both single parents and heterosexual couples, we can hardly interpret this result in terms of either positive or negative discrimination towards single parents. Further, city size dummies are not statistically significant, which is also the case of the dummy picking up whether the private school is state-dependent. Thus, we do not find that private schools—with their own discretional admission criteria—are more reluctant to interact with single-parent families than state-dependent private schools. The fact that the estimated coefficients reported in Tables 3and 4are identical to the raw mean differences reported in Table 2, combined with the fact that they are unaltered when schools characteristics are included, suggests that the probability of response is not conditioned by schools’ characteristics. 7.2 Heterogeneity analysis Table 5in appendix reports the results of our heterogeneity analysis. As in Martinez de Lafuente (2021), we examine whether our findings are altered when considering a subsample of the schools depending on some particular feature or the characteristics of the area where they are located. We first consider heterogeneity based on city size. We do not have a prior conjecture as to whether schools located in smaller (greater) cities should be expected to be more (less) prone to interact with single parents. While schools located in a greater city may well display a higher tolerance level for atypical family types, it could also be that schools located in smaller cities are more prone to interact with the latter due to higher closeness among city inhabitants in general. The only study we have found analysing this issue (Novakov 2021) concludes that there are no significant differences in the relationship between rural and urban areas towards single parenthood, except when it comes to extramarital motherhood.9As can be seen in Table 5, our results in this regard are somewhat puzzling, since the gap in the response rate between heterosexual couples and single-parent families is significant only in middle-sized cities, especially so for single mothers. We admit that we do not have an explanation for this result. Second, we examine heterogeneity based on school religiosity. Again, the results to be expected are not obvious. On the one hand, as religious schools are arguably more conservative, they should also be more hesitant to interact with non-conventional family types. On the other hand, they might as well consider that single-parent families are more vulnerable and need their help. Here, we observe that while religious schools are equally likely to interact with single fathers and heterosexual couples, they are more 9These results come from an empirical research conducted in the area of AP Vojvodina (Serbia) on a sample of 200 single parents. 123 SERIEs (2023) 14:223–242 239 prone to interact with single mothers than with heterosexual couples. In contrast, nonreligious schools are keener to interact with both types of single parents. As before, we do not have an explanation as to why religious schools exhibit positive discrimination towards single mothers only. Finally, our results remain true when considering only state-dependent private schools. However, we believe it would be erroneous to draw conclusions from the subsample of private schools given the very limited sample size (12 schools). 8 Conclusions Perhaps surprisingly, our results suggest that schools are keener to engage in feedback with single parents than with heterosexual couples. Of course, we cannot infer from these results that formal applications of single parents’ children to these schools would have led to the same outcome. Our experiment does not allow us to determine with certainty why single parents receive more answers than two-parent heterosexual families, but we can think of some plausible explanations. It could well be that there is a feeling of empathy towards single parents, triggered by the perception that their life is more challenging in many dimensions. Alternatively, such positive attitudes could result from the belief that single parents are more mature (as in Eby et al. 2004)or have better internal qualities, making schools willing to welcome their children. More trivially, it could just be that schools are surprised by this type of family composition and respond more energetically to these emails. Finally, this result might be partially due to the fact that children of single-parent families receive preference in the priority criteria designed by the regional government of Catalonia for access to public and state-dependent private schools. In any case, what we can conclude from our study is that if anything, single parents seem to benefit from positive attitudes within the school system. Our results indicate that the gap in the response rate between single parents and couples is higher for single mothers than for single fathers. With this result, one might conclude that the response rate for single mothers is higher than for single fathers; however, we have to be cautious with this interpretation because the higher gap in favour of single mothers compared to couples is not due to the fact that single mothers receive more responses than single fathers; rather, it results from couples in Group A receiving significantly more responses than in Group B. Finally, and contrary to what one might expect, we do not find evidence that private and catholic schools are less prone to interact with single-parent families compared to state-dependent private and laic schools, respectively. Funding Authors acknowledge the financial support from the Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities (Grant # RTI2018-094733-B-I00) and from Obra Social “La Caixa” (Grant # 2014ACUP0130). Data availability The data generated and analysed in this study are not publicly available as they contain sensitive information. 123 240 SERIEs (2023) 14:223–242 Declarations Conflict of interests The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. Ethical approval This article does not contain any study with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/4.0/. Appendix Template of the heterosexual couple e-mail Hello. We are Enrique and Pilar, and our son David, who is 5 years old, starts primary school next year. We are looking for a school for him, and we would like to know whether it is possible to visit your school before the pre-registration period ends. We look forward to hearing from you soon. Sincerely, Enrique and Pilar Template of the single-parent e-mail: Good morning. My name is XXX (male or female). My son and I plan to move into the area where your school is located. Victor is 5 years old and he is going to start the first cycle of elementary school next year. I have to fill in the pre-registration and I would like to know whether it would be possible to arrange a meeting, so I can visit your school. I look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, XXX See Table 5. 123 SERIEs (2023) 14:223–242 241 Table 5 Heterogeneity analysis for call-backs Group A: male single parent versus heterosexual couple Group B: female single parent versus heterosexual couple Coeff. NCoeff. N City size < 10.000 0.0882 68 0.154 52 (0.110) (0.0948) 10.000–50.000 0.169*** 142 0.254*** 142 (0.0608) (0.0565) 50.000–100.000 0.000 82 0.171*** 82 (0.0877) (0.0610) > 100.000 0.0135 148 0.0959* 146 (0.0630) (0.0565) Barcelona city 0.0353 170 0.0778 180 (0.0462) (0.0485) Religiosity Non-religious 0.0882* 204 0.134*** 224 (0.0513) (0.0418) Religious 0.0493 406 0.148*** 378 (0.0364) (0.0346) Type of school Private not state-dependent −0.0833 24 0.0556 36 (0.168) (0.142) Private state-dependent 0.0683** 586 0.148*** 566 (0.0301) (0.0271) Robust standard errors in parentheses; ***p< 0.01, **p< 0.05, *p< 0.1; standard errors clustered by school Each estimated coefficient is obtained by a separate regression using observations referring to that specific school characteristic References Ahmed A, Hammarstedt M, Karlsson K (2021) Do schools discriminate against children with disabilities? A field experiment in Sweden. Educ Econ 29(1):3–16 Astone NM, McLanahan SS (1991) Family structure, parental practices, and high school completion. Am Sociol Rev 56:309–320 Barajas MS (2011) Academic achievement of children in single parent homes: a critical review. Hilltop Rev 5(1):4 Bennett M, Jamieson L (1999) Perceptions of parents as a function of their marital status and sex. Infant Child Dev 8:149–154 Björklund A, Ginther DK, Sundström M (2007) Family structure and child outcomes in the United States and Sweden. J Popul Econ 20:183–201 Bryan LR, Coleman M, Ganong LH, Bryan SH (1986) Person perception: family structure as a cue for stereotyping. J Marriage Fam 48(1):169–174 Castro Martín T, Seiz Puyuelo M (2014) La transformación de las familias en España desde una perspectiva socio-demográfica. Fundación FOESSA, Madrid 123 242 SERIEs (2023) 14:223–242 CEAPA-CICAE (2021) Estudio de Precios de Colegios Concertados. Confederación Española de Asociaciones de Padres y Madres del Alumnado–Asociación de Colegios Privados Independientes. https://www.ceapa.es/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/INFORME-DE-RESULTADOS- NACIONAL.CICAE_.-OLA-6.-sept21.pdf Chima FO (1999) Fathers with single parenting roles: perspectives on strengths, concerns and recommendations. Free Inq Creat Sociol 27(2):3–13 DeJean SL, McGeorge CR, Carlson TS (2012) Attitudes toward never-married single mothers and fathers: Does gender matter? J Fem Fam Ther 24:121–138 Diaz-Serrano L, Meix-Llop E (2016) Do schools discriminate against homosexual parents? Evidence from a randomized correspondence experiment. Econ Educ Rev 53:133–142 Eby LT, Allen TD, Noble CL, Lockwood AL (2004) Perceptions of singles and single parents: a laboratory experiment. J Appl Soc Psychol 34:1329–1352 Emmers-Sommer TM, Rhea D, Triplett L, O’Neil B (2003) Accounts of single fatherhood: a qualitative study. Marriage Fam Rev 35(1–2):99–115 Francesconi M, Jenkins SP, Siedler T (2010) Childhood family structure and schooling outcomes: evidence for Germany. J Popul Econ 23:1073–1103 Ganong LH, Coleman M, Mapes D (1990) A meta-analytic review of family structure stereotypes. J Marriage Fam 52:287–297 Goldscheider F, Kaufman G (2006) Single parenthood and the double standard. Fathering 4(2):191–208 González L (2004) Single mothers and work. Socio-Econ Rev 2:285–313 Haire AR, McGeorge CR (2012) Negative perceptions of never-married custodial single mothers and fathers: applications of a gender analysis for family therapists. J Fem Fam Ther 24:24–51 Kearney MS, Levine PB (2017) The economics of nonmarital childbearing and the marriage premium for children. Annu Rev Econ 9(1):327–352 Lauster N, Easterbrook A (2011) No room for new families? A field experiment measuring rental discrimination against same-sex couples and single parents? Soc Probl 58(3):389–409 Lee SA (1993) Family structure effects on student outcomes. In: Coleman JS (ed) Parents, their children, and schools, 1st edn. Routledge, New York Maier CA, McGeorge CR (2014) Positive attributes of never-married single mothers and fathers: Why gender matters and applications for family therapists. J Fem Fam Ther 26(3):163–190 Martinez de Lafuente D (2021) Cultural assimilation and ethnic discrimination: an audit study with schools. Labour Econ 72:102058 Murchie J, Pang J (2018) Rental housing discrimination across protected classes: evidence from a randomized experiment. Reg Sci Urban Econ 73:170–179 Nonoyama-Tarumi Y (2017) Educational achievement of children from single-mother and single-father families: the case of Japan. J Marriage Fam 79(4):915–931 Novakov M (2021) Single-parent families and the relation of the social environment: Differences between rural and urban? Agroekonomika 93:57–73 OCU (2012) Encuesta de Gastos Escolares. https://www.ocu.org/consumo-familia/bebes/informe/encuestagastos-escolares Präg P, Mills MC (2017) Assisted reproductive technology in Europe: usage and regulation in the context of cross-border reproductive care. In: Kreyenfeld M, Konietzka D (eds) Childlessness in Europe: contexts, causes, and consequences. Demographic research monographs (a series of the Max Planck Institute for demographic research). Springer, Berlin Save the Children (2015) Más solas que nunca, la pobreza infantil en familias monoparentales Usdansky ML (2009) A weak embrace: popular and scholarly depictions of single-parent families, 1900–1998. J Marriage Fam 71:209–225 Valiquette-Tessier S-C, Vandette M-P, Gosselin J (2016) Is family structure a cue for stereotyping? A systematic review of stereotypes and parenthood. J Fam Stud 22:162–181 Western B, Bloome D, Percheski C (2008) Inequality among American families with children, 1975 to 2005. Am Sociol Rev 73(6):903–920 Woessmann L (2015) Single-parent families and student achievement: an international perspective. Paper prepared for the special issue of Education Next commemorating the 50th anniversary of the Moynihan report Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. 123