Separate But Superior? A Review Of Issues And …

1 Separate But superior ? A Review Of Issues And Data bearing On single -Sex education by Gerald W. Bracey Independent Researcher The Great Lakes Center for education Research & Practice PO Box 1263 East Lansing, MI 48826 Phone: (517) 203-2940 Email: Web Site: November 2006 This research was made possible by funding from the Great Lakes Center for education Research and Practice. Separate But superior ? A Review Of Issues And Data bearing On single -Sex education Gerald W. Bracey Independent Researcher Executive Summary Public education in the United States evolved from single -sex to coeducational settings late in the 19th century. single -sex schools then existed only as independent or church-affiliated schools.

2 In 1972 the passage of Title IX legislation promoting gender equity made it illegal to create new single -sex public schools and classes, except in rare circumstances to remedy prior discrimination. Existing single -sex schools were permitted to continue and some courses human sexuality and chorus, for example as well as contact sports were allowed to remain single sex. Attempts in the 1990s to pass legislation permitting single -sex schools failed until the 2001 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary education Act of 1965 (No Child Left Behind). The Department of education proposed new regulations to govern the legality of single -sex schools and classes in March, 2004. The proposed regulations drew much negative comment and as of September, 2006, have not been implemented.

3 Multiple theoreticians give multiple rationales for the alleged superiority of single -sex settings. single -sex education is variously seen as a means: ii to increase the enrollment of girls in courses they often avoid in coeducational settings; to alter and improve self-concept and self-esteem in girls; to reduce distractions that attend coeducation classes once students reach adolescence; to better control the behavior of boys; to increase the achievement of at-risk students of both sexes; to reduce or remove sex-based stereotypes and achieve gender equity in classrooms; to improve education outcomes by paying attention to pedagogically significant gender differences, especially in brain function. And, for some, it is the less-than-optimal solution to less-than-optimal-coeducation settings.

4 For these commentators, rather than segregating students by sex, educators should strive to improve conditions in coeducation classes so that they benefit all students equally. They hold that segregation by sex costs society in ways similar to segregation by ethnicity or class. The research, although copious, is mostly flawed by failure to control for important variables such as class, financial privilege, selective admissions, religious values, prior learning or ethnicity. Of 2,221 quantitative studies, only 40 survived a Review from the American Institutes for Research commissioned by the National Center for education Statistics (NCES), even though the Review had relaxed its criteria for judging studies methodologically adequate. Those included in the NCES Review reported iiion 33 outcomes, ranging from achievement test scores to graduate school attendance to self-esteem to unemployment rates and even to duration of first marriages.

5 The findings do not form a coherent body and therefore the single recommendation possible is that: A series of specific questions should be asked of any proposal for single -sex schools or classes. Separate But superior ? A Review of Issues and Data bearing on single -Sex education Gerald W. Bracey Independent Researcher Background History Initially, all formal education in the United States occurred in single -sex schools. Females did not attend schools but were educated, to the extent that they were educated, at home. In the 1800s girls began attending their own schools. In the 1880s and early into the 20th century, however, communities sought an economy of scale and merged the genders into coeducational common It was also hoped that the presence of girls would temper boys behavior, an argument now sometimes put forth for single -sex education : in the culture of today, boys make intemperate advances on girls that would not have been tolerated in the 19th century classes.

6 As coeducation became dominant, single -sex schools existed almost solely in the private sector as either church-affiliated schools or independent secular schools. In 1972 the passage of Title IX legislation promoting gender equity made it illegal to create new single -sex public schools and classes, except for rare exceptions. Although Title IX had its most visible impact on athletics, it also has had major influence in Page 2 of 44classrooms, opening previously segregated classes and bringing attention to gender disparities. It is sometimes referred to as Brown v. Board for gender, after the 1954 Supreme Court decision holding that race-segregated schools were inherently unequal. Several attempts in the 1990s to pass legislation permitting single -sex schools Section 5131(a)(23) of the 2001 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary education Act of 1965 (No Child Left Behind), however, authorizes the use of funds to establish single -sex schools and single -sex classes within coeducational schools.

7 The paragraph states that the schools must be consistent with applicable law. In March, 2004, the Department of education published draft regulations governing the operation of single -sex These regulations held that: 1. Coeducational schools operating single -sex classes must provide a rationale for the classes, such as a historic failure of girls to enroll in certain classes offered for both sexes (for example, physics or computer science). 2. They must provide either a single -sex class for the other gender or a coeducational class in the same subject at the same schools. 3. They must conduct periodic reviews to determine if conditions still render the single -sex class necessary. single -sex schools, however, would not have to provide any rationale or conduct periodic reviews.

8 Although charter schools would be exempt from all three regulations, the district implementing a single -sex school would have to provide substantially equal courses, services, and facilities at some other school or schools within the same district. Substantially equal is a phrase first used in the Brown v. Board decision and re-invoked in the court s 1996 decision in United States v. Virginia, a decision requiring the Page 3 of 44 Virginia Military Academy (VMI) to admit women. In her opinion on the 7-1 decision (Justice Scalia against; Justice Thomas recused because his son was attending the school), Justice Ginsberg observed that sex differences were a cause for celebration but that in the field of education single -sex institutions would be permitted only to remedy prior discrimination or to provide instruction that would advance full development of the talent and capacities of our nation s people.

9 4 The Court held, though, that the Virginia Women s Institute for Leadership, the program the state of Virginia had offered as a substitute for admitting women to VMI, provided a pale shadow of VMI in terms of the range of curricular choices and faculty stature, funding, prestige, alumni support and influence. 5 It did not constitute a substantially equal parallel education to that offered by VMI. By refusing to admit women, therefore, VMI violated the equal protection clause. Although the decision made it clear in the concrete instance that VMI did not offer women a substantially equal education , the proposed 2004 regulations offered no further clarity in the abstract: they provided no clear definition of, or criteria for, the substantially equal requirement.

10 Reactions to the proposed regulations were swift and strong. Typical was the commentary of Sadker and Zittleman who lamented that the Department s regulations ignored the most salient aspects of the single -sex schools which was not that they were single -sex: What we applauded in private single -sex schools was not their gender uniformity, but their educational practices. Many educators, including us, Page 4 of 44attribute much of the academic successes of these private schools to their smaller class sizes, engaged parents, well-trained teachers, and strong academic emphasis. Other educators believe that single -sex schools work less well for boys than for girls, or that only boys from low-income families benefit. Still others believe that such schools may intensify gender stereotypes and homophobia.