Is Single Gender Schooling Viable in the Public Sector?

Internet article

By: Amanda Datnow, Lea Hubbard, and Elisabeth Woody

Date: May 20, 2001

Source: Datnow, Amanda, Lea Hubbard, and Elisabeth Woody. "Is Single Gender Schooling Viable in the Public Sector?" 〈http://www.oise.utoronto.ca/depts/tps/adatnow/final.pdf〉 (accessed March 14, 2006).

About the Authors: Dr. Amanda Datnow is a principal researcher with the department of theory and policy studies at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto. The primary focus of her research is school reform policies and politics. Dr. Datnow holds a B.A. in psychology from the University of California, San Diego and a Ph. D. in education from the University of California, Los Angeles. Dr. Lea Hubbard works with the Teacher Education Program at UC San Diego. She has studied educational inequalities as they exist across ethnic and gender lines. Dr. Hubbard holds a Ph. D. in sociology from UC San Diego. Dr. Elisabeth Woody is a principal research scientist at Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE), University of California, Berkeley. Her research focuses on the impact of public school policies on students and teachers. Dr. Woody has a Ph. D. in Education from UC Berkeley.

INTRODUCTION

Private schools in the United States have some of the best reputations in the world, and their quality of education is considered second to none. Public school education in the United States, however, is an entirely different story. Over the years, its deterioration has been noticeable, and some experts believe that one reason for this is the prevalence of gender discrimination. The issue was widely publicized in a 1992 report by the American Association of University Women (AAUW) titled "How Schools Shortchange Girls."

The report concluded that girls received less attention in classrooms than boys, that few were encouraged to pursue math or science-related careers, that existing curricula stereotyped females, and that the testing system was significantly biased towards boys. The report fueled a debate among education policy makers about combating such discriminatory policies. Some educators proposed single-sex classes and schools as a way to eliminate gender bias.

In 1997, California became the first state to experiment with single-gender public schooling on a large scale. Under its pilot program, as many as six districts started single-gender public schools.

The article excerpted below, "Is Single Gender Schooling Viable in the Public Sector?" presents a three-year case study of all single-gender schools in California; it was published in May 2001.

PRIMARY SOURCE

Is Single Gender Schooling Viable in the Public Sector?

This report examines whether single gender schooling is a viable option in the public sector. Schools and districts throughout the nation are clamoring to adopt reforms to increase academic achievement and satisfy parents and community members. Single gender schooling, a relatively successful model from the private sector, has been considered as one possible remedy. Experiments with single gender schooling are occurring in public school districts across the U.S. Yet, very little systematic research has been conducted on these schools and little is known about their motivations, design, or outcomes with respect to students, teachers, and school systems.

In 1997, California became the first state to experiment with single gender public education on a large scale. Six districts opened single gender academies (both boys and girls) as a result of former California Governor Pete Wilson's legislation and funding for single gender academies pilot program in the public school system. This report presents findings from a three-year case study of these single gender academies in six districts in California. Our study involved 300+ extensive interviews with educators, policymakers, and students, and school and classroom observations. It is the most comprehensive study of single sex public schooling that has been conducted in the U.S. to date.

The purpose of this study was to assess the consequences of single gender schooling in the public sector. In doing so, we focused on the socio-political context of single gender public schooling in the state of California and in each community; the organization and implementation of single gender schooling in each district; and the policy implications regarding single gender academies as a school choice option. A major goal of our study was to examine the equity implications of single gender public schooling along these various dimensions.

A SUMMARY OF OUR MAJOR FINDINGS FOLLOWS:

Finding #1: For most administrators, single gender schooling was a vehicle for meeting at-risk students' needs and not an end in itself.

Instead of seeing the single gender academies as primarily an opportunity to address gender inequities for girls or boys (as one might predict), most educators saw the $500,000 state grant as a way to help address the more pressing educational and social problems of low achieving students. With the grant funding, educators developed social and academic support structures to address the needs of their particular student populations, such as low achievement, truancy, poverty, violence, or geographic isolation. To be sure, most of the educators did view the single gender schooling arrangement as a way to decrease distractions among boys and girls to improve students' self-esteem.

Finding #2: The success of California's pilot program was undermined by implementation challenges.

Educators were hampered at the outset by short timelines to propose and begin operation of the academies. They had very little time to think about and plan for the single gender academies, engage the support of constituencies, recruit qualified teachers, and advertise the new schooling option for students. These difficulties were compounded by an absence of legislated funding for state-level support and monitoring of the academies' progress. Once the academies were operational, they continued to suffer from implementation difficulties including staff and leadership turnover, a lack of political support, and funding problems.

Finding #3: Most of the single gender academies were, by design, not open to all students.

The California single-gender academies pilot program legislation was constructed primarily as a vehicle for expanding public school choice, not expressly for goals of gender equity or improving the education of "at risk" students. However, in the end, who enrolled was largely a matter that was determined by the design and target population of each district's single gender academies. In at least four of the six districts, "at-risk" students of color were recruited to join the single-gender academies. White, average, or high achieving students were more likely to freely choose to attend. In some districts, the academies operated under capacity due to insufficient public interest or to difficulties in advertising the choice option.

Finding #4: For most parents, California's single gender academies were seen as an opportunity for their children to benefit from special resources and to reduce distractions from the opposite sex.

Parents were attracted by the extra computers, field trips, small class sizes, and special opportunities offered in many of the academies, and they hoped that distractions among boys and girls would be decreased. Parents rarely mentioned that they chose to attend the single-gender academies because of their interest in empowerment or gender equity for their young boys and girls, except for some parents of white girls in a suburban district.

SIGNIFICANCE

A special report published by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) in 2002 stated that ninety percent of the children in America attend public schools. Despite heavy intake of students, public schools seldom offered single-gender opportunities until the late 1990s.

The report described in the primary source concluded that single-gender schools in California were not sustainable under the state's policy framework. As of the early 2000s, only one district out of six still had single-gender academies. The authors of the report stated that although the program was successful in attaining many of its objectives, various political, social, and economic reasons hampered its progress.

Nevertheless, according to experts, the pilot program proved that single-gender schooling is viable if the deficiencies found in the system are addressed. One of the important reasons for launching single-sex schools was the belief among policy makers, educators, researchers, and parents that girls and boys learn differently in such an environment. Researchers found that when students were removed from social pressures and sexual biases inherent in co-ed schools, there was greater commitment to studies and higher achievement among both boys and girls. Benjamin Wright—a known proponent of single-gender schools who was instrumental in employing this approach in two urban Seattle schools, stated: "When you're having a conversation with boys about life issues, you can have a real, authentic conversation. When you have girls in the classroom with boys and talk about pregnancy and lifecycles, girls become embarrassed. When you separate them, you see both groups rise equally."

The U.S. government has also taken measures to encourage single-gender schooling. A CBS report in 2002 indicated that public schools could be given more freedom to establish single-sex classes by amending a 1972 law targeting gender bias in education. The Education Department announced its intention to propose changes to the Title IX statutes that ban sex discrimination in federally funded education programs:

"Our goal is to provide schools with as much flexibility as possible to offer students programs that meet their needs," said then-Education Secretary Rodney Paige. On January 8, 2002, President George W. Bush signed into law the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, which allows local educational agencies to use their "Innovative Programs" funds for supporting same-gender schools and classrooms.

Consequently, since the early 2000s the number of single-gender schools in the United States has increased significantly. According to the National Association for Single Sex Public Education, as of 2006 there were more than 211 public schools that offer single-gender education opportunities. As many as forty-two of these are entirely single-gender schools.

Opponents of single-gender schools, however, claim single-sex schools are accessible only to affluent and better-educated communities. An American Association of University Women report, "Separated by Sex: A Critical Look at Single-Sex Education for Girls" concluded that "single-sex education is not necessarily better than co-education". The report states that better education is the key to improving the quality of public schools, and not the single-gender approach. Critics also believe that such measures violate basic civil rights. Emily J. Martin, an attorney for the Women's Rights Project of the American Civil Liberties Union, said, "I think that what our country has learned is, it's very dangerous to experiment with segregation to make our society better. I think we have too troubled a history to think that this is okay."

According to the U.S. Department of Education, many studies supporting single-gender schooling have been undertaken either in private schools or overseas. Officials argue that conclusions derived from such studies may not be valid for public schools in the United States. As of the 2000s, although many schools offer single-gender classes, there is still an extensive and sustained debate on whether such policies are viable for American schools.

FURTHER RESOURCES

Web sites

American Association of University Women. "How Schools Shortchange Girls: The AAUW Report (1992)" 〈http://www.aauw.org/research/girls_education/hssg.cfm〉 (accessed March 14, 2006).

Cornell University News Service."Can Separate Ever be Equal in Public Single-Sex Schools? Cornell law Professor Says Issue Still Has to Be Resolved" 〈http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/April05/Single.sex.schools.html〉 (accessed March 14, 2006).

Education World. "Single-Gender Classes: Are They Better?" 〈http://www.education-world.com/a_curr/curr215.shtml〉 (accessed March 14, 2006).

National Association for Single Sex Public Association. "Single-Sex Schools" 〈http://www.singlesexschools.org/schools.html〉 (accessed March 14, 2006).

U.S. Department of Education. "The Education Innovator" 〈http://www.ed.gov/news/newsletters/innovator/2005/1013.html〉 (accessed March 14, 2006).

―――――. "Guidelines Regarding Single Sex Classes and Schools" 〈http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/t9-guidelines-ss.html〉 (accessed March 14, 2006).

Washington Post. "Boy 'Tribes' on Frontier in Reading" 〈http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57611-2005Jan7.html〉 (accessed March 14, 2006).