Same Sex Education: The Newest Fad OR An Idea Whose Time Has Come?

Recently, the Bush Administration proposed technical revisions to Title IX. As it presently stands, it appears there would not be a violation of Title IX if a school were to establish separate schools/buildings to segregate the genders; however, same sex classes within a school are apparently precluded from existence under the current interpretation of Title IX. Thus it is the current interpretation of Title IX that the new Administration seeks to change. While intriguing, this article is not addressing the legal arguments, but rather those of educational efficacy. Are same sex schools advantageous? If so, why? If not, why not?

Let’s begin by noting a decided bias of this article. If there’s a chance that single sex classes and/or schools work better at least for some students, it is felt that charter schools would be the ideal “laboratory” to test this hypothesis. Giving parents and students yet another choice and allowing, in many cases, market-based systems to explore new frontiers, is precisely what the charter school movement is about. Thus we not only begin with an open mind, but a tilt towards supporting at least limited experimentation with the Administration’s proposal.

On the negative side of the argument weighs in Amanda Datnow who, along with Leah Hubbard and Elisabeth Woody claim, with little corroboration, that single sex education is deleterious to many students and advantageous to none. To a less vociferous extent, the American Association of University Women (AAUW) have advanced a belief that it is probably a “wash” when various elements are studied, although AAUW seems to make no persuasive argument against single sex schools and does note there are at least instances where the education of girls is improved in such an environment.

Almost all of the other research suggests, to varying degrees, that single sex education may be a good and beneficial idea, especially noting the advantage that boys seem to possess with regard to spatial reasoning and that girls seem to possess with regard to overall verbal skills. Single sex programs that recognize, understand, and exploit these differences in positive ways seem most likely to succeed.

Further, the Datnow Report has been widely rebuffed and discredited since improved test scores, grades, attendance and other objective measures were never used by Ms. Datnow in her study or results. In fact, studies conducted largely on the West Coast seem to confirm that student grade point averages for both sexes increase in seventh and eighth grade when genders are separated; that there’s an increased focus on academics; that girls become more academically competitive while boys become more collaborative. A recent California Department of Education study noted that there is an apparent reduction in school dropouts; that female, urban students generally perform better, particularly in math and science, when separated; that there appears to be a less distracting and higher motivational environment; and that single sex classes are felt to be more effective by many parents and students.

While in Milwaukee at the U.S. Department of Education’s National Conference, many of us attended a panel discussion concerning this subject. Despite the fact that there are only limited public education pilot models, a brand new program of significant scope is about to launch in Albany, New York. Brighter Choice Charter School (one for girls and one for boys) has been approved and is just now scheduled to open. Brighter Choice will house a separate girls school and a boys school under one roof. This seems particularly intriguing and attractive.

Clearly, one of the underlying philosophical issues surrounding this subject has to do with the role, mission and purpose of public education in America. If one believes that the role is strictly and entirely to educate (especially with regard to the basic skills), it may be that single sex education is the only way to go. However, many will argue, perhaps quite successfully, that there are additional responsibilities that public education holds with particular regard to socialization and acculturation. If this is the case, there are good arguments to be made in favor of coeducational classes. It appears that Brighter Choice may hold the key to satisfying both arguments. By conducting core classes (English, math, science and social studies) in segregated classes but then integrating youngsters for all other activities (the arts, humanities, extra curricular, etc.) and by having boys and girls in the same overall building, we may be able to gain a far better understanding of the efficacy of this proposed change in the way in which schools operate.

An additional suggestion would be to have the same teachers lecturing on core classes to both the boys and the girls within the same grade level. For example, the math teacher might have four prep classes daily, conceivably two in the morning in grades four and six with the boys and then two in the afternoon in the same grades with the girls. This would help to “control” for potential differences, biases etc. that we know may be present when teachers and students meet.

There is much empirical and anecdotal support both for and against same sex education. Many of us are products of heterogeneous public education and have done quite well; thank you very much. Many others are the products of gender-segregated private and parochial schooling and have also excelled.

So to return to the premise of this article: Aren’t charter schools the perfect place to test, examine and pilot that which may be optimum and most suitable with regard to the segregation and integration of the genders. Is same sex education the best or most appropriate for all students? Probably not. Should same sex education be yet another arrow in a quiver representing a panoply of choice and options for those most capable of making such choices—parents and their children? Of course, and may the choice be with you!

-- by M. S. Kayes, NCSC Project Director