This article explores the question, Under what circumstances is single-gender education consistent with applicable law? First, a brief review of the prevalence of existing public single-gender programs at the elementary and secondary level is provided. Next, the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, the two sources of federal legal authority guiding this issue, are discussed. Finally, the article analyzes the existing single-gender options to answer the question of the legality of the programs and presents issues of which those operating or considering the operation of single-gender programs should be mindful.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200 (1995).
2.
Bailey, S. (1992). How schools shortchange girls. Wellesley, MA: American Association of University Women.
3.
Bellman, A. (1997). The Young Women’s Leadership School: Single-sex public education after V.M.I. Wisconsin Law Review, pp. 827-864.
4.
Boland, T. (1998). Single-sex public education: Equality versus choice. University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, 1, 154-172.
5.
Brighter Choice Charter Schools. (2002). Retrieved from www.brighterchoice.org/single_sex.htm
6.
Campbell, P., & Wahl, E. (1997). Of two minds: Single-sex education, coeducation and the search for gender equity in K-12 public schooling. New York Law School Journal of Human Rights, 14, 289-310.
7.
Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976).
8.
Datnow, A., Hubbard, L., & Woody, E. (2001). Is single gender schooling viable in the public sector? Lessons from California’s pilot program. Retrieved from www.oise.utoronto.ca/depts/tps/adatnow/final.pdf
9.
Denver Public Schools. (2002). Maria Mitchell Elementary School profile. Retrieved from www.denver.k12.co.us/schools/e/Elementary/255.shtml
10.
Federal Register. (2002, May 8). 67(89), 31097-31099.
11.
Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677 (1973).
12.
Garrett v. Board of Education of the School District of the City of Detroit, 775 F.Supp. 1004, 70 Ed. Law Rptr. 1101 (E.D. Mich. 1991).
13.
General Accounting Office. (May 1996). Public education, issues involving single-gender schools and programs (Report to the Chairman, Committee on the Budget, United States House of Representatives).
14.
Hsiao, L. (1993). “Separate but equal” revisited: The Detroit Male Academies Case. 1992/1993 Annual Survey of American Law, pp. 85-115.
15.
Hutchinson, K. (2001). The lesson of single-sex public education: Both successful and constitutional. American University Law Review, 50, 1075-1082.
16.
J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B., 511 U.S. 127 (1994).
17.
Kirchberg v. Feenstra, 450 U.S. 455 (1981).
18.
Kolb, P. (2001). Reaching for the silver lining: Constructing a nonremedial yet “exceedingly persuasive” rationale for single-sex educational programs in public schools. Northwestern University Law Review, 96, 367-401.
19.
Koman, A. (1998). Urban, single-sex, public secondary schools: Advancing full development of the talent and capacities of America’s young women. William and Mary Law Review, 39, 507-556.
20.
Krupnick, C. (1998). Legal and policy issues raised by all-female public education. New York Law School Journal of Human Rights, 14, 155-173.
21.
Levit, N. (1999). Separating equals: Educational research and the long-term consequences of sex segregation. George Washington Law Review, 67, 451-526.
22.
Long Beach Unified School District. (2001). School Accountability Report Card 2000-2001, Jefferson Leadership Academies. Retrieved March 25, 2002, from http://www.lbusd.k12.ca.us
23.
Marsh, H. (1989). Effects of attending single-sex and coeducational high schools on achievement, attitudes, behaviors, and sex differences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(1), 70-85.
24.
Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan, 458 U.S. 718 (1982).
25.
National Association for the Advancement of Single Sex Public Education. (2002). Retrieved from www.singlesexschools.org
26.
Nemko, A. (1998). Single-sex public education after VMI: The case for women’s schools. Harvard Women’s Law Journal, 21, 19-77.
27.
Newberg v. Board of Education, 26 Pa.D. & C.3d 682 (1983).
28.
Ramsey, C. (1998). Subtracting sexism from the classroom: Law and policy in the debate over all-female math and science classes in the public schools. Texas Journal of Women and the Law, 8, 1-49.
29.
Regents of University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978).
30.
Reiter, J. (1999). California single-gender academies pilot program: Separate but really equal. Southern California Law Review, 72, 1401-1460.
31.
Sadker, M., & Sadker, D. (1994). Failing at fairness, how America’s schools cheat girls. New York: Scribner.
32.
Sandler, B. (1997). Publicly-supported single sex schools and policy issues. New York Law School Journal of Human Rights, 14, 61-125.
33.
School District of Philadelphia. (2002). High School Resource Book. Retrieved March 27, 2002, from http://www.phila.k12.pa.us/ao/fss/studentplacement/highschool.html
34.
Schuld, K. (1999). Rethinking educational equity: Sometimes, different can be an acceptable substitute for equal. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1999, 461-492.
35.
Sommers, C.H. (2000). The war against boys: How misguided feminism is harming our young men. New York: Simon & Schuster.
36.
Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. §1682 et seq.
37.
Tovey, R. (1995). Gender equity: A narrowly gender-based mode of learning may end up cheating all students. Harvard Education Letter, 11(4), 3-6.
38.
U.S. v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515, 116 S.Ct. 2264 (1996).
39.
Vorchheimer v. School District of Philadelphia, 430 U.S. 703, 97 S.Ct. 1671 (1977) affirming, 532 F.2d 880 (3d Cir. 1976).
40.
Western High School Profile. (2002). Retrieved from www.westernhighschool.org/academics/schprofile.html
41.
Young Women’s Leadership Charter School. (2002). Retrieved from www.ywlcs.org
