Purpose: This article examines the role social science has played in litigation involving public single-sex educational programs. It also explores a body of social science research related to gender and education that we believe could assist the courts and school leaders in better examining the possibilities and the limitations of single-sex programs in the public sector. Specifically, we want to show how a particular set of social science research at the intersection of gender and education, from a range of theoretical frameworks, could assist school leaders in demonstrating to the courts that a justification for single-sex programs may exist in current empirical research. Method: This article uses traditional legal research methods, which is a form of historical-legal research used to investigate the interpretation of law. We used the two major legal databases (i.e., Lexis-Nexis, Westlaw) to determine how many lawsuits have been initiated as a result of the amendments to the Title IX regulations. The retrieved cases were coded to determine the legal claims relied upon by plaintiffs and to learn if/how social science research was considered in these cases. Findings: We analyzed four schools currently involved in litigation. We report the social science that was relied upon by school districts and analyzed by courts. Implications: We encourage school leaders and the courts to explore more diverse theoretical frameworks related to gender and education that we believe could add some analytic strength to the existing body of empirical research about single-sex schooling.
A.N.A. v.U.S. Department of Education, No. 3:08-cv-0004_CRS (W.D. KY 2008).
6.
A.N.A. v. Breckinridge County Board of Education, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26198 (W.D. Ky. Mar.27, 2009a).
7.
A.N.A. v. Breckinridge County Board of Education, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26106 (W.D. Ky. Mar.30, 2009b).
8.
A.N.A. v. Breckinridge County Board of Education, 833 F.Supp.2d 673 (W.D. Ky. 2011).
9.
AndersonJ. D. (1988). The education of Blacks in the South, 1860-1935. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
10.
AndersonM. L.CollinsP. H. (2007). Race, class, and gender: An anthology. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
11.
AnyonJ. (1980). Social class and the hidden curriculum Journal of Education, 62(1), 67-92.
12.
AnyonJ. (2006). Social class, school knowledge, and the hidden curriculum. In WeisL.McCarthyC.DimitriadisG. (Eds.), Ideology, curriculum, and the new sociology of education (pp. 37-45). New York and London: Routledge.
13.
AppleM. (2004). Ideology and curriculum (3rd ed.). New York and London: Routledge Falmer.
14.
ArcherL.HalsallA.HollingworthS. (2007). Inner-city femininities and education: “Race,” class, gender, and schooling in young women’s lives. Gender and Education, 15(4), 549-568.
15.
ArnotM. (2002). Reproducing gender?New York and London: Routledge.
16.
ArnotM.DavidM. E.WeinerG. (1999). Closing the gender gap: Post war education and social change. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
17.
ArnotM.Mac an GhaillM. (2006). (Re)contextualizing gender studies in education: Schooling in late modernity. In ArnotM.MacM.Ghaillan (Eds.), The RoutledgeFalmer reader in gender and education (pp. 1-14). New York and London: Routledge.
18.
BaileyS. (1992). How schools shortchange girls. Wellesley, MA: American Association of University Women.
19.
BanksJ. (2004). Multicultural education: Historical developments, dimensions, and practice. In BanksJ.McGee BanksC. (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (pp. 3-29). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
20.
BernsteinB. (1975/2003). Class, codes and control: Volume III Towards a theory of educational transmission. New York: Routledge.
21.
BiglerR. S.SignorellaM. L. (2011). Single-sex education: New perspectives and evidence on a continuing controversy. Sex Roles, 65, 659-669.
22.
Brief for the Nat’l Women’s Law Center as Amici Curiae Supporting Appellants, Doe v. Vermilion Parish School Board, No. 10-30378 (5th Cir. 2010).
23.
Brief for the U.S. Dept. Justice as Amici Curiae Supporting Appellants, Doe v. Vermilion Parish School Board, No. 10-30378 (5th Cir. 2010).
24.
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
25.
BrownF.RussoC. (1999). Single-sex schools, the law, and school reform. Education and Urban Society, 31(2), 145-158.
26.
ButlerJ. (1990). Gender trouble. New York and London: Routledge.
27.
ButlerJ. (2004). Undoing gender. New York and London: Routledge.
CalceC. (2009). 10th annual review of gender & sexuality law: Education law chapter: Single-sex education, Georgetown Journal of Gender and Law, 10(1), 573-597.
30.
CampbellP.SandersJ. (2002). Challenging the system: Assumptions and data behind the push for single-sex schooling. In DatnowA.HubbardL. (Eds.), Gender in policy and practice: Perspectives on single-sex and coeducational schooling (pp. 31-46). London and New York: Routledge Falmer.
31.
ChemerinskyE. (2003). The segregation and resegregation of American public education: The court’s role. North Carolina Law Review, 81(4), 1598-1620.
32.
CherneyI. D.CampbellK. L. (2011). A league of their own: Do single-sex schools increase girls’ participation in the physical sciences?Sex Roles, 65, 712-724.
33.
ChoudhuryS.SlabyJ. (Eds.). (2012). Critical neuroscience: A handbook of the social and cultural contexts of neuroscience. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
34.
City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432 (1985).
35.
CohenD. (2009). No boy left behind? Single-sex education and the essentialist myth of masculinity. Indiana Law Journal, 84(1), 135-188.
36.
ConnellR. W. (1987). Gender and power: Society, the person, and sexual politics. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
37.
ConnellR. W. (1996). Teaching the boys: New research on masculinity, and gender strategies for school. Teachers College Record, 98(2), 206-235.
38.
CorbettC.HillC. (2008). Where the girls are: The facts about gender equity in education. Washington, DC: American Association of University Women.
39.
Darling-HammondL.BransfordJ. (Eds.). (2005). Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.
40.
DatnowN.HubbardL.WoodyE. (2001). Is single-gender schooling viable in the public sector? Lessons from California’s pilot program. New York: Ford Foundation.
41.
DaviesB. (2003). Working with primary school children to deconstruct gender. In SkeltonC.FrancisB. (Ed.)., Boys and girls in the primary classroom. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.
42.
DiazR. (2006). Latinas in single-sex schools: Constructing a transnational feminist identity. Unpublished PhD, City University of New York.
43.
Doe v. Vermilion Parish School Board, 2009 U.S. Dist. Ct. Pleadings 124761 (2009).
44.
Doe v. Vermilion Parish School Board, Civil Action No.: 09-CV-1565 (April19, 2010).
45.
Doe v. Vermilion Parish School Board, 421 F. App’x 366 (5th Cir. 2011).
46.
Doe v. Wood County Board of Education, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122627 (W.D. Ky. Mar.30, 2012).
47.
DunnJ.WestM. (2008). Calculated justice: Education research and the courts. In HessF.M. (Ed.), When research matters: How scholarship influences education policy (pp. 155-176). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
48.
EckesS. (2006). Title IX and high school opportunities: Issues of equity on and in the court. Wisconsin Women’s Law Journal, 21(2), 175-194.
49.
EckesS.ThompsonD. (2008). Retaliation lawsuits in public schools: What impact has the Jackson v. Birmingham decision had on school personnel?Education Law Reporter, 232(2), 557-569.
50.
EliotL. (2009). Pink brain, blue brain: How small differences grow into troublesome gaps, and what can be done about it. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
51.
Equal Education Opportunity Act of 1974, 20 U.S.C.A. § 1701(a)).
52.
Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, U.S. Const. amend. XIV, §1.
53.
EricksonF.BagrodiaR.Cook-SatherA.EspinozaM.JurowS.ShutltzJ.SpencerJ. (2008). Students’ experiences of school curriculum: The everyday circumstances of granting and withholding assent to learn. In ConnelleyM.HeM. F.PhillionJ. I. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of curriculum and instruction (pp. 198-218). London: Sage Publications.
54.
ErkutS.FieldsJ. P.SingR.MarxF. (1996). Diversity in girls’ experiences: Feeling good about who you are. In LeadbeaterB. J. R.WayN. (Eds.), Urban girls: Resisting stereotypes, creating identities (pp. 53-64). New York: New York University Press.
55.
ErvellesN. (2009). Curriculum as normalizing text: Disability studies meets curriculum theory. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37(4), 421-439.
56.
Fausto-SterlingA. (2000). Sexing the body: Gender politics and the construction of sexuality. New York: Basic Books.
57.
Fausto-SterlingA. (2012). Sex/gender: Biology in a social world. New York: Routledge.
58.
FineM. (1988). Sexuality, schooling and adolescent females: The missing discourse of desire. Harvard Education Review, 58(1), 29-53.
59.
FirstP. (2006). Researching legal topics from a policy study perspective. In PermuthS.MawdsleyR. (Ed.), Research methods for studying legal issues in education (No. 72, pp. 131-162). Dayton, OH: Education Law Association.
60.
FrancisB.HutchinsonsM.ArcherL.MellingL. (2003). Subject choice and occupational aspirations among pupils at girls’ schools. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 11(3), 425-442.
61.
Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools, 503 U.S. 60 (1992).
62.
FreemanC. E. (2004). Trends in educational equity of girls & women: 2004 (No. NCES 2005-016). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, National Center for Education Statistics.
63.
Garrett v. Board of Education of School District of City of Detroit, 775 F. Supp. 1004 (E.D. Mich. 1991).
64.
GravesK. (1998). Girls’ schooling during the Progressive Era: From female scholar to domesticated citizen. New York and London: Garland Publishing, Inc.
65.
GroshoffD. (2010). Unchartered territory: Market competition’s constitutional collision with entrepreneurial sex-segregated charter schools. Brigham Young University Education and Law Journal, 2010(2), 307-358.
66.
Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003).
67.
HalpernD.EliotL.BiglerR.FabesR.HanishL.HydeJ.MartinC. (2011). The pseudoscience of single-sex schooling. Science, 333(6050), 1706-1707.
68.
HassE. (2002). Associate Justice Thurgood Marshall: An indispensable voice in the struggle for the civil rights of people with disabilities. Seton Hall Constitutional Law Journal, 12(2), 371-470.
69.
HayesA. R.PahlkeE. E. (2010). The efficay of single-sex education: Testing for selection and peer quality effects. Sex Roles, 65, 639-703.
70.
HerrK.ArmsE. (2004). Accountability and single-sex schooling: A collision of reform agenda. American Educational Research Journal, 41(3), 527-555.
71.
HollandD.EisenhartM. (1990). Educated in romance: Women, achievement, and college culture. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
72.
HoweF. (1984). Myths of coeducation. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
73.
HubbardL.DatnowA. (2005). Do single-sex schools improve the education of low-income and minority students? And investigation of California’s public single-gender academies. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 36(2), 115-131.
74.
HughesG. (2001). Exploring the availability of student scientist identities within curriculum discourse: An anti-essentialist approach to gender-inclusive science. Gender and Education, 13(3), 275-290.
75.
JenkinsK. (2006). Constitutional lessons for the next generation of public single-sex elementary and secondary schools. William and Mary Law Review, 47(6), 1953-2044.
76.
JimenezE.LockheedM. E. (1989). Enhancing girls’ learning through single-sex education: Evidence and a policy conundrum. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(2), 117-142.
77.
Jordan-YoungR. (2010). Brainstorm: The flaws in the science of sex differences. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
78.
KenwayJ.WillisS. (1998). Answering back: Girls, boys and feminism in school. London: Routledge.
79.
KesslerS.AshendenD. J.ConnellR. W.DowsettG. W. (1985). Gender relations in secondary schooling. Sociology of Education, 58(January), 34-48.
80.
KiselewichR. A. (2008). In defense of the 2006 Title IX regulations for single-sex public education: How separate can be equal. Boston College Law Review, 49(1), 217-262.
81.
KleibardH. (2002). Changing course: American curriculum reform in the 20th century. New York: Teachers College Press.
82.
KristofN. (2010, March27). The boys have fallen behind. The New York Times, p. 12.
83.
LeeJ.AdlerL. (2006). Qualitative research redux: Researching contemporary legal issues concerning education. In PermuthS.MawdsleyR. (Ed.), Research methods for studying legal issues in education (No. 72, pp. 5-25). Dayton, OH: Education Law Association.
84.
LeeV. (1998). Is single-sex secondary a solution to the problem of gender inequity? In MorseS. (Ed.), Separated by sex: A critical look at single-sex education (pp. 41-52). Washington, DC: American Association of University Women.
85.
LeeV.ByrkK. (1986). Effects of single-sex secondary schools on student achievement and attitudes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(5), 381-395.
86.
LeeV.MarksH. M. (1990). Sustained effects of the single-sex secondary school experience on attitudes, behaviors, and values in college, Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(3), 578-592.
87.
LeeV.MarksH. M. (1992). Who goes where? Choice of single-sex and coeducational independent secondary schools. Sociology of Education, 65(July), 226-253.
88.
LeeV. E.MarksH. M.ByrdT. (1994). Sexism in single-sex and coeducational independent secondary classrooms. Sociology of Education, 67(2), 92-120.
89.
LeskoN. (1988). The curriculum of the body:Lessons from a Catholic high school. In RomanL.Christian-SmithL. K.EllsworthE. (Eds.), Becoming feminine: The politics of popular culture. London, New York, and Philadelphia: The Falmer Group.
LuttrellW. (1992). Working-class women’s ways of knowing: Effects of gender, race, and class. In WrigleyJ. (Ed.), Gender and education equality (pp. 175-194). London: Falmer Press.
92.
Mac an GhaillM.HaywoodC. (1998). Gendered relations beyond the curriculum: Peer groups, family and work. In ClarkA.MillardE. (Eds.), Gender in the secondary curriculum. New York and London: Routledge.
93.
MaelF. A.AlonsoA.GibsonD.RogersK.SmithM. (2005). Single-sex versus coeduational schooling: A systematic review. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
94.
MalacovaE. (2007). Effect of single-sex education on progress in GCSE. Oxford Review of Education, 33(2), 233-259.
95.
MarshH. (1991). Public, Catholic single sex, and Catholic coeducation high schools: Their effects on achievement, affect, and behaviors. American Journal of Education, 99(3), 320-356.
96.
MbiliziM. A. (2008). In two different worlds: How Malawian girls experience schooling. Journal of International Women’s Studies, 9(3), 223-240.
97.
MeadJ. (2003). Single-gender “innovations”: Can publicly funded single-gender school choice options be constitutionally justified. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(2), 164-186.
98.
MessnerM. (2002). Taking the field: Women, men and sports. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
99.
Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan, 458 U.S. 718 (1982).
100.
MorganJ. M.PullinD. (2010). Social science and the courts: Challenges and strategies for bridging gaps between law and research. Educational Researcher, 39(7), 515-523.
101.
M.S. v. Livingston Parish School Board, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Pleadings 553C (M.D. La. August2, 2006).
102.
NemkoA. (1998). Single-sex public education after VMI: The case for women’s schools. Harvard Women’s Law Journal, 21(1), 19-78.
103.
Newberg v. Board of Public Education, 26 Pa. D. & C.3d 682 (1983).
104.
No Child Left Behind Act, P.L. 107-110, § 5131(a)(23)-c (2002).
105.
NogueruaP.FergusE. (2010). Theories of change among single-sex schools for Black and Latino boys: An intervention in search of theory. New York: New York University, Metropolitan Center for Urban Education.
106.
NosekB. (2009). National differences in gender-science stereotypes predict national sex differences in science and math achievement. Washington, DC: National Academy of Science of the U.S.
107.
OakesJ.JosephR.MuirK. (2004). Access and achievement in mathematics and science: Inequalities that endure and change. In BanksJ.McGee BanksC. (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (pp. 69-90). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
108.
PaechterC. (2000). Changing school subjects: Power, gender and curriculum. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
109.
Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, 551 U.S. 701 (2007).
110.
ParkerW. (2003). The decline of judicial decision making: School desegregation and district court judges. North Carolina Law Review, 81, 1624-1659.
111.
PascoeC. J. (2007). Dude, you’re a fag: Masculinities and sexuality in high school. Berkley: University of California Press.
112.
PattersonM. M.PahlkeE. E. (2010). Student characteristics associated with girls’ success in single-sex school. Sex Roles, 65, 737-750.
113.
PiattB. (2009). Gender segregation in the public schools: Opportunity, inequality, or both?St. Mary’s Law Review on Minority Issues, 11(1), 561-576.
114.
RappJ. (2009). Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 Protections. In Education Law Ch. 10, § 10.16. Retrieved from www.lexisnexis.com.
115.
RiordanC. (1990). Boys and girls in school: Together or separate?New York: Teachers College Press.
116.
RiordanC. (1994). Single-gender schools: Outcomes for African and Hispanic Americans. In PallasA. (Ed.), Research in sociology of education and socialization (Vol. 10, pp. 177-205). Greenwich, CT; London: Jai Press, Inc.
117.
RiordanC. (2002). What do we know about the effects of single-sex schools in the private sector? Implications for public schools. In DatnowA.HubbardL. (Ed.), Gender in policy and practice: Perspectives on single-sex and coeducational schooling (pp. 10-30). New York: Routledge Falmer.
Rostam-KolayiJ. (2008). Origins of Iran’s modern girls’ schools: From private/national to public/state. Journal of Middle East Women’s Studies, 4(3), 58-88.
120.
RussoC. (2006). Legal research: The traditional method. In PermuthS.MawdsleyR. (Eds.), Research methods for studying legal issues in education (No. 72, pp. 5-25). Dayton, OH: Education Law Association.
121.
RyanJ. E. (2003). The limited influence of social science evidence in modern desegregation cases. North Carolina Law Review, 81(4), 1659-1702.
122.
SadkerM.SadkerD. (1994). Failing at fairness. New York: Scribner.
123.
SadkerM.SadkerD. (1981). The report card: The cost of sex bias in schools. Washington, DC: The Mid-Atlantic Center for Sex Equity, The American University.
124.
SalomoneR. (2003). Same, different, equal. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
125.
SalomoneR. (2006). Single-sex programs: Resolving the research conundrum. Teachers College Record, 108(4), 778-802.
126.
SaxL. (2005). Why gender matters: What parents and teachers need to know about the emerging science of sex differences. New York: Doubleday.
127.
SchemoD. (2006). Change in federal rules backs single-sex public education. The New York Times, p. A1.
128.
SchimmelD. (1996). Research that makes a difference: Complementary methods for examining legal issues in education. Dayton, OH: Education Law Association.
129.
ShapkaJ. D.KeatingD. P. (2003). Effects of girls-only curriculum during adolescence: Performance, persistence and engagement in mathematics and science. American Educational Research Journal, 4(4), 929-960.
130.
SherwinG. (2005). Single-sex schools and the antisegregation principle. New York University Law Review and Social Change, 30(1), 35-88.
SmithD. (1987). The everyday world as problematic: A feminist sociology. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.
133.
SmithD. (1990). Conceptual practices of power: A feminist sociology of knowledge. Boston: Northeastern University Press.
134.
SullivanA.JoshiH.LeonardD. (2010). Single-sex schooling and academic attainment at school and through the lifecourse. American Educational Research Journal, 47(1), 6-36.
135.
ThorneB. (1999). Gender play: Girls and boys in school. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
136.
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a) (1994).
137.
Title IX Regulations, 34 C.F.R. § 106.34 (2006).
138.
TyackD.HansotE. (1992). Learning together: A history of coeducation in American public schools. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
U.S. Department of Education, O. o. P., Evaluation and Policy Development and Program Studies Service. (2008). Early implementation of public single-sex schools: Perceptions and characteristics. Washington, DC: Author.
143.
U.S. v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996).
144.
Vorchheimer v. School District of Philadelphia, 430 U.S. 703 (1977), affirming 532 F.2d 880 (3d Cir. 1976).
WalkerdineV.LuceyH.MelodyJ. (2001). Growing up girl: Psychosocial explorations of gender and class. New York: New York University Press.
147.
WatsonC. M.QuatmanT.EdlerE. (2002). Career aspirations of adolescent girls: Effects of achievement level, grade and single-sex school environment. Sex Roles, 46(9/10), 323-335.
148.
WeedonC. (1997). Principles of poststructuralism. In WeedonC. (Ed.), Feminist practice and poststructuralist theory (2nd ed., pp. 13-41). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
149.
WelchS. (2010). From witness box to the hot tub: How the “Hot Tub” approach to expert witnesses might relax an American finder of fact. Journal of International Commercial Law and Technology, 5(3), 154-165.
150.
WelnerK. (2006). K-12 race-conscious student assignment policies: Law, social science, and diversity. Review of Educational Research, 76(3), 349-382.
151.
WhelenJ. (2011). Boys and their schooling: The experience of becoming somebody else. New York: Routledge.
152.
WongK.- C.LamY. R.HoL.- M. (2002). The effects of schooling on gender differences. British Educational Research Journal, 28(6), 827-843.
153.
YoudellD. (2004). Bent as a ballet dancer: The possibilities for and limits of legitimate homomasculinity in school. In RasmussenR.TalburtS. (Eds.), Youth and sexualities: Pleasures, subversions, and insubordination in and out of schools (pp. 201-222). New York: Palgrave.
154.
YoungM. F. D. (Ed.). (1971). Knowledge and control: New directions for the sociology of education. London: Collier-Macmillan Publishers.
