Does the “Negro” Still Need Separate Schools? Single-Sex Educational Settings as Critical Race Counterspaces

Abstract

This article explores whether contemporary educators should consider single-sex educational settings as viable interventions in educating African American males. Using qualitative data from a 2-year study of single-sex educational spaces in two Los Angeles County high schools, the authors argue that when all-male spaces effectively function as Critical Race Theory counterspaces, the educational experiences of high school–aged Black males are positively transformed. These cocurricular, single-sex counterspaces can effectively shield Black males from the marginalizing effects of urban schooling while serving as platforms for productive reengagement in positive school trajectories. Research-based principles for designing effective single-sex educational settings are discussed.

Keywords

Black males academic achievement urban education best practices minority academic success

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ascher

(1992). School programs for African American males and females. Phi Delta Kappan, 73, 777-782.

Aud

Fox

Kewal-Ramani

(2010). Status and trends in the education of racial and ethnic groups (NCES 2010-015, U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Brown

Donner

(2011). Toward a new narrative on Black males, education and public policy. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 14, 17-32.

College Board. (2012). 8th annual AP report to the nation. Retrieved from http://apreport.collegeboard.org/goals-and-findings/promoting-equity

Creswell

J. W.

(1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Daniels

Arapostathis

(2005). What do they really want? Student voices and motivation research. Urban Education, 40, 34-59.

Davis

(1994). College in Black and White: Campus environment and academic achievement of African American males. The Journal of Negro Education, 63, 620-633.

Du Bois

W. E. B.

(1935). Does the Negro need separate schools? The Journal of Negro Education, 4, 328-335.

Fergus

Noguera

(2010). Theories of change among single-sex schools for Black and Latino boys: An intervention in search of theory. Retrieved from http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/metrocenter/arepc/resources

10.

Ferguson

(2001). Bad boys: Public schools in the making of Black masculinity. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

11.

Fredericks

Blumenfeld

Paris

(2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74, 59-109.

12.

Fultz

Brown

(2008). Historical perspectives on African American males as subjects of educational policy. American Behavioral Scientist, 51, 854-871.

13.

Gregory

Skiba

Noguera

(2010). The achievement gap and the discipline gap: Two sides of the same coin? Educational Researcher, 39, 59-68.

14.

Hales

(1998). A comparison of the progress of African American students attending single gender/single race and mixed gender/mixed race classes in four elementary schools (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Maryland, Department of Education, College Park.

15.

Harper

(2005). Leading the way: Inside the experiences of high-achieving African American male students. About Campus, 10(1), 8-15.

16.

Harper

(2010). In his name: Rigor and relevance in research on African American males in education. Journal of African American Males in Education, 1(1), 1-6.

17.

Hopkins

(1997). Educating Black males: Critical lessons in schooling, community, and power. Albany: State University of New York Press.

18.

Howard

T. C.

(2008). Who really cares? The disenfranchisement of African-American males in PreK-12 schools: A critical race theory perspective. Teachers College Record, 110, 954-985.

19.

Howard

T. C.

Flennaugh

Terry

C. L.

Sr. (2012). Black males, social imagery, and the disruption of pathological identities: Implications for research and teaching. Educational Foundations, 26(2), 85-102.

20.

Hubbard

Datnow

(2005). Do single-sex schools improve the education of low-income and minority students? An investigation of California’s public single-gender academies. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 36, 115-131.

21.

Jordan

Cooper

(2003). High school reform and Black males students: Limits and possibilities of policy and practice. Urban Education, 38, 196-216.

22.

Ladson-Billings

(1998). Just what is critical race theory and what’s it doing in a nice field like education? International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 11, 7-24.

23.

Ladson-Billings

(2006). From the achievement gap to the education debt: Understanding achievement in U.S. schools. Educational Researcher, 35(7), 3-12.

24.

Lee

Lockheed

(1990). The effects of single-sex schooling on achievement and attitudes in Nigeria. Comparative Education Review, 34, 209-231.

25.

Love

(2004). Brown plus 50 counter-storytelling: A critical race theory analysis of the “Majoritarian Achievement Gap” story. Equity & Excellence in Education, 37, 227-246.

26.

Lynn

(2002). Critical race theory and the perspectives of Black men teachers in the Los Angeles public schools. Equity & Excellence in Education, 35, 87-92.

27.

Mael

(1998). Single-sex and coeducational schooling: Relationships to socioemotional and academic development. Review of Educational Research, 68, 101-129.

28.

Noguera

(2003). The trouble with Black boys: The role and influence of environmental and cultural factors on the academic performance of African-American males. Urban Education, 38, 431-459.

29.

Riordan

(1994). Single-gender school: Outcomes for African and Hispanic Americans. Research in Sociology of Education and Socialization, 10, 177-205.

30.

Salomone

(2006). Single-sex programs: Resolving the research conundrum. Teachers College Record, 108, 778-802.

31.

Schensul

LeCompte

(1999). Essential ethnographic methods: Observations, interviews, and questionnaires (Vol. 2). Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press.

32.

Schott Foundation for Public Education. (2010). Yes we can: The Schott 50 state report on public education and Black males, 2010. Cambridge, MA: The Schott Foundation for Public Education. Available from http://www.schottfoundation.org

33.

Singh

Vaught

Mitchell

(1998). Single-sex classes and academic achievement in two inner-city schools. The Journal of Negro Education, 67, 157-167.

34.

Solórzano

Ceja

Yosso

(2000). Critical race theory, racial microaggressions, and campus racial climate: The experiences of African American college students. The Journal of Negro Education, 69(1/2), 60-73.

35.

Solórzano

D. G.

Yosso

T. J.

(2002). Critical race methodology: Counter-storytelling as an analytical framework for education research. Qualitative Inquiry, 8(1), 23-44.

36.

Stake

R. E.

(1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

37.

Tate

W. F.

(1997). Race, SES, gender, and language proficiency trends in mathematics achievement: An update. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28, 652-680.

38.

Taylor

Gillborn

Ladson-Billings

(2009). Foundations of critical race theory in education. New York, NY: Routledge.

39.

Terry

C. L.

Sr . (2011). Mathematical counterstory and African American males: Urban math education from a critical race theory perspective. Journal of Urban Mathematics Education, 4(1), 23-49.

40.

Terry

C. L.

Sr . (2013). Black males’ experiences with racism: Terra Incognita for K-12 teachers? Manuscript in preparation.

41.

Tyack

Hansot

(1992). Learning together: A history of coeducation in American public schools. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

42.

Tyson

Darity

Castellino

(2005). It’s not “a Black thing”: Understanding the burden of acting White and other dilemmas of high achievement. American Sociological Review, 70, 582-605.

43.

U.S. Department of Education. (2002). Guidelines on current Title IX requirements related to single-sex classes and schools. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/rights/guid/ocr/edlite-t9-guidelines-ss.html

44.

U.S. Department of Education. (2003). Identifying and implementing educational practices supported by rigorous evidence: A user friendly guide. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/rigorousevid/index.html

45.

U.S. Department of Education. (2006). Secretary spelling announces more choices in single-sex education amended regulations give communities: More flexibility to offer single sex schools and classes [Press Release]. Office of the Secretary of Education. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/single-sex-20070131.html

46.

U.S. Department of Education. (2009). Institute of Education Science, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2010458

47.

Valenzuela

(1999). Subtractive schooling: U.S. Mexican youth and the politics of caring. New York: State University of New York Press.

48.

Watson

Smitherman

(1996). Educating African American males: Detroit’s Malcolm X academy. Chicago, IL: Third World Press.

49.

Weaver-Hightower

(2003). The “boy turn” in researcher on gender and education. Review of Educational Research, 73, 471-498.

50.

Weiss

(1995). Nothing as practical as good theory: Exploring theory-based evaluation for comprehensive community initiatives for children and families. In Connell

Kubish

Schorr

Weiss

(Eds.), New approaches to evaluating community initiatives: Concepts, methods, and contexts (pp. 65-92). Washington, DC: Aspen Institute.

51.

Yang

K. W.

(2009). Mathematics, critical literacy, and youth participatory action research. New Directions for Youth Development, 2009(123), 99-118.

52.

Yin

R. K.

(2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed., [Applied Social Research Series Vol. 5]). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.