Chalk talk-"No child left behind" and the promotion of single-sex public education in primary and secondary schools: Shattering the glass ceilings perpetuated by coeducation

Journal of Law and Education, Apr 2003

I. Introduction

Many studies have revealed the detrimental effect the coeducational model has inflicted on students, particularly adolescent girls.1 Meanwhile, their counterparts in single-sex primary and secondary schools have thrived academically and emotionally. A great victory for proponents of single-sex public education occurred in January of 2002 when President Bush signed into law an educational bill entitled "No Child Left Behind." This legislation provided an incentive for school districts across the country to develop single-sex schools by making those schools eligible for federal funding.2 The following commentary demonstrates that this legislation now makes clear single-sex education is permissible under Title IX and under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Further, it explains why single-sex education is the preferable educational model for primary and secondary public schools.

II. History of the Debate over Single-Sex Education

Throughout the 1970s, the Feminist Movement strongly supported the coeducational model of education.3 As defined by the Movement, gender equity was viewed in terms of formal equality. Therefore, feminists fought to make schools gender-neutral.4 However, by the 1980s, many feminist theorists began to realize that coeducational schools reinforced male hegemony and marginalized female voices.5

A. Failing at Fairness

In 1994, Myra and David Sadker's now-controversial book, Failing at Fairness, turned a critical eye towards the coeducational model of primary and secondary education.6 In many academic journals, the Sadkers' findings demonstrated that teachers in co-educational classrooms are much more likely to foster achievement among boys than among girls.7 For example, boys dominated classroom discussion and were more likely to be praised, corrected, helped and criticized by teachers.8

B. Single-Sex Education as a Beneficial Educational Model

A 1998 report by the American Association of University Women (AAUW) stated that research findings supporting single-sex education were inconclusive.9 However, long before the publication of this report, the National Organization for Women and the American Civil Liberties Union argued vehemently against this type of education.10 They argued that single-sex education denies girls and boys the interpersonal skills to interact with one another later in life.11 To these groups, this type of education is a mechanism for reinforcing persistent gender stereotypes.12

Contrarily, supporters point to studies showing that boys and girls in single-sex schools enjoy greater academic success and demonstrate more ambition than students in co-educational institutions.13 These studies also have shown that single-sex environments are characterized by increased interest among girls in math and science and fewer behavioral problems.14 Many co-educational institutions produce female students who endure lower self-esteem and interest levels, peer sexual harassment, gender inequities in the classroom, high rates of teenage pregnancy, and school violence than in single-sex schools.15 Supporter of single-sex education, Rosemary Salomone, argues that beneath co-education lies a hidden curriculum, "a subtle but nonetheless harmful institutionalized program of male dominance, differential teacher expectations, and attitudes that prepare students for gender-specific roles in society . . . Coeducation fails to recognize adequately the range of learning styles and emotional needs that girls and boys bring to school."16

Studies reveal that girls educated in single-sex environments are much less likely to evidence stereotyped sex-role attitudes and are more likely to pursue academic goals.17 Plus, the math and science gender gap seems to narrow when girls are educated in a single-sex environment.18 Girls at single-sex schools are more likely than girls in coeducational settings to participate in politics, pursue advanced degrees at more selective colleges, and eschew gender stereotypes.19 As Ms. Salomone points out, single-sex public education provides poorer families the chance to see their children excel in single-sex classrooms, an option once only available to families able to pay private school tuition.20

III. "No Child Left Behind"

On January 8, 2002, President Bush signed into law H.R. 1, known as the "No Child Left Behind" Education Bill.21 This legislation enables America's public schools to receive record levels of funding from the federal government, and creates unprecedented levels of accountability to ensure that those funds are producing real results to help every child in America receive a quality education.22 Through the Reading First program, $412 million has been distributed to states to help school districts improve children's reading achievement by scientifically proven methods of instruction.23 Among other things, the legislation encourages parental choice in public education and provides for tutoring programs to improve the quality of public school education in the United States.24