CLE: 2009: Gender Segregation in the Public Schools: Opportunity Inequality or Both?

Dublin Core

Title

CLE: 2009: Gender Segregation in the Public Schools: Opportunity Inequality or Both?

Creator

Bill Piatt

Publisher

St. Mary's University School of Law San Antonio Texas Alumni Homecoming, St. Mary's University School of Law Alumni Homecoming

Date

2009-03-27

Relation

St. Mary's University School of Law Alumni Homecoming

Format

RFC3778

Language

English, en-US

Type

Text

Identifier

STMU_HomecomingCLE2009Piatt

PDF Search

Text

-

DRAFT COPY

-

ARTICLE

"GENDER SEGREGATION IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS;
OPPORTUNITY, INEQUALITY, OR BOTH?"
BILL PIATT, PROFESSOR OF LAW
FORMER DEAN (1998-2007)
ST. MARY'S UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW

I.

INTRODUCTION

Should the public schools be allowed to segregate girls from boys in
the c lassroom?
There is no easy answer to the question, and
controversy continues regarding whether girls and boys might benefit or
be harmed by separate education. Proponents and opponents of samesex education do not divide neatly along gender or political lines. The
controversy will not be resolved anytime soon. The United States
Department of Education has weighed in and is encouraging the
implementation of experimental programs involving same-sex
education. 1 In this article we will briefly consider the history of singlesex education, and will evaluate the concerns that single gender
classrooms raise. The article concludes that attempts to allow/impose
gender segregation should continue only if empirical studies can
actually demonstrate that benefits outweigh the harm resulting from
such segregation . In the absence of such justification, it might be time
to curtail the experiment.

II.

HISTORICAL OVERVIEW

There is no constitutionally-recognized right to a public education.2
10 1

-

-

-

-

PIATT SYMPOSIUM

102

-

-

-

3/ 19n 009 10:38 AM

09

THE SCHOLAR

However, every state provides a scheme of public education3 and the
United States Department of Education offers a federal' frame work of
support. 4 While education in the Colonies began as a "boys only"
endeavor for the most part, the founding of the new nation and the rapid
westward expansion witnessed the creation of a public education
scheme placing boys and girls together in the classroom.5
Concerns in recent decades that girls were not being given the same
educational opportunities as boys lead to Congressional action. 6 ln
1972, President Nixon signed into law what is now known as Title IX. 7
That law provides in part, "No person in the United States shall, on the
basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits
of, or be subjected to discrimination under any educational program or
activity receiving federal financial assistance." 8 As a result of this
statute and explementing regulations, segregating girls from boys in the
public schools was prohibited with the narrow exception of physical
education classes, contact sports, human sexuality classes, and courses
Under Title IX and its implementing
based on vocal range. 9
regu lations, segregating boys and girls in the public education process
was essentially prohibited. 10
However, in recent decades, some researchers began to assert that
requiring boys and girls to be educated together has a negative impact
on the educational progress of both boys and girls because of inherent
differences in their learning behavior, or even in the development of
their brains. 1 1 For example, Jean Christophe Labarthe examined two
year old children in their attempts to build bridges from blocks. 12 He
concluded that the boys were three times more likely than girls to
complete that task. 13 Other studies purported to show a physiological
difference in the deve lopment of boys and girls brains. 14 As a result,
educational advocates began to urge that the Department of Education
allow for the creation of same-sex educational opportunities.
The Department of Education, in response to these studies, enacted
regulations in October, 2006 allowing for voluntary single-sex-classes
and activities, provided that a substantially equal classroom opportunity
was available to both genders. 1 5 With the establishment of the legal
basis for same-sex classrooms, a number of schoo l districts began
experimenting with them. 16 According to the website of the National
Association for Single-sex Public Education (NASSPE) by January
2009, almost 600 single-sex programs were being offered throughout
the nation. 17 The issue received wide spread national attention when
U.S.A. Today published an editorial generally favoring single-sex

-

-

311912009 10:38 AM

PlAIT SYMPOSIUM 09

2009]

-

-

-

DRAFT COPY

103

education on October 13, 2008. 1 8 The op ed piece noted that some
university researchers were producing findings suggesting academic
gains would be poss ible by gender segregation. 1 9 The authors of the
piece nonetheless expressed some uneasiness about the "brai n-based
research."20 It noted that several nationally recognized neuroscientists
raised doubts about the suggestion that there is a physiological
difference in the development of the brains of boys and girls. 21 An
opposing editorial on that same date in U.S.A. Today, written by Emily
Martin and Lenora Lapidus, concludes that "what sex segregation really
does is create inequality and deprive all students of the benefits of a
diversed classroom."22
Thus, the experiment continues. In reality, however, same-sex
education in the United States is not an entirely new phenomenon. As
noted above, "boys only" was the rule in early American public
education.23 Catholic schools traditionally segregated girls from boys
at the high school level, and many such programs continue today. 24

Ill.

LEGAL CONCERNS

As one might imagine, creating programs for boys only and girls only
raises substantial legal concerns. Critics of the gender-exclus ive
educational schemes point to the 1954 case of Brown vs. Board of
Education. 25 In that case, the Supreme Court of the United States
found that the "separate by equal" educational schemes which
segregated Black students and White students in the public schools
constituted a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.26 The Court
concluded in that case that separate was inherently unequal. 27 It
pointed to the devastating psychological effects upon Black students
that resulted from forced segregation as one of the principal reasons for
its conclusion. 28
Would the Brown rationale extend to preclude gender segregation?
The Department of Education regulations provide for voluntary gender
segregation.29 Perhaps that factor would make Brown inapplicable. As
noted below, however, some parents find that these gender segregated
classrooms are not really voluntary. Parents face the choice of pl acing
the ir children in a gender-segregated classroom offering a better
educational program, or leaving their ch ildren in a mixed gender
classroom offering an inferior educational program.
Another factor that might make Brown inapplicable is the reality that
the long and horrible history of slavery led to a racial stigma w hich has

-

-

-

3/1912009 10:38 AM

PIATT SYMPOSIUM_09

104

-

-

THE SCHOLAR

no gender counterpart. Nonetheless, critics urge that the maintenance of
"separate by equal" gender scheme is close enough to the type of
discrimination the Supreme Court of the United States found to be
unlawful in Brown, and should be precluded as a matter of
constitutionallaw. 30
In this regard there is a bit of a vacuum. The Supreme Court of the
United States has never decided a case involving gender segregation in
public education in the grade school, or high school context. It did
strike as unconstitutional, in 1982, the policy of the Mississippi
University for Women's School of Nursing scheme of admitting only
women into its program. 31 The school urged that its program was
constitutional because it was implemented specifically to remedy past
di scrimination against women.32 However, the Supreme Court of the
United States determined that women had not been discriminated
against in the field of nursing. 33 Moreover, men were allowed to audit
classes at the school. 3 4 Thus, the University could not demonstrate that
women would be adversely affected by the presence of males in the
classrooms in the nursing program. The Court noted there were no
comparable education alternatives for men in the state of Mississippi. 35
The Court struck down the women-only admission policy. 36
Contemporary public school classrooms which implement a same-sex
policy do provide for comparable opportunities for both boys and girls,
although the differences in curriculum, lighting,37 and classroom
arrangement which are important components of these programs might
lead a court to conclude that the opportunities are not sufficiently
"comparable" to withstand the MUW analysis. Competing studies
might cast doubt on the "adversely affected" rationale offered by
supporters of gender segregation to justify placing girls apart from boys,
thus raising another possibility that the MUW decision would preclude
such programs. And, it might be difficult to convince a court that girls
or boys have been discriminated against in public education by being
placed together in a classroom.
Without that showing of past
discrimination MUW would preclude the remedy of gender segregation.
Another Supreme Court case arguably might provide some guidance
in resolving any Equal Protection challenges to same-sex education. In
the case of United States vs. Virginia, the Court considered a
constitutional challenge to the men-only admissions policy of the
Virginia Military Institute. 3 8 Even though the state of Virginia created
a Women's Institute for Leadership in order to defuse the challenge, the
Court found the gender segregation at the V.M.I . to be

-

3/1912009 I 0:38 AM

PI .._TT_SYMPOSIUM 09

2009]

-

-

-

DRAFT COPY

105

unconstitutional. 39 This holding would cast doubt on the validity of the
"separate but equal" approach offered by the public schools which have
implemented a gender segregation program.40
It suggests the
Depattment of Education regulations and the programs created there
under might not escape the Brown prohibition.41 Writing for the
majority, Justice Ginsburg summarized the analysis coUits would use
for cases involving classifications based on gender.42
Focusing on the differential treatment or denial of opportunity for which
relief is sought, the reviewing court must determine whether the proffered
justification is exceedingly persuasive.' The burden of justification is
demanding and it rests entirely on the State ...The State must show at least
that the classification serves important governmental objectives and that
the discriminatory means employed are substantially related to the
achievement of those objectives. The justification must be genuine, not
hypothesized . . . 43

In the context of public education, Justice Ginsburg's approach
would require actual, demonstrated justifications, beyond mere learning
theory.
Thus, In both the MUW and VMI cases, the Supreme Court made
clear that while it did not establish a blanket probition against same-sex
education in higher education, any justifications for such a program
would be scrutinized at more than the "rational basis" scrutiny.
Advocates on both sides of the same-sex public issue have cited these
cases.
Proponents of gender-exclusive c lassrooms point out the
voluntary nature of the programs, and the explicit findings of the
Department of Education justifying such programs.44 Opponents argue
that the "separate but equal" analogy applies and that there is inadequate
scientific j ustification for these programs. Academic commentators are
divided on the legality of these programs.45
IV. EDUCATIONAL CONCERNS
As noted, under the VMI analysis, the policy permitting same gender
classrooms would need to be supported by genuine educational
justifications to survive Constitutional challenge. What are some of the
concerns, and practical effects of implementation of these programs?
Some have suggested that the impetus between the same-sex
classroom movement is the "boy crisis."46 In her article, "Singling
Them Out; the Influence of the "Boy Crisis" on the New Title IX
Regulations" Elizabeth Kisthardt cites a January, 2006 Newsweek cover

-

PIATT SYMPOSIUM

-

-

-

-

106

3/1912009 I0:38 AM

09

THE SCHOLAR

story entitled, "The Trouble with Boys."47 The article noted that men
now only constitute forty-four percent of undergraduate students as
opposed to thi1ty years ago when they represented fifty-eight percent. 48
The article suggested that academic approaches in recent years were
She also cites Christina Hoff
harming performance of boys. 49
Summers who suggested that boys were the victims of gender
discrimination .50 Her book, "The War Against Boys; How Misguided
Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men" suggests that the trend to
consider girls as victim of discrimination has resulted in boys
languishing academically. 5 1 Summers suggests that single-sex classes
would be an appropriate response and says that efforts in the country
were being opposed by groups such as the National Organization for
Women and the American Civil Liberties Union. 52 However, both the
National Organization for Women and the ACLU have opposed samesex education on the basis that it leads to the discrimination women
traditionally face in public education.5 3
Will the implementation of gender exclusive classrooms have
unforeseen impacts? In Taylors' elementary South Carolina girls work
in groups and face each other under bright lights. 54 Boys sit side-byside and the lighting is dimmer. 55 Boys study with greater ability to
move about the room. 56 One has to wonder whether boys and girls will
notice this difference, wonder why the difference is taking place, and
In
perhaps extrapolate feelings of inferiority or superiority.
Brackenbridge County Kentucky, even though same-sex classrooms are
optional, a very talented eighth grade girl could only take a pre-algebra
co-ed class and had to agree to attend the girls' only class in order to
take the more advanced study course. 57 The boys had a separate
algebra class that moved at a slower pace than the girls. 5 8 Certainly the
students of both genders would notice this difference, wonder about it,
and perhaps adopt mistaken notions as a result of it.
These, and similar programs, raise obvious issues as to whether they
are indeed "voluntary ." They also raise the real specter of real harm to
children. What happens to those children who are placed in the inferior
programs? What if the segregation experiment leads to feeling of
inferiority, or results in greater tendency toward acquisition of sexist
views or resentments which would only find expression years later?
An advocate for same-sex c lassrooms notes that "having students of
only one sex in the classroom e liminates the distraction that students of
the other sex pose."59 She cites with approval studies indicating that
the brains of boys are different physically then those of girls,

-

-

PIATT SYMPOSIUM

2009]

-

-

311912009 I 0:38 AM

09

DRAFT COPY

107

development of brains is different depending upon gender, and boys and
girls use different parts of their brain to perform the same tasks. 60 One
danger to this approach, however, is that it might be used to justify other
forms of discrimination against women or against men based on
supposed physiological brain differences which might not be applicable
in every case. As noted, leading neuroscientist are not convinced of the
accuracy of th is research. And, some feminist argued that providing
girls with a "safe" environment reinforces a stereotype of girls as being
weak.61
There is also the important matter of parental determination. While
parents are offered the choice of allowing their children to be assigned
to same-sex classrooms, in many instances the choice is between a
superior same-sex education or an obviously inferior co-ed one. Few
parents will choose the lesser alternative for their children and thus the
"voluntarily" nature of same-sex education might be illusory.62 While
parents with resources can opt to send their children to private schools
either co-ed or same-sex, parents with lesser resources do not have that
option. Thus the "experiment" with same-sex classrooms might only be
an experiment on those children whose parents lack the resources to opt
out of it.

V. CONCLUSION
After decades of struggle to eliminate gender stereotypes and
barriers, we should be very cautious about reimposing them in the form
of segregated classrooms. Even though the experiment has begun, it
should not continue without greater scientific explanation and
justification for the programs than have been offered to date. Research
must continue into the long term effects of gender segregation.
Unfortunately, the only way these effects could be measured is by
experimenting upon our children and hoping that if there are adverse
affects, that there might be some way to ameliorate them. We must be
particularly cautious of adhering to the gender stereotypes that find
unfortunate expression outside of the public education context.
In the absence of "exceedingly persuasive" empirical justification,63
and unless it can be shown that continuing the programs will do no
harm, it might now be time to curtail the experiment. Instead of trying
to find justification for segregation, it might be a better use of resources
to focus on improving an educational system where boys and girls can
learn together.

-

-

-

-

-

-

3119n009 I 0:38 AM

PlAIT SYMPOSIUM_ 09

108

-

THE SCHOLAR

l. See 71 Fed. Reg. 62530 (Oct. 25, 2006) (providing an amendment to Title IX to create
flexibility to create more single-sex education opportunities); See 34 C.F.R.§ 106.34 (2007).
2. San Antonio independent School Dist. v. Rodriguez, 4 11 U.S. I, 35( 19731 (holding that
education is not a constitutionally recognized right).
3. Public Elementary and Secondary Schools, by Type and State or Jurisdiction: 1990-91,
and
2005-06,
National
Center
for
Education
Statistics,
2000-01,
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d07/tables/dt07_094.asp (last visited Jan. 15, 2009) (listing the
number of schools in each state). According to the data, every state has a public school system.
/d.;
See
Fast
Facts,
National
Center
for
Education
Statistics,
http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=372 (last visited Jan. 15, 2009) (stating that there are
about 97,000diJblic schools~.

mlii*W

WPM+

5. Patricia B. Campbell & Ellen Wahl, OfTwo Minds: Single-Sex Education, Coeducation,
and the Search for Gender-Equity in K-12 Public Schooling, 14 N.Y.L. Sch. J. Hum. Rts . 289,
290 ( 1997) (stating how public education in the United States began as single-sex education).
Not until after the American Revolution did schools begin to teach boys and girls in the same
classrooms. !d. And, as America grew, boys and girls in the same classroom became the n01m.

Jd.
6. See 20 U.S.C. § 1681 (2000).
7. 20 u.s.c. § 168 1 (2000).
8. 20 USC§l681(2000) (requiring nondiscrimination for both males and females in
educational programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance).
9. 34CFR§l06.34 (2007) (creating exemptions to the rule prohibiting schools from
conducting education programs or activities or requiring or refusing participation on the basis of
sex).
10. Diane Jean Scheme, Changes in Federal Rules Backs Single-Sex Public Education,
N.Y. TIMES, October 25 , 2006 at A I
(" Under Title IX, the 1972 law that banned sex discrimination in educational institutions that
receive federal funds, single-sex classes and extracurricular activities are largely limited to
physical education classes that include contact sports and to sex education.").
I I. See Jean Christophe Labarthe, Are Boys Better Than Girls at Building a Tower or
Bridge at Two Years of Age?, 77 ARCHIVES OF DISEASE OF CHILDHOOD 140, 140-47 (1997) (---).
12. Jean Christophe Labarthe, Are Boys Better Than Girls at Building a Tower or Bridge a/
Two Years ofAge?, 77 ARCHIVES OF DISEASE OF CHILDHOOD 140, 140-47 (1997) (---).
13. Jean Christophe Labarthe, Are Boys Better Than Girls at Building a Tower or Bridge at
Two Years ofAge?, 77 ARCHIVES OF DISEASE OF CHlLDHOOD 140, 140-47 ( 1997)(--).
14. Harriet Hanlon, Robert Thatcher & Marvin Cline, Gender Differences in the
Development of EEC Coherence in Normal Children, 16(3) DEVELOPMENTAL
NEUROPSYCHOLOGY 479, X (1999) (reporting on a study done of 224 girls and 284 boys in the
age range of two to four years old). In that study, it found that boy's brains develop differently
than girl's brains. ld. The study found that boys and girls develop at different rates and times.
For example, girls develop about six years earlier than boys in motor and language skills. Id.
15. See 7 1 Fed. Reg. 62530 (Oct. 25, 2006) (providing an amendment to Title IX to create
fl exibi lity to create more single-sex education opportunities); See 34 C.F.R.§ I 06.34 (2007);
Diane Jean Scheme, Changes in Federal Rules Backs Single-Sex Public Education, N.Y. TIMES,
October 25, 2006 at A I (reporting how the US Department of educalion, in October 2006, will
allow school districts to provide single-sex education as long as they " make coeducational
schools and classes of'substantially equal' quality avail able for members of the excluded sex.").
16. Single-Sex Schools , Schools with Single-Sex Classrooms, What's the Difference?,
National Association of Single-sex Public Education, http://W\¥W.singlesexschools.org/schoolsschools.htm (last visited Jan uary 13, 2009) (listing numerous states including, but not limited to,

-

-

-

PlAIT SYMPOSIUM

2009]

09

3119n009 I 0:38 AM

DRAFT COPY

109

Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana and Texas had schools that began offering
single-sex education after 2006). 2006 was when the U.S. Department of Education enacted the
rules allowing for single-sex education. See 34 CFR§I06.34 (2007).
17. Single-Sex Schools , Schools with Single-Sex Classrooms, What's the Difference?,
National Association of Single-sex Public Education, http://www.singlesexschools.orglschoolsschools.htm (last visited January 13, 2009) (reporting that as of January 2009, at least 516 United
S tates public schools offer single-sex educational programs).
18. Single-Sex Education Spreads, USA TODAY, Oct. 13, 2008, at 12A (remarking that
single-sex education makes parents and teachers happy and aids children).
19. Single-Sex Education Spreads, USA TOOA Y, Oct. 13, 2008, at 12A.
20. Single-Sex Education Spreads, USA TODAY, Oct. 13, 2008, at 12A.
21. Single-Sex Education Spreads, USA TOOA Y, Oct. 13, 2008, at 12A.
22. Emily Martin & Lenora Lapidus, Segregation Breeds inequality ,USA TODAY, Oct. I 3,
2008, at 12A.
23. Patricia B. Campbell & Ellen Wahl, OfTwo Minds: Single-Sex Education, Coeducation,
and the Search for Gender-Equity in K-12 Public Schooling, 14 N.Y.L. Sch. J. Hum. Rts. 289,
290 (1997).

25. Rebecca A. Kiselewich, Note, in Deftnse of the 2006 Title JX Regulations for SingleSex Public Education: How Separate Can Be Equal, 49 B.C.L. Rev. 217, 250 (Jan. 2008)(stating
that some opponents of single-sex education site Brown to bolster their arguments against singlesex education policies).
26. Brown _vLBdLof_Educ~3 47 _U.SL483_,_XL1954 ).
27. Brown_vLBdLof_Educ,_,_347 _ """483_,_XL1954).
U.S'
28. Brown_ LBdLo f_Educ~347 _
v
U.S,_483, Xjl954).
29. 34 C.F.R.§l06.34 (b)(iii) (2007)(stating that single-sex education is to be complete ly
voluntary).
30. See Rebecca A. Kise1ewich, Note, in Deftnse of the 2006 Title IX Regulations for
Single-Sex Public Education: How Separate Can Be Equal, 49 B.C.L. Rev. 2 17, 250 (Jan.
2008);see also Martha Minow, Fostering Capacity, Equality, and Responsibility (and Single-Sex
Education): In Honor of Linda McClain, 33 HOFSTRA L. REV. 815, 821 (2005) (stating how
opponents of single-sex education site Brown v. Board of Education).
31. Miss. Univ. for Women v. Hogan, 458 U.S. 718, X ( 1982).
32. Miss. Univ. for Women v. Hogan, 458 U.S. 718, X {1982).
33. Miss. Univ. for Women v. Hogan, 458 U.S. 7 I 8, X (1982}.
34. Miss. Univ. for Women v. Hogan, 458 U.S . 718, X (1982).
35. Miss. Univ. for Women v. Hogan, 458 U.S. 718, X (1982).
36. Miss. Univ. for Women v. Hogan, 4S8 U.S. 718, X (I 982).
37.
38. United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. SIS, X (1996) .
39. United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515, X (1996).
40. United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 5 IS, X (1 996).
41. United States v. Virginia, 5 18 U.S. S 15, X (I 996).
42. United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. S15, X (1996).
43. United States v. Virginia, S 18 U.S. 5 15, X (1996).
44.
4S . .
46. See Elizabeth S. Kisthardt , Comment, Singling Them Out: The Influence of the "Boy
Crisis" on the New Title JX Regulations, 22 Wis. Women's L.J. 313, X (Fall 2007).

-

-

3/19/2009 10:38 AM

PIATT_SYMPOSIUM_09

110

THE SCHOLAR

47. Elizabeth S. Kisthardt, Comment, Singling Them Out: The Influence ofthe "Boy Crisis"
on the New Title IX Regulations, 22 Wis. Women's L.J . 313, X (Fa112007).
48. Elizabeth S. Kisthardt, Comment, Singling Them Out: The Influence of the "Boy Crisis"
on the New Title IX Regulations, 22 Wis. Women's L.J. 3 J3, X (fall 2007).
49. Elizabeth S. Kisthardt, Comment, Singling Them Out: The Influence ofthe "Boy Crisis"
on the New Title IX Regulations, 22 Wis. Women's L.J. 313, X (fall2007).
50. Elizabeth S. Kisthardt, Comment, Singling Them Out: The Influence ofthe "Boy Crisis"
on the New Title IX Regulations, 22 Wis. Women's L.J. 313, X (Fall 2007) (citing Chlistina Hoff
Sommers, The War Against Boys: How Misguided Feminism Is Hanning Our Young Men, 14
(2000)).
5 I. Elizabeth S. Kisthardt, Comment, Singling Them Out: The Influence of the "Boy Crisis"
on the New Title IX Regulations, 22 Wis. Women's L.J. 3 13, X (Fall 2007) (citing Christina Hoff
Sommers, The War Against Boys: How Misguided Feminism Is Ham1ing Our Young Men, 14
(2000)).
52 . Elizabeth S. Kisthardt, Comment, Singling Them Out: The Influence ofthe "Boy Crisis"
on the New Title IX Regulations, 22 Wis. Women's L.J. 3 13, X (Fall 2007) (citing Christina Hoff
Sommers, The War Against Boys: How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men, 14
(2000)).
53 . See NOW and Single-Sex Education, National Organization for Women,
http://www.now.org/issues/educationlsingle-sex-education.html (last visited January 15, 2009)
(voicing strong opposition to the practice of single-sex education); ACLU Says Single-Sex
Education
Proposal Gets
Failing Grade,
American
Civil
Liberties
Union,
http://www.aclu.org/womensrights/gen/13134prs20040303.html , (March 3, 2004) (repudiating
the policy of single-sex education and arguing that the implementation of single-sex education
will adversely affect the advances against education discrimination that women have already
made).
54. Single-Sex Education Spreads, USA TODAY, Oct. 13, 2008, at 12A.
55. Single-Sex Education Spreads, USA TODAY, Oct. 13, 2008, at 12A.
56. Single-Sex Education Spreads, USA TODAY, Oct. 13, 2008, at 12A.
57. Single-Sex Education Spreads, USA TODAY, Oct. 13, 2008, at 12A (remarking that
single-sex education nmakes parents and teachers happy and aids children).
58. Single-Sex Education Spreads, USA TODAY, Oct. 13,2008, at 12A.
59. Rebecca A . Kiselewich, Note, In Defense of the 2006 Title IX Regulations for SingleSex Public Education: How Separate Can Be Equal, 49 B.C.L. Rev. 217 n. 95 (2008). This
rationale was the one that this author heard most frequently for the all-boy school he attended.
An all-girl catholic girls' school located down the street. Boys would hang around the girls'
school after classes were over in the afternoon. It isn't clear whether the segregation avoided
distraction, or resulted in increased interest. In any event, because of financial exigency, the
girl's school and the boy's school merged sh01tly after this author's graduation period. There is
perhaps no way of knowing whether the students were more "distracted."
60. Rebecca A. Kiselewich, Note, In Defense of the 2006 Title IX Regulations for SingleB.C.L_,_Rev _,_217 ,JU2008}.
Sex Public Education: How Separate Can Be Equal, 49 _
61. Patricia B. Campbell & Ellen Wahl, OfTwo Minds: Single-Sex Education, Coeducation,
and the Search for Gender-Equity in K- 12 Public Schooling, 14 N.Y.L. Sch. J. Hum. Rts. 289,
290 ( 1997).
62. Reference Kentucky case63.

-

Files

Collection

Citation

Bill Piatt, “CLE: 2009: Gender Segregation in the Public Schools: Opportunity Inequality or Both?,” St. Mary's Law Digital Repository, accessed June 28, 2017, http://lawspace.stmarytx.edu/item/STMU_HomecomingCLE2009Piatt.

Document Viewer