Public Education: Issues Involving Single-Gender Schools and Programs
(Letter Report, 05/28/96, GAO/HEHS-96-122).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the major educational
and legal issues involved with public single-gender education.

GAO found that: (1) single-gender educational programs are thought to
reduce dropout rates and improve overall academic performance among
urban males and academic achievement in mathematics and science among
females; (2) single-gender settings are believed to reduce the
distraction boys and girls create for each other, particularly during
the middle school years; (3) some studies of minority students in
private single-gender schools have suggested that both boys and girls
improve academically in such settings; (4) the effectiveness of
single-gender programs may be due more to students' and parents'
motivation and commitment and small student populations; (5) some
experts fear that single-gender educational programs will lead to
unequal resource allocations and reinforcement of stereotypes; (6) some
believe that training teachers in diversity and equity, creating smaller
classes, and providing more individual attention would be just as
effective in coeducational settings; (7) some public schools have
terminated or modified their single-gender programs because of federal
and state limitations on single-gender educational programs; and (8) the
Department of Education has received numerous complaints regarding
single-gender educational settings.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  HEHS-96-122
     TITLE:  Public Education: Issues Involving Single-Gender Schools 
             and Programs
      DATE:  05/28/96
   SUBJECT:  Elementary education
             Secondary education
             Sex discrimination
             Civil rights
             Educational programs
             Women
             Minority education
             Judicial opinions
             Public schools
             Constitutional law
IDENTIFIER:  Philadelphia (PA)
             Baltimore (MD)
             Ventura (CA)
             Connecticut
             Brooklyn (NY)
             Dade County (FL)
             Prince George's County (MD)
             Virginia
             
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major          **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters,    **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and       **
** single lines.  The numbers on the right end of these lines   **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the      **
** document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the  **
** page numbers of the printed product.                         **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                                            **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************


Cover
================================================================ COVER


Report to the Chairman, Committee on the Budget, House of
Representatives

May 1996

PUBLIC EDUCATION - ISSUES
INVOLVING SINGLE-GENDER SCHOOLS
AND PROGRAMS

GAO/HEHS-96-122

Single-Gender Public Education

(104847)


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  MSU - Mississippi State University for Women
  OCR - Office for Civil Rights
  VMI - Virginia Military Institute

Letter
=============================================================== LETTER


B-271256

May 28, 1996

The Honorable John R.  Kasich
Chairman, Committee on the Budget
House of Representatives

Dear Mr.  Chairman: 

Growing concern over student performance and behavior in public
elementary and secondary schools has led some educators and
policymakers to consider single-gender educational settings to
improve student performance.  Local efforts have produced a variety
of single-gender in-school and after-school programs.  Certain states
have also shown interest in promoting single-gender settings.  For
example, Virginia recently passed legislation permitting schools to
establish single-gender classes consistent with constitutional
principles, and in California the governor's 1996-97 budget proposes
single-gender academies for students at risk of low achievement or
dropping out.  On the federal level, in recent years the Senate has
seen at least three bills with single-gender education components. 
The latest, S.  1205, the Mentor Schools Act, was introduced in the
fall of 1995. 

Because of this recent interest, you asked us to identify the major
educational and legal issues involved with public single-gender
education and to cite some examples of recent public single-gender
education programs.  To develop this information, we interviewed
local education agency officials in certain districts that had a
variety of single-gender programs and officials at the Department of
Education and other organizations who have had a role in
single-gender education issues or research.  We also reviewed some
recent court decisions, law review articles, and other literature. 
In addition, the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights
(OCR) provided us with examples of different types of single-gender
educational settings from the complaints and requests for guidance it
had received.  We conducted our study between February and April 1996
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 


   RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1

Legal and educational issues surround single-gender elementary and
secondary public education.  Specifically, the basic issues involve
the (1) legality of single-gender programs; (2) effectiveness of such
programs in promoting desired educational outcomes; and (3) even if
effective, desirability of using such programs to achieve identified
goals, such as fostering improved academic and social performance in
boys and teaching girls mathematics in a nonthreatening setting. 

Some public elementary and secondary schools have recently offered
single-gender classes or programs in a coeducational setting. 
However, some of these programs have been terminated or have been
modified to not exclude anyone on the basis of gender because federal
or state officials determined that the programs had violated Title IX
of the Education Amendments of 1972 or applicable state laws and
policies.  School districts that have such programs could face
lawsuits brought under Title IX, the equal protection clause of the
U.S.  Constitution, state constitutions, or state laws. 


   BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2

Public education evolved from primarily single-gender (boys')
education to primarily coeducation before the turn of the 20th
century.\1 In colonial America, formal public education was primarily
available to boys; girls were typically educated informally and in
the home.  Gradually, girls began to be integrated into the public
elementary or "common" schools and, by the middle of the 19th
century, almost as many girls as boys were attending these schools. 

Most of the common schools were small and located in rural areas
where the economy of educating boys and girls together may have
played a part in the coeducational model.  Coeducational schools also
thrived, however, in urban areas where population density made
separate schools a more practical alternative.  During the 1800s, the
desirability of coeducation in secondary schools was debated, and
opponents cited the need to protect girls both from danger to their
health and from boys.  In addition, considerable discussion centered
on the appropriate curriculum, including differences in abilities and
learning styles of boys and girls and whether they should learn the
same subjects in school. 

By 1890, coeducation was clearly the most common model for public
schools; in a survey of 628 U.S.  school superintendents, only 41
reported having single-gender schools.  Reviewing the findings of
this survey, the U.S.  Office of Education and the National Education
Association's Committee on the Education of Girls concluded at that
time that the debate over the preferability of coeducation had been
settled.  Nevertheless, some single-gender schools existed. 

In 1972, nondiscrimination legislation was passed to protect students
from discrimination in education on the basis of gender.  Title IX of
the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits school districts from
discriminating against students on the basis of sex and sets legal
limits to single-gender public education.  In addition, several court
cases in recent years have challenged single-gender public education
under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S.  Constitution. 

In the last 2 years, at least three bills with single-gender
education components were introduced in the Senate.  In 1994, the
Senate passed the Danforth Amendment to the Improving America's
Schools Act of 1994.  The amendment would have allowed a limited
number of single-gender classrooms as demonstration projects;
however, the demonstration projects were eliminated from the bill in
conference.  On May 15, 1995, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison introduced
S.  829, a bill to provide limited waivers from Title IX and other
statutes to permit single-gender classes to enable researchers to
collect data on the effectiveness of such classes for low-income
educationally disadvantaged children.  It was referred to the
Committee on Labor and Human Resources.  On September 6, 1995,
Senator Dan Coats introduced S.  1205, the Mentor Schools Act.  The
purposes of the proposed bill are to (1) award grants to local
education agencies for establishing same-gender schools for
low-income students; (2) determine whether same-gender schools make a
difference in the educational achievement and opportunities of
low-income, educationally disadvantaged individuals; (3) improve
academic achievement and persistence in school; and (4) involve
parents in the educational options and choices of their children. 
The bill authorizes an appropriation of $300 million for fiscal year
1996 and additional sums as necessary for 1997 to 2000 to carry out
the act.  As of May 1996, this bill was in committee. 


--------------------
\1 David Tyack and Elisabeth Hansot, Learning Together, A History of
Coeducation in American Public Schools (New Haven, Conn.:  Yale
University Press, 1990). 


   EDUCATIONAL ISSUES
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3


      PROBLEMS THAT SINGLE-GENDER
      PROGRAMS MIGHT ADDRESS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.1

Educators and other experts\2 with whom we spoke view single-gender
programs as a way to address (1) high dropout rates, low academic
achievement, and other problems faced by many urban males--
particularly minorities--and (2) girls' low academic performance in
advanced mathematics and science; general lack of confidence,
competence, and leadership skills; and narrow views of potential
careers.  The distraction that boys and girls may cause each other
when in the same classrooms further contributes to problems for
coeducation settings. 

The concept of classrooms and schools that provide students male role
models and cultural and social awareness enjoys popularity among many
educators who see such settings as opportunities to combat high
dropout rates, low academic achievement, and other problems faced by
many urban males--particularly minorities.  These programs typically
provide mentoring, tutoring, field trips, and other personal and
academic enrichment activities.  They emphasize self-esteem building
and responsibility to the community. 

Recent research on the academic achievement of young girls suggests
that they defer to boys in coeducational classrooms, are called on
less than boys, and are less likely than boys to study advanced
mathematics and science.  Some educators believe that single-gender
settings can improve girls' academic performance and attitude toward
these subjects.  Such settings typically emphasize enhancing
confidence, competence, and leadership skills as well as expanding
their views of potential careers. 

Finally, some educators report that single-gender settings reduce the
distraction that boys and girls create for each other.  They believe
all-boy or all-girl classes provide calmer classrooms with lower risk
for educational failure.  The middle school years are the most
distracting for students, according to some educators. 


--------------------
\2 The academic experts with whom we consulted were Cornelius
Riordon, David Sadker, Susan McGee Bailey, and Spencer Holland. 


      EFFECTIVENESS OF
      SINGLE-GENDER SETTINGS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.2

Many educators are convinced of the value of single-gender settings
for urban minority males.  Several program officials we spoke with
reported improved test scores, better attendance, or improved
behavior among students in single-gender settings.  Although public
school single-gender programs have not been rigorously researched,
some studies of minority students in private single-gender schools
suggest academic gains for both boys and girls.  The most commonly
cited studies are those by Cornelius Riordan of Providence College,
who showed that African American and Hispanic students of both sexes
do better in single-gender schools on all tests and score nearly a
year above their counterparts in coeducational schools.\3 In a more
recent study of single-gender schools in four countries (Belgium, New
Zealand, Thailand, and Japan), however, Riordan concluded that
single-gender schools do not have uniform and consistent effects and
their effects are conditional.  That is, single-gender schools are
most effective when they are atypical:  "The more that these schools
remain rare and special, the more effective they will be for those
[sic] minority of students who select them."\4 Moreover, he points
out that the most important factor contributing to the observed gains
may be the parents' and students' making what he calls a "proacademic
choice," not the single-gender setting. 

Officials we spoke with from all-girl programs were enthusiastic
about the girls' performance.  As evidence of success they cited
increased competence and confidence, development of leadership
qualities, and better focus on academics than girls in coeducational
classes. 

Some recent studies have focused on gender bias against girls; they
have viewed problems arising from such bias in coeducational settings
compared with control groups of girls in single-gender settings.  For
example, a 1992 report by the Wellesley College Center for Research
on Women for the American Association of University Women\5

analyzed more than 1,200 research studies on girls and boys in public
schools.  It found, among other things, that girls receive
significantly less teacher attention than boys, the gender gap in
science has not declined and may be increasing, and many standardized
tests contain elements of sex bias.  In addition, the work of Myra
and David Sadker explores and documents the gender bias girls face in
coeducational classrooms and its adverse effects on their academic
and career aspirations and self-esteem.\6

Also in 1992, the Department of Education's Office of Education
Research and Improvement convened a group of researchers and
practitioners to share their views and findings about single-gender
education.  The conferees reviewed and discussed various research
studies and agreed that some studies support the assertion that
single-gender schools may provide benefits.  They also noted,
however, that all single-gender schools are not equal in providing a
productive learning environment and many factors contributing to the
success of effective single-gender schools are fundamental to
effective schools regardless of their gender policy:  a small student
body, strong emphasis on academics, and commitment to the school's
mission and values.\7


--------------------
\3 Cornelius Riordan, Girls and Boys in School, Together or Separate? 
(New York:  Teachers College Press, 1990). 

\4 Cornelius Riordan, "Single-Gender Schools:  Outcomes for African
and Hispanic Americans," Research in Sociology of Education and
Socialization, Vol.  18 (1994), pp.  177-205. 

\5 Susan McGee Bailey, The AAUW Report:  How Schools Shortchange
Girls, Center for Research on Women at Wellesley College (Wellesley,
Mass.:  1992). 

\6 Myra and David Sadker, Failing at Fairness:  How America's Schools
Cheat Girls, (New York:  Charles Scribner's Sons, MacMillan
Publishing Company, 1994). 

\7 See Single-Sex Schooling:  Perspectives From Practice and
Research, Vol.  1, U.S.  Department of Education, Office of
Educational Research and Improvement, OR-94-3152 (Dec.  1993) for a
selective review of the literature through 1991 on effectiveness of
single-gender schooling on the elementary, secondary, and
postsecondary levels.  For more current sources, see Roberta Tovey,
"Gender Equity:  A Narrowly Gender-Based Mode of Learning May End Up
Cheating All Students," The Harvard Education Letter, July/August
(1995), pp.  3-6. 


      DESIRABILITY OF
      SINGLE-GENDER SETTINGS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.3

Although single-gender settings may help avoid gender bias and the
distractions of coeducational classrooms, some experts question
whether they are the best remedy.  They acknowledge the urgent
problems single-gender programs are meant to solve; they also express
concerns, however, about the risk of a separate and unequal
allocation of education resources and the reinforcement of
stereotypes that certain groups are low achievers and need extra
help.  Some experts caution that a program focusing on providing
special services to urban minority males may not acknowledge that
urban minority females share some of the same social and academic
problems. 

Some experts who are not proponents of single-gender education as a
strategy noted that research has not conclusively identified
single-gender education as the desired solution to gender bias in
coeducational settings.  Some believe that successful strategies used
in single-gender settings--
smaller classes and more individual attention--can be just as
effective in coeducational settings.  They believe teacher training
in diversity and equity can also contribute to a bias-free
coeducational classroom.  Finally, some experts caution that
separating the sexes should not be viewed as a simple solution to
complex problems and that program goals, content, and desired
outcomes must be carefully scrutinized. 


   LEGAL ISSUES
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

Whatever the effectiveness and desirability of single-gender
programs, single-gender public elementary and secondary education is
limited by law.  Restricting enrollment in a public school program to
either gender may discriminate on the basis of gender and, thus, be
contrary to Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.  It may
also violate the equal protection clauses of the U.S.  Constitution
and state constitutions.\8


--------------------
\8 Our overview of legal issues does not include discussion of the
Equal Educational Opportunities Act, which was passed in 1974 and
prohibits, among other things, student assignment to a school other
than a neighborhood school if assignment results in more segregation
of students on the basis of race, color, sex, or national origin
among the schools than would result if such students were assigned to
the school closest to their homes.  The purpose of the act was to
specify appropriate remedies for the orderly elimination of vestiges
of dual (for example, racially segregated) school systems; it has
limited applicability in gender discrimination where choice of school
is voluntary and has rarely been invoked in gender-based lawsuits. 


      TITLE IX
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1

Title IX prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender in
educational programs receiving federal financial assistance.\9
Although Title IX does not govern admissions practices at the
elementary and secondary school level except for vocational schools,
it does require that school districts provide comparable facilities,
courses, and services to boys and girls.  Thus, Title IX does not
preclude a school district from having single-gender schools.  Title
IX as implemented by the Department of Education regulation, however,
generally prohibits single-gender classrooms in coeducational
schools.  The regulation has some exceptions; for example,
single-gender classes are permitted for portions of physical
education classes when students are playing contact sports or
portions of classes on human sexuality.  It may also be possible for
a school to have single-gender classrooms as a remedy for past
discrimination or as a form of affirmative action under certain
specific conditions.  (See app.  I for a complete list of
exceptions.)

Officials at the Department of Education's OCR, which enforces Title
IX, state they have had relatively few complaints or requests for
guidance on either single-gender schools or single-gender classrooms
in the last 10 years.  In each instance in which a complaint about a
single-gender program has been filed with OCR, the school district
and OCR have resolved the matter. 


--------------------
\9 Title IX, of course, also applies to postsecondary education, but
this report and the discussion of Title IX are limited to elementary
and secondary schools. 


         SINGLE-GENDER SCHOOLS
-------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1.1

Single-gender public elementary and secondary schools may violate
Title IX if the school districts do not provide comparable
facilities, courses, and services to both boys and girls.  OCR has
investigated complaints against two allegedly single-gender public
schools\10 but concluded that neither of them violated Title IX. 

In 1992, OCR investigated complaints in Philadelphia and Baltimore
alleging that the school districts maintained single-gender public
high schools for girls only--Baltimore's Western High School and
Philadelphia High School for Girls.  OCR examined whether the school
districts were excluding anyone on the basis of gender from the
districts' schools.  School officials of both schools stated that
they did not deny admission to boys and the schools were open to both
boys and girls. 

Philadelphia High School for Girls traces its inception to the Model
School, which opened as a coeducational teacher's training school in
1818 and became the Girl's Normal School in 1848.  A school district
official reported that the school offers an academic enrichment
curriculum and the usual extracurricular activities such as sports
and music.  Currently, about 1,500 girls attend the school, which
includes grades 9 through 12.  According to school officials, the
school draws students from all over the city, and--reflecting school
district demographics--about 44 percent of the students are from
families below the poverty line.  They told us that the school
targets for admission students with high academic performance and
good attendance and report that about 98 percent of its graduates
attend college.  In 1992, the school was one of nine magnet high
schools in the city.  During OCR's investigation, district officials
stated that all students are encouraged to apply to these magnet
schools and are provided with booklets that describe the high school
programs.  OCR found that district officials had no policy of
excluding males from this school so the district had not violated
Title IX. 

Baltimore's Western High School was founded in 1844 to provide girls
an opportunity to receive an education beyond the elementary level. 
School officials told us that the school became college preparatory
in the 1960s; about 96 percent of the current graduates go to
college.  From the beginning it offered a liberal arts curriculum as
it does today; it also provides the typical after-school programs
such as sports and clubs.  Western is 1 of 10 citywide high schools
in Baltimore and draws qualified students from the entire city.  To
be accepted for admission, students must have a B average, and, to
remain at the school, they must maintain a C average.  Total
enrollment in grades 9 through 12 is about 1,250.  Students at the
school come from about 30 national and ethnic groups, and about 80
percent are African American.  During a review of Western's policies
and curriculum, OCR found that other citywide high schools also
offered programs to both sexes similar to those offered at Western. 
District officials stated that the booklets the guidance staff
distribute have no language indicating that Western is for girls only
and applications are evaluated on merit and ranked in order without
regard to sex.  OCR found that the district did not exclude male
students from applying or attending Western and was therefore in
compliance with Title IX. 


--------------------
\10 These were the only public schools with single-gender enrollments
at the elementary or secondary level that we could identify as
operating in recent years. 


         SINGLE-GENDER CLASSROOMS
-------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1.2

Typical requests for guidance and complaints brought against school
districts involving single-gender classrooms, which are generally
prohibited under the Title IX regulation,\11 include single-gender
physical education classes, segregated technology classes,
single-gender math classes for math-phobic girls, and single-gender
mentoring clubs.  Complaints were resolved in a variety of ways. 

Complaints against single-gender physical education classes are among
the most common.  OCR states that schools segregate the sexes,
unaware that in most cases this is not permissible under the Title IX
regulation, although the regulation does permit portions of classes
when students are playing contact sports to be separated by gender. 
These complaints are generally resolved by changing the physical
education classes to coeducational classes.  Merely adding
coeducational classes while maintaining single-gender classes does
not resolve the violation.  Schools must discontinue segregating
their physical education classes on the basis of gender to comply
with the Title IX regulation. 

Another type of complaint OCR has received alleges single-gender
mathematics classes for girls.  For example, in Ventura, California,
the school district piloted a program to see if math sections
composed primarily of girls who were math phobic or otherwise
reluctant math students could, with support from adults, increase the
girls' enrollment in higher level math courses.  Some boys also fit
this profile and were enrolled in the pilot classes.  In response to
a complaint filed with OCR, the district modified its procedures for
counseling, registering, and recruiting students for the pilot math
classes to reflect academic need rather than gender.  The classes are
therefore described as providing a supportive environment for
students who are math phobic or doubtful about their ability to
succeed in challenging mathematics courses; all students regardless
of gender who fit these categories can be targeted and encouraged to
enroll. 

The Connecticut Department of Education also sought OCR's guidance on
a new introductory technology course to be offered in two formats, an
all-girl class and a mixed-gender class.  After discussion with OCR,
Connecticut revised the format so that it had a "regular class and a
second class targeted for female students but accessible to all
students regardless of sex." Both classes were to be open to all
students, and OCR noted that the revised proposal did not appear to
raise concerns of discrimination under Title IX. 

Concern for at-risk males has led some school districts to experiment
with a separate educational program for minority males.  One such
school in Brooklyn, New York, operated a separate third grade class
for at-risk minority students, which was alleged to separate students
by race and gender.  OCR's investigation did not support the
allegation of race segregation since the school was 100-percent
minority; however, it did find that students were separated on the
basis of gender.  Regarding separation by gender, the New York Public
School system agreed that if it decided to have a special program for
at-risk students, it would submit criteria to OCR for placing at-risk
students in a gender-neutral manner, document the reason each student
was chosen for the class, and keep a record of the gender of each
student in the class.  According to OCR, the program was a 2-year
pilot program and was not renewed. 

Another program, which targeted young African American males with no
male role models at home, was the object of a request for OCR
guidance from Dade County Public Schools in Florida.  Dade County
wanted to evaluate the effect of having a gender- and race-segregated
class with a male teacher for young African American males in
kindergarten and first grade.  OCR found that such division by race
would violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964\12 and such
division by gender would violate Title IX.  OCR determined that the
proposal to assign students on the basis of gender, even though
voluntary on the part of the boys who would participate, is not
allowed under the Title IX regulation and does not fit into the
rationale for the stated exceptions to the regulation. 


--------------------
\11 The Title IX regulation states that a "recipient shall not
provide any course or otherwise carry out any of its education
program or activity separately on the basis of sex...." (34 C.F.R. 
106.34).  See app.  I for exceptions to this general prohibition. 

\12 Title VI prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or
national origin in programs or activities receiving federal financial
assistance. 


         SINGLE-GENDER CLUBS
-------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1.3

Mentoring is another area in which OCR has received a complaint.  The
complaint alleged that Prince George's County Public Schools in
Maryland sponsored single-gender mentoring clubs for boys.  Upon
investigation, OCR found that the district operated a multimillion
dollar program of single-gender clubs for boys and operated a
significantly smaller program of single-gender clubs for girls.  At
least one of these clubs for boys is operating at all of the county's
176 schools, and, at some of the schools, the district also funds
community-based clubs for boys only.  OCR found that the district
operates only 31 clubs for girls. 

The need for mentoring activities through single-gender clubs was
articulated by the district in a report on African American male
achievement recommending that the district strengthen its efforts to
provide students with mentors and experiences that forge ties between
academics and the work world.  OCR noted that single-gender clubs
would comport with Title IX in meeting affirmative action standards
only if (1) those who have experienced conditions resulting in a
limited opportunity to participate in the district's programs due to
their gender are the targeted beneficiaries, (2) less discriminatory
alternatives have been considered and rejected, and (3) the evidence
demonstrates that comparable gender-neutral means could not be
reasonably expected to produce the results desired. 

OCR found that despite the laudable goals of the district's program,
it did not appear that the means to achieve those goals had been
tailored to comply with the Title IX regulation.  In response, the
district opened all district-sponsored programs, clubs, and
activities to all qualified students regardless of gender (excluding
such usual Title IX exemptions as football and other contact sports). 
The district also agreed to ensure that female students are informed
of and are welcomed into the district's formerly all-male mentoring
programs and male students are informed of and are welcomed into the
district's formerly all-female mentoring programs. 


      EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF
      U.S.  CONSTITUTION
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.2

Single-gender public education could also be challenged under the
Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S.  Constitution.  The equal protection
clause of the Fourteenth Amendment declares that a state may not deny
anyone its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.  The U.S. 
Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the constitutionality of
single-gender elementary or secondary schools.  Several cases,
however, such as Mississippi University for Women v.  Hogan,\13

Vorchheimer v.  School District of Philadelphia,\14 and Garrett v. 
Board of Education of School District of Detroit,\15 may provide
guidance for policy decisions being made on single-gender schools. 

The U.S.  Supreme Court addressed the issue of a single-gender
college in Hogan in 1982.  A male student sought admission to a
state-supported professional nursing program at Mississippi State
University for Women (MSU).  He was denied admission solely on the
basis of gender because MSU has been limited to women since it was
created by Mississippi statute in 1884.  Hogan claimed that the
admissions policy violated the equal protection clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment.  The Supreme Court agreed with Hogan in a five
to four decision.  In its analysis, the Court defined the standard
applied in this case:  A state needs to show an "exceedingly
persuasive justification" for classifying individuals on the basis of
gender.  That burden can be met only by showing that the
classification serves "important governmental objectives" and that
the discriminatory means employed are "substantially related" to
achieving those objectives.\16 Under Hogan, this test must be applied
free of fixed notions about roles and abilities of males and females. 

In applying this standard to the facts, the Court found the state's
argument that its single-sex admissions policy compensates for
discrimination against women to be unpersuasive.  Mississippi had not
shown that women lacked opportunities to obtain nursing training when
the school opened its doors or that women were deprived of such
opportunities when Hogan sought admission.  The Court found that
Mississippi's policy of excluding males from admission, rather than
compensate for discriminatory barriers faced by women, tended to
perpetuate the stereotyped view of nursing as an exclusively women's
profession.  The policy also failed because the state did not show
that the gender-based classification was substantially and directly
related to its proposed compensatory objective. 

The issue of single-gender public high schools came up in the
Vorchheimer case in 1976, which was decided before Hogan and
therefore did not use the same analytical framework as Hogan.  A
female high school student was denied admission to an all-male
academic high school in Philadelphia solely because of her sex.  The
Philadelphia School District at that time operated two single-gender
academic high schools, Central High School and Philadelphia High
School for Girls.  The court found both schools to have excellent
reputations for academic excellence.  Enrollment in either school was
voluntary.  The district also provided "comprehensive" coed high
schools that included courses required for college admission and
advanced placement courses.  The U.S.  Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit found that Girls and Central were academically and
functionally equivalent and, consequently, the admission requirements
based on gender classification did not offend the equal protection
clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.  The court reasoned that gender
should not be treated the same as race under the equal protection
clause because, although no fundamental difference exists between
races, differences between boys and girls do exist that may, in
limited circumstances, justify disparity in law.  It also noted that
the primary aim of any school system must be to furnish an education
of as high a quality as feasible.  "Thus, given the objective of a
quality education and a controverted, but respected theory that
adolescents may study more effectively in single-sex schools, the
policy of the school board here does bear a substantial relationship"
to providing high- quality education.\17

Vorchheimer was decided in 1976 and predates the Supreme Court's
decision in Hogan discussed above.  In Hogan, the Supreme Court
referred to the Vorchheimer case to show how the issue it was
deciding differed from that in Vorchheimer.  The Supreme Court
stated, "We are not faced with the question of whether States can
provide `separate but equal' undergraduate institutions for males and
females," as was the case in Vorchheimer. 

The Supreme Court may answer the "separate but equal" question for
colleges in a pending case, United States v.  Virginia.\18 Virginia
was found by the U.S.  Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to be
violating the equal protection clause of the U.S.  Constitution\19 in
operating Virginia Military Institute (VMI) as a male-only military
college and not providing a similar single-gender educational
environment for women.  The court of appeals gave Virginia the option
of admitting women to VMI, discontinuing its support of VMI, or
establishing a parallel program for women.  Virginia established a
parallel program--the Virginia Women's Institute for Leadership at
Mary Baldwin.  In reviewing this remedy, the court of appeals found
that the distinctions in the VMI program and the Mary Baldwin program
are justifiable because of gender differences but that the programs
were otherwise comparable in substance.  The following issues are on
appeal before the U.S.  Supreme Court:  (1) whether a state that
provides a rigorous military-style public education program for men
can remedy the unconstitutional denial of the same opportunity to
women by offering them a different type of single-gender educational
program and (2) whether coeducation is the required remedy in this
case. 

Finally, a district court decision may also help guide school
districts.  In Garrett, the Detroit School District sought to
establish three male academies in 1991 to serve approximately 250
boys from preschool through fifth grade, with grades six to eight
phased in over the next few years.  The academies were to offer
special programs, including an Afrocentric curriculum, mentors,
Saturday classes, individualized counseling, and uniforms.  The
plaintiffs contended that these special programs did not require a
uniquely male atmosphere to succeed and that they addressed issues
females face, too.  Moreover, the academies did not target only
at-risk boys but boys from all achievement levels. 

The case came to the court on a motion for a preliminary injunction. 
In such cases, the courts do not render a final decision, but they
will grant an injunction forbidding a party from engaging in certain
activity if they find, among other things, that it is likely that
plaintiffs would succeed at trial and would suffer irreparable injury
if the injunction is not granted.  The court applied the standard
used in Hogan; it found that both the U.S.  Constitution and the
Michigan Constitution prohibit the exclusion of an individual from a
publicly funded school because of his or her gender unless the school
district can show that gender-based classification serves important
governmental objectives and that the discriminatory means employed
are substantially related to achieving those objectives.  The court
noted that no evidence existed that the education system was failing
urban males because of females attending schools with males.  The
preliminary injunction was granted, and the case never came to
trial.\20 The parties agreed to expand the academies to include girls
and to have comparable male-focused and female-focused classes and
activities. 


--------------------
\13 458 U.S.  718 (1982). 

\14 532 F.2d 880 (3d Cir.  1976), affirmed by an equally divided
court, 430 U.S.  703 (1977). 

\15 775 F.  Supp.  1004 (E.D.  Mich.  1991). 

\16 This standard for review for gender classifications is known as
"intermediate scrutiny." The Supreme Court has articulated two other
levels of scrutiny that can be applied in constitutional cases.  Race
classifications receive "strict scrutiny," which requires that there
be a compelling governmental interest and the means employed to
achieve that interest must be narrowly tailored.  Other cases must
only pass the "rational basis test," which requires that the state
have a legitimate interest and that its means of achievement have a
fair and substantial relationship to its interest. 

\17 On appeal, the decision in Vorchheimer was affirmed without
comment by an equally divided Supreme Court, which means Vorchheimer
is precedential only in the Third Circuit.  Subsequently, in 1983,
female students again sought admission to the all-boys Central High
School and brought suit in the Common Pleas Court of Philadelphia
County alleging that being denied admission to Central violated their
rights under the Pennsylvania Constitution and the U.S. 
Constitution.  The Court found that Vorchheimer did not bar the claim
because representation by plaintiff's counsel in Vorchheimer was
"materially inadequate." That is, because the plaintiff's counsel
made a very serious mistake by not providing the court with relevant
evidence, the court could hear this case even though it was on the
same facts and law.  The court went on to order the admission of the
girls to Central.  In finding the representation inadequate, the
trial court noted many facts not considered by the Vorchheimer court: 
for example, the boys' campus was almost three times larger, its
library had almost twice as many books, the boys' school had a
computer room, and its graduates received almost twice the amount of
money for college scholarships.  The court found that both the
Pennsylvania Constitution and the U.S.  Constitution had been
violated.  Central High School is currently coeducational.  The Girls
School, according to officials, does not deny admission to boys, but
no boys are enrolled.  See also the earlier discussion of this school
on page 8. 

\18 44 F.3d 1229 (4th Cir.  1995), cert.  granted, 116 S.  Ct.  281
(1995), argued, Jan.  17, 1996. 

\19 Title IX is not applicable because the statute excepts
undergraduate institutions of higher education that have
traditionally and continually had a policy of admitting only students
of one sex.  VMI is such an institution. 

\20 The court also noted that because Detroit did not offer schools
for girls comparable to male academies, the court did not need to
address whether the district could provide separate but equal public
schools for boys and girls. 


      EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSES OF
      STATE CONSTITUTIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.3

In addition to the equal protection clause of the U.S.  Constitution,
some state constitutions have similar equal protection provisions or
equal rights amendments that have been interpreted by their courts as
more rigorous or restrictive than the federal equal protection
clause.  Thus, even if a particular example of a single-gender
education program is acceptable under federal law, it may still be
challenged under state laws. 


   EXAMPLES OF SINGLE-GENDER
   EDUCATION PROGRAMS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

Most single-gender education programs we identified were classroom
rather than schoolwide programs.  Several of the programs we
examined, including those described below, have not been reviewed by
OCR, and these programs may not be in compliance with Title IX.  The
five single-gender programs discussed in this section were operating
at the time of our study.  Following are descriptions of such
programs based primarily on information we obtained from interviews
conducted with program officials. 


      ALL-BOY ACADEMY WITHIN A
      COEDUCATIONAL MIDDLE SCHOOL
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.1

In September 1995, a large urban middle school (grades seven and
eight) in a northeastern city established an all-boy academy within
the school.  The academy is one of three magnet programs at the
school.  The school's enrollment is about 1,000 students, of whom
about 99 percent are minority.  The academy program, a 2-year program
for seventh and eighth graders, is voluntary with an enrollment of 57
seventh graders.  The school plans to recruit a new class of seventh
graders to begin in September 1996.  The academy has four teachers,
and the boys travel among these teachers' classrooms.  The objective
of the program is to help the boys become responsible, successful
people and to build self-esteem through academic success.  The
standard middle school curriculum is taught with an emphasis on
individual growth, academic success, social responsibility, and good
citizenship.  Special curriculum components include a mentoring
program in which boys are counseled on subjects such as careers,
gangs, family issues, and academics.  In addition, the curriculum
emphasizes culture, history, society, and technology.  The school is
planning to initiate an all-girl program in September 1996 or 1997. 


      GIRLS' AFTER-SCHOOL PROGRAM
      (ELEMENTARY)
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.2

In autumn 1995, a teacher in a suburban elementary school established
an after-school math and science program for fifth and sixth grade
girls.  The program is intended to encourage girls to study these
subjects and to build self-confidence in their abilities.  It is one
of several after-school programs offered by the school, although the
others--such as basketball, chess, and computers--are for both boys
and girls.  The girls meet every Thursday afternoon for an hour to
learn about science-related matters, such as optical illusions and
the metric system, and to participate in activities to enhance their
enjoyment of math and science such as building tetrahedrons and
playing math strategy games.  The program founder told us the program
has been filled to capacity, and she plans to continue it next year
if the school district funds the late-running school bus that allows
the children to attend an after-school program. 


      ELEMENTARY SCHOOL WITH ALL
      SINGLE-GENDER CLASSES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.3

In 1989, the principal of an urban coeducational elementary school
decided to try single-gender classes in grades one and three.  She
subsequently expanded the program to include grades one through five. 
The program goal is to improve academic achievement for all the
children and to identify best practices to encourage the boys to find
alternatives to violence and to be supportive of each other.  All
students study the standard curriculum and this year have received
special instruction in character issues such as honesty, trust, and
conflict resolution.  After-school activities include mentoring by
high school and college students as well as local business and
professional people.  In addition, representatives from the U.S. 
Armed Forces visit the school weekly to tutor and discuss careers. 
The school operates year-round and offers summer courses aimed at
building self-esteem and promoting career awareness in such areas as
hotel management, nursing, and real estate. 


      MIDDLE SCHOOL WITH CHOICE OF
      SINGLE-GENDER OR
      COEDUCATIONAL CLASSES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.4

The principal in an urban middle school launched a single-gender
program 3 years ago to address both academic and social issues
relative to her students--especially African American boys with
serious learning problems.  In each of the three grades (six through
eight), the school has all-girl classes, all-boy classes, and coed
classes.  Parents may choose whichever setting they prefer.  About
650 students attend the school, and about 99 percent receive free or
reduced-price lunch.  All students in the school study an Afrocentric
curriculum that was in place before the single-gender classes.  The
school has extracurricular mentoring programs for boys and girls and
about 30 other after-school activities, including Karate, chess, and
tutoring.  The boys in the school serve as mentors for the second
grade boys at a nearby elementary school.  The single-gender program
will be discontinued after this school year to comply with the state
administrative code. 


      JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL WITH
      SINGLE-GENDER CLASSES (BOYS'
      AND GIRLS')
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.5

In 1992, the principal in this urban junior high inaugurated
single-gender homerooms for some students to provide a place where
they could talk more openly about issues important to them and where
teachers could provide crisis intervention when necessary.  She
believed it worked so well that the next year she made all classes in
the school (grades seven through nine) single gender.  Her primary
goal was to promote the students' academic success and to also
minimize the distractions of rowdiness or inappropriate behavior
among the students.  She believes that because the students face
danger in their inner city neighborhood, the school must be a safe
haven and likes to consider it a second family for the children.  All
students are taught the standard junior high curriculum, and social
skills and responsibility are emphasized.  The school has a Saturday
program in which students from a nearby college tutor both boys and
girls. 


   OBSERVATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6

Officials we talked to in schools that have experimented recently
with single-gender education said that such programs have resulted in
observable qualitative differences in the behavior of children in
single-gender environments; conclusive quantitative research,
however, on the effectiveness of such public school programs is not
available.  Opponents maintain that targeted problems can be
effectively addressed in coeducational settings without subjecting
students to discrimination on the basis of gender and that the
effectiveness of single-gender programs is questionable.  Proponents
believe, nevertheless, that single-gender programs ought to be
available as tools for improving the academic and social performance
of school children.  Some single-gender programs, however, are
subject to legal impediments. 


   AGENCY COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7

In commenting on a draft of this report, the Assistant Secretary for
Civil Rights in the Department of Education made several suggestions
on the report's purpose, research on single-gender education, and
issues involving legal standards.  As the Assistant Secretary
correctly observed, our study was not intended to be an exhaustive
research effort but was intended to identify the major issues in
single-gender education and cite some examples.  We did, however, add
some additional references that may be useful to researchers. 

Regarding legal standards, the Assistant Secretary asked that we
further clarify and explain the applicable legal principles.  We have
done so in the final report.  The Assistant Secretary also provided
technical comments on specific statements and facts included in our
draft report, and, where appropriate, we used the information to
clarify our report. 


---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :7.1

If you have any questions about this report, please contact me at
(202) 512-7014 or Eleanor L.  Johnson, Assistant Director, at (202)
512-7209.  This report was prepared by Susan Lawless,
Evaluator-in-Charge, and Susan Poling, Assistant General Counsel. 

Sincerely yours,

Carlotta C.  Joyner
Director, Education
 and Employment Issues


TITLE IX AND SINGLE-GENDER
EDUCATION IN ELEMENTARY AND
SECONDARY SCHOOLS
=========================================================== Appendix I

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 generally states that no
person shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in,
be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under
any education program or activity receiving federal financial
assistance (20 U.S.C.  1681 (1990)).  The implementing regulation is
found in part 106 of title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulation. 


      SINGLE-GENDER ELEMENTARY AND
      SECONDARY SCHOOLS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:0.1

The Title IX regulation permits nonvocational, single-gender
elementary and secondary schools, as long as comparable facilities,
courses, and services are made available to students of both genders
(34 C.F.R.  106.35(b)). 


      SINGLE-GENDER CLASSROOMS IN
      ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY
      SCHOOLS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:0.2

The Title IX regulation generally prohibits single-sex classrooms in
coeducational schools.  It states that a "recipient shall not provide
any course or otherwise carry out any of its education program or
activity separately on the basis of sex...." (34 C.F.R.  106.34). 
Following are some exceptions to this regulation: 

  -- contact sports offered in physical education classes (34 C.F.R. 
     106.34(c));

  -- chorus, when based on vocal requirements or quality (34 C.F.R. 
     106.34(f)); and

  -- portions of classes dealing with human sexuality (34 C.F.R. 
     106.34(e)). 

Separate classes may also be provided for pregnant students, but must
be voluntary (34 C.F.R.  106.40(b)(3)). 

If the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights finds discrimination on
the basis of sex, a recipient may be required by the Assistant
Secretary to take remedial action necessary to overcome the effects
of the discrimination (34 C.F.R.  106.3(a)). 

In the absence of a finding of discrimination by the Assistant
Secretary for Civil Rights, a recipient may take affirmative action
to overcome the effects of conditions that have limited participation
by gender (34 C.F.R.  106.3(b)).  Regarding affirmative action, in
particular, the classifications that result in single-gender classes
must be directly related to the reasons for the institution of the
single-gender classes.  This means that the (1) beneficiaries of the
single-gender classes or programs must have had limited opportunities
to participate in a school's programs or activities due to their sex,
(2) less restrictive or segregative alternatives that may have
accomplished the goals of the single-gender classes or programs must
have been considered and rejected, and (3) there must be evidence
that comparable sex-neutral means could not be reasonably expected to
produce the results sought through the single-gender classrooms or
programs. 




(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix II
COMMENTS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION
=========================================================== Appendix I



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)


*** End of document. ***