Counteracting Sex Segregation (11-3-08) Page 1 of 6

Capitalizing on the Expertise of Researchers and Policy Makers to Counteract

Sex Segregation in Public Education

Purpose: There is a great deal that gender equity researchers and policy makers can do to counteract the recent increase in sex discriminatory sex segregation in U.S. public education. This panel will help RWE members receive the latest research and analysis from experts in the National Coalition for Women and Girls in Education (NCWGE) Single Sex Education Task Force. Panel members will help attendees understand how both civil rights policy and research knowledge can work together to end misguided efforts that encourage sex-segregated education that increases sex discrimination and sex stereotyping.

Background: All panel members agree that the 2006 changes to the Title IX regulations which allow sex segregation without adequate safeguards against sex discrimination should be rescinded and that the federal government should go back to the 1975 Title IX regulations which allowed sex segregation under certain limited circumstances. However, different panelists come to the subject from somewhat different perspectives. We are still working on understanding what legal and other justifications should guide decisions about when and where single-sex education is appropriate under the 1975 exceptions allowing sex segregation in public education for remedial and affirmative purposes.

We hope you will listen carefully and question us on some of the nuances in our discussions of what might be appropriate and inappropriate sex segregation in public education. Differences may include:

  • structural rules such as allowing integration of classes designed to serve the needs of one sex such as women’s centers at universities which allow men to receive their services--- to
  • deciding what standards of effectiveness and cost-benefit must be met to allow a sex-segregated program. Must all public sex-segregated programs be able to show that they are just as good as, or superior to, coeducational (non-sexist) programs in decreasing sex discrimination as well as increasing the achievement of other desirable outcomes?

Importance to RWE Mission: Many proponents of sex segregation in U.S. public education misinterpret research results to justify single sex education. They also try to weaken our important civil rights laws which protect against sex, race, and other types of discrimination. In connection with the Conference theme, this panel will help session attendees understand why and how sex segregation in public education is often a barrier to increasing gender equity both in and through education. Presenters will share some solutions to counteract the inappropriate efforts of the proponents of sex segregation in public education. In doing so, they will help refocus attention to create gender equitable coeducation that advances educational equity/equality goals for groups that often face discrimination related to sex, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation/identity, and class.

It is important for educational researchers to understand education policy and for SIG:RWE members to know how their research supports federal and state civil rights laws. Similarly, it is important for those developing and supporting education policies --such as participants in the NCWGE -- to understand how research supports or refutes these policies and how research and evaluation can be used to guide their appropriate implementation.

Participants in the NCWGE Single Sex Task Force will discuss the following questions and recommendations:

Questions

What is the role of the NCWGE Single Sex Education Task Force? Connie Cordovilla, American Federation of Teachers (AFT)

The task force’s background and activities will be briefly summarized by Task Force Co-Chair, Connie Cordovilla. Connie will also moderate the panel and introduce the task force presenters whose short bios are in the Conference program. She will distribute and summarize the “Statement of Task Force Principles” and remind all about the 2008 report of the NCWGE Title IX at 35: Beyond the Headlines which includes a chapter describing why NCWGE recommends rescinding the 2006 changes to the 1975 Title IX regulations which make it easier to justify single sex education in public K-12 non-vocational education. (Copies of the 2008 report summary are being distributed to all Conference attendees and its single sex education chapter and many other handouts will be shared during this session.This whole session including the Q&As will be tape-recorded for future use of the Task Force Members.)

What are legitimate and illegitimate justifications for sex segregation in public K-12 education? Jan Erickson, NOWFoundation

Jan will answer this question by referring to legal and feminist principles. She will address the following questions:

  • What types of sex segregation in K-12 public education have been permissible under the 1975 Title IX regulations and how do they counteract sex discrimination, the key purpose of Title IX. What potentially illegal types of additional sex segregation are allowed under the 2006 changes to the Title IX regulations? (It is common that schools with sex-segregated programs don’t even try to justify or evaluate the segregation to learn if it decreases sex discrimination in outcomes.)
  • Why are these additional types of sex segregation illegal under Title IX and also illegal under other laws or protections against sex discrimination including the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, the Equal Educational Opportunities Act, and state ERAs and other laws? (Lawyers Emily Martin and Lara Kaufmann may provide more details.)

Jan will then highlight what NOW and NCWGE members consider illegitimate justifications that are often used by advocates of single-sex schools and classes. In doing so, she will give some examples of how these illegitimate justifications are used both by people who want to use single sex education to at least in part advance gender equity as well as by people who justify sex segregation for other purposes such as providing school choice. Many of these illegitimate justifications are based on misinterpretations of research. (Data sources: NCWGE Title IX at 35 report, Handbook for Achieving Gender Equity through Education, Chapters 9 and 31, NOW information, Feminist Majority Foundation’s Sex Segregation Web Page . See yellow sheets in general conference folder.)

How can U.S. laws help counteract the recent activities promoting sex segregation in K-12 public education? Emily Martin, Deputy Director, Women’s Rights Project, American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

To set a broad equity context, Emily will note how the weakening changesin federal and state laws allowing sex segregation are counter to laws prohibiting race segregation and promoting the mainstreaming and inclusion of students with disabilities.

She will then expand on Jan’s earlier discussion of the differences between the 1975 Title IX regulations and the 2006 changes and explain why the 2006 changes to Title IX regulations that the NCWGE wants rescinded are illegal and how they have contributed to increased sex segregation in U. S. K-12 public education. There are now over 500 schools that are sex-segregated or that have sex-segregated classes. South Carolina leads as shown in its web page documenting nearly 200 schools with single sex classes. It is also clear from the SC response to questions from FMF in connection with the ongoing “State of the States” analysis of policies and activities related to sex segregation in public K-12 education that the justification for their support for sex segregation is to increase school choice and not to decrease sex discrimination in student outcomes. In fact, the lesson plans and the descriptions of the “single gender” schools they honor show that their sex-segregated classes reinforce sex differences, discrimination, and stereotyping.

Finally, Emily will explain how ACLU is using multiple laws to defend students who are being deprived of their rights by illegal sex segregation and suggest how researchers and gender equity advocates can help.

Recommendations for Policy Makers, Researchers, Evaluators, & Gender Equity Activists to Counteract Illegal or Harmful Sex Segregation in Public Education

Policy Makers should strengthen federal civil rights policies and their implementation to insure protection against sex discrimination and sex segregation.Lara S. Kaufmann, Senior Counsel, National Women’s Law Center

Larawill describe recommendations for the new Congress and Administration to strengthen protections against sex discriminatory public education, including rescinding the 2006 changes to Title IX regulations and better enforcing Title IX.In explaining these potential solutions, Lara will discuss the relationship of Title IX to the Fourteenth Amendment protections especially as they relate to single-sex education. Then she will explain how we may need to get Congress to pass corrective legislation if the Supreme Court makes a detrimental decision in the case of Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Committee. Finally, Lara will point out how the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) can greatly improve enforcement of Title IX by insuring that OCR staff, Equity Assistance Centers, and the required Title IX coordinators actively educate their constituents about: (1) the potential harms of single-sex education; (2) the requirements of the law; and (3) resources for learning about and implementing non-discriminatory strategies that might be more effective at meeting the goal of improved educational outcomes.

Researchers and Evaluators should use R&D and evaluation to determine what works best to identify and curtail inappropriate sex segregation and stereotyping and to advance gender equity in coeducation. Sue Klein, Education Equity Director, Feminist Majority Foundation (FMF) and Co-Chair of the NCWGE Single-Sex Education Task Force.

Educational researchers and evaluators are often asked to share their knowledge of research on gender equity and help with “experiments” related to sex-segregated and coeducation. The following recommendations are designed to help them do this responsibly as individuals and to also provide SIG:RWE leadership in establishing standards and guidelines in conjunction with gender-focused research groups in other professional associations such as the American Psychological Association, the American Evaluation Association, the American Sociological Association, the National Women’s Studies Association, and the National Council for Research on Women, and of course, other organizations in the NCWGE.

Researchers and evaluators should:

  1. Help people understand the research results as discussed by Jan and other Panel members so they won’t have incorrect justifications based on incorrect assumptions.
  2. Make sure that whatever sex segregation they are planning is legal.
  3. Make sure that the required 2 year evaluations compare the educational processes for the sex segregated girls, boys, and coeducational groups.
  4. Make sure that the required 2 year evaluations are able to determine if the sex segregation contributed to decreasing gender inequities in the desired outcomes better than equal quality coeducation—using the What Works Clearinghouse standards of evidence of effectiveness.
  5. Make sure that no sex segregation is approved unless there is evidence that it is more cost effective than high quality comparable coeducational alternatives.
  6. Focus on learning what works to address specific gender equity challenges instead of evaluating sex segregated education as a “general” solution for increasing gender equity. This means using consumer focused strategies such as the Gender Equity Expert Panel and the Doing What Works website to identify and provide information onthe best ways to advance gender equity in coed or possibly in sex segregated settings.

Sue will then review and share a suggested “Outline for Evaluations of Sex Segregated Education”. It provides questions to ask when developing or reviewing a proposed plan for sex-segregated education, guidance on developing and implementing a two-year evaluation plan, and advice on determining if the evaluation results merit continuation of the sex segregation. Similar guidance can be used for evaluating less risky and potentially higher payoff gender equity activities in diverse coeducational settings. (In fact, a renewed effort is needed to increase support for gender equity in coeducation by expanding support for the Women’s Educational Equity Act and other federal programs and reinstituting the Gender Equity Expert Panel to identify promising and exemplary gender equity interventions.) AERA, the American Evaluation Association, and other organizations should play important roles in insisting on the use of scientific evidence to learn what works to continue to increase gender equity and to decrease harmful sex stereotyping and inequities frequently associated with sex segregation. One way the SIG:RWE can do this is to provide guidance and standards that will curtail inappropriate “experiments” in sex segregation and instead pay attention to developing effective research-based solutions to help decrease sex discrimination and thus help both boys and girls achieve their full potential.

Educators and Gender Equity Activists should identify danger signs and use education to counteract misguided justifications and strategies for single sex education. Lisa Maatz, Chair of the National Coalition for Women and Girls in Education and the Director of Public Policy and Government Relations at the American Association of University Women.

Through its chapters, AAUW, NOW, ACLU and many equity and education organizations are in key positions to influence local and state policy decisions related to sex segregation. They do this by taking positions on national, state, and local policies and educating their members and others about these policies and investigating sex segregation in their communities. For example, the DC chapter of AAUW invited DC Public Schools Chancellor, Michele Rhee to be the featured presenter at their meeting after having other meetings with gender equity advocates to learn about Title IX and single-sex education. Local gender equity advocates can also work with Title IX coordinators in school districts and schools to help them in various ways including making sure that any inappropriate sex segregation be curtailed and that sex segregation that is likely to decrease sex discrimination and advance other appropriate governmental objectives is carefully evaluated to ensure that it does so.

Lisa will then expand on educator and feminist concerns mentioned by Jan Erickson and others by providing examples of misguided and legitimate justifications for sex segregated public education based on research reviewed by AAUW and others such as authors of the Handbook for Achieving Gender Equity through Education. Forexample, Lisa will highlight that research shows that:

  • sex-segregated schools and classes are NO more effective than comparable coeducation and that
  • sex-segregation is NOT especially beneficial for low achieving minority populations and that it will be especially important in helping African American males.
  • the belief that girls and boys learn differently so they need to be taught differently in segregated schools and classes is false.
  • all teacher training for single sex (and coeducation) should be designed to assure gender equity but that much of the teacher training is by advocates of sex segregation who reinforce sex stereotypes. For example, Leonard Sax and Michael Gurian and their associates teach gendered education which usually means emphasizing that boys should be encouraged to act like boys and girls like girls. Instead, both sex segregated education and coeducation should be high quality on many dimensions, including careful attention to avoiding and even counteracting sexism and racism. (See ACLU handout)
  • sex-segregated education is consistently more expensive for a public school or district than equal quality coeducation.

Educators and Gender Equity Activists should monitor and take advantage of “education reform legislation” at all levels but we need to provide guidance on how sex stereotyping and inappropriate sex segregation should be explicitly avoided in these education initiatives.Christina Vogt, Women Educators representative to NCWGEis working on this for the DC, AAUW chapter.

Christina will discuss how “education reforms” such as charter schools, vouchers, and support of faith-based activities have encouraged sex segregation in public K-12 education. Christina will trace the history of vouchers and discuss legal cases where they have been upheld as constitutional. She offers a feminist critique of how voucher and choice programs will negatively affect all students in religious schools. She will suggest ways to ensure that federal and state legislation (and implementation) can discourage faith-based initiatives.

Christina will also mention some cases where “citizens' groups” have proposed single sex charter schools in previous Catholic school buildings so that the public school system will rent or purchase this property and service students who are accustomed to private sex-segregated education.