|
6/4/02 – Education policymakers and media pundits have been debating the pros and cons of single-sex schools in the weeks since the U.S. Education Department announced it would amend federal regulations to encourage the creation of such schools in public education.
But local school boards intrigued by claims that single-sex schools boost student achievement might want to wait before they jump on the bandwagon, observers say. The legal waters are murky.
"Is it legally clear what would fly from both a constitutional and Title IX perspective?" says Julie Mead, an assistant professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison who's familiar with the legal issues surrounding public single-sex schools. "No, it's not clear."
U.S. Secretary of Education Rod Paige announced last month that the department would propose amendments to the regulations implementing Title IX, a federal law enacted in 1972 that prohibits school systems from discriminating against students on the basis of sex.
"Our goal is to provide schools with as much flexibility as possible to offer students programs that meet their needs," he says.
The Education Department also is responding to a provision in the No Child Left Behind Act that makes available $3 million in federal grant money for single-sex education. That provision also directs the department to review federal statutes and advise school systems on how to take advantage of the funds.
Paige's announcement has sparked widespread debate about the educational merits of single-sex schools.
Advocates cite research suggesting students perform better academically when not distracted by the opposite sex. Some civil rights groups argue the research is inconclusive and that segregating students raises a host of equity concerns.
For local school boards, the more immediate question is the possibility of litigation.
Although there is some wording in Title IX that leaves the door open to creating single-sex schools, only 12 public schools currently operate single-sex programs, according to the National Association for the Advancement of Single Sex Public Education.
Several are under scrutiny by the Education Department's Office of Civil Rights, reports USA Today, and the American Civil Liberties Union has filed a complaint against one New York City school.
No matter what federal regulations are finally issued, single-sex schools are vulnerable to challenge under Title IX and the equal protection guarantee of the 14th Amendment, Mead says. In 1996, the U.S. Supreme Court cited both in its 7-1 ruling against the male-only education program at Virginia Military Academy.
In that case, she says, the majority opinion by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg used strong language indicating a single-sex education program would need an "exceedingly persuasive justification."
That's not to say such justification is impossible to prove in court, she adds. But, in one Michigan case, a judge ruled against an all-boys public school in Detroit, saying there was no evidence that boys were harmed by being educated alongside girls.
William L. Taylor, acting chairman of the Citizen's Commission on Civil Rights, agrees. "I don't claim that these programs can never be justified," he says. "But they bear a heavy burden of justification. I think school boards would not want to implement [a single-sex school] unless they have strong reason to believe they will serve some very important educational purpose."
Top of Page
| Reproduced with permission from the June 4, 2002, issue of School Board News. Copyright © 2002, National School Boards Association. Opinions expressed in this newspaper do not necessarily reflect positions of NSBA. This article may be printed out and photocopied for individual or educational use, provided this copyright notice appears on each copy. This article may not be otherwise transmitted or reproduced in print or electronic form without the consent of the Publisher. For more information, call (703) 838-6789. | |