The National Association for Single Sex Public Education (NASSPE)

NASSPE was founded in January 2002 and was incorporated as a non-profit organization in the state of Maryland in April 2002.  The Internal Revenue Service has determined that NASSPE meets the criteria for a 501(c)(3) charitable non-profit organization.  NASSPE is the only non-profit organization in the United States dedicated to enhancing opportunities for single-sex schools and classrooms in the public sector.  In this regard, we partner with more established organizations which have a similar mission in the private sector, organizations such as the National Coalition of Girls Schools (www.ncgs.org ) and the International Coalition of Boys Schools (www.boysschoolscoalition.org ).  Leaders from both these organizations serve on our Advisory Board.  We believe that local educational agencies which wish to offer single-sex educational opportunities in the public sector can learn a great deal by partnering with educators in the private sector who have many years of experience leading single-sex schools.  Facilitating such public-private partnership is one of our principal missions.  Another important mission is providing a clearinghouse for accurate, up-to-date information about single-sex education in the United States.  For example, we are the only organization which seeks to maintain an up-to-date count of the number of coed public schools which offer single-sex classrooms (currently there are 72 such schools); we also maintain a separate count of the number of single-sex public schools (currently 25).  In addition, our Association provides professional development services for schools and districts preparing to offer single-sex educational opportunities.

The False Analogy Between Race and Sex

Fifty years ago, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Brown v Board of Education that “separate but equal” would no longer be permitted in American public schools.  State-sanctioned school segregation on the basis of race would henceforth be prohibited.  For many of our critics, the issue of single-sex education is just that simple.  If “separate but equal” isn’t permissible with regard to race, why should sex be different?  When the Office of Civil Rights last month published new regulations to facilitate single-sex education in public schools, OCR unfortunately neglected to address this important issue.

In fact, though, the analogy between race and sex is inaccurate and misleading.  There are no innate differences in how Black children and White children learn, and hence no justification for educating them separately.  But in the past 20 years, researchers have discovered surprisingly large hardwired differences in how girls and boys learn.  These differences are present at birth.  For example, newborn baby girls hear substantially better than baby boys do, and those differences persist lifelong:  the average teenage girl has a sense of hearing which is much more acute than the average teenage boy.^[1]   That one fact has substantial implications for teaching girls compared with boys.  The business of teaching in an all-boys classroom is, in my experience, usually conducted at a much higher decibel level than in an all-girls classroom.  Girls learn better in a quiet classroom, free of distractions.  That rule may not apply to boys, research suggests.[2]

In fact, local educational agencies already routinely segregate children . . . on the basis of age.   Most school districts routinely assign 6-year-olds and 16-year-olds to different schools.  We understand that the differences in how 6-year-olds and 16-year-olds learn are so substantial that it doesn’t make sense to try to educate them together.  But recent research suggests that gender may be even more fundamental to learning than age is.  When noted linguist and Georgetown University professor Deborah Tannen compared how girls and boys of different ages use language, she “was overwhelmed by the differences that separated the females and males at each age, and the striking similarities that linked the females, on one hand, and the males, on the other, across the vast expanse of age.  In many ways, the second-grade girls were more like the twenty-five-year-old women than like the second-grade boys.”[3]

Brain research bears out Professor Tannen’s findings.  In a recent study of human brain development, scientists found that differences in the brain associated with biological sex – female compared with male – were substantially more significant than differences in the brain associated with age – younger compared with older.[4]  We don’t hesitate to segregate kids on the basis of age.  Neuroanatomically, there may be at least as much warrant for segregating kids on the basis of sex . . . and no warrant whatsoever for segregating kids on the basis of race or ethnicity.  You can’t tell by looking at a child’s brain whether that child is Black or White, Asian or Hispanic.  But you can tell, by looking at a child’s brain, whether the child is a girl or a boy.

Indeed, sex differences in how young females and young males learn are so profound that they transcend species.  Noted anthropologists Elizabeth Lonsdorf, Lynn Eberly, and Anne Pusey, recently reported fundamental differences in how young female chimpanzees learn, compared with young male chimpanzees.  Their report was based on four years of videotaped observations of chimpanzees living in the wild.  They found that the young female chimpanzees were very attentive to their “teacher” and performed the task in just the way that the “teacher” performed it.  Young males, on the other hand, paid no attention to the “teacher” and did not perform the task in a fashion correlated to the way the “teacher” performed it; instead, the young males ignored the teacher and went off to engage in rough-and-tumble play with other young males.  These authors concluded that “different learning processes” are at work in females compared with males, and that “a sex-based learning difference may date back at least to the last common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans.”  You can read more about their research at this link:  http://www.nature.com/nsu/040412/040412-6.html

Dr. Lonsdorf and her associates have demonstrated that young female chimps and young male chimps learn in fundamentally different ways, and that these differences are genetically programmed, not socially constructed.  They themselves have noted that the differences they documented in young chimps are similar to sex differences in learning which are routinely observed in young humans.  The reality of biologically-programmed sex differences provides the best refutation to those who confuse the categories of race and sex.  There are no biologically-programmed racial differences in how children learn.  There are very substantial biologically-programmed sex differences in how children learn.

The evidentiary basis for single-sex education

            Another unfortunate shortcoming of OCR’s March 2004 publication was its failure to provide an adequate evidentiary basis for single-sex education.  The OCR publication correctly pointed out that the original authors of Title IX (Senator Birch Bayh of Indiana and Congresswoman Edith Green of Oregon) did not intend to outlaw single-sex education in public schools.  But that fact alone is hardly sufficient reason to encourage school districts to offer single-sex educational opportunities.  One must first demonstrate that the Brown v Board of Education concerns of “separate but equal” do not apply – as I have tried to do in the previous section.  One must then demonstrate that single-sex education offers significant benefits not obtainable in public schools.

            The OCR publication not only failed to provide evidence of significant benefits for single-sex education, it actually offered fodder to critics of single-sex education by quoting almost exclusively from reports critical of single-sex education, while never mentioning more authoritative studies demonstrating the effectiveness of single-sex education.  For example, on page 11276, the OCR publication stated “that there is presently a debate among researchers and educators regarding the effectiveness of single-sex education.”  The OCR publication then provided three references, all (in our judgment) hostile to single-sex education: 

v      a 15-year-old publication by Herbert Marsh

v      a six-year-old monograph from the American Association of University Women, and

v      a review article by Cornelius Riordan in which he asserts that single-sex education is effective only for “disadvantaged children.”

It is puzzling that OCR chose to cite only those references which undercut its own position.  In any case, because OCR never provided an adequate evidentiary basis for single-sex education, it is necessary now to lay out at least a rough sketch of recent authoritative research demonstrating the unique benefits of single-sex education.  These benefits may be considered as falling into two broad categories, academic and non-academic.  Let’s consider each in turn:

Academic advantages of single-sex education

1. Grades and Test Scores.  Much of the research on single-sex education has focused narrowly on grades and test scores.  To be sure, there is substantial evidence that single-sex education has a beneficial effect on grades and test scores, particularly for girls in grades 7 through 12, and for boys in grades K through 5.  Some of this evidence comes from the “before and after” of individual public schools in the United States.  For example, consider the case of the Moten Elementary School in Washington, DC.  This school was converted to the single-sex format in the fall of 2001.  There was no change in funding, no change in curriculum, and no change in class size.  However, after just one year of single-sex education, the turnaround in students’ performance was astonishing.  Students at Moten Elementary scored among the top schools in the entire district -- bringing their performance up to the same level as kids attending $20,000-a-year private schools in Upper Northwest.  District-wide, Moten was the second-highest-scoring school in math, and the sixth-highest-scoring in reading.^[5]   No additional funds were spent.  There was no change in class size, just a change in class format:  single-sex instead of coed.  And Moten is not unique.  Other inner-city schools, such as the Thurgood Marshall Elementary School in Seattle, and the Africentric School in Columbus, have achieved similar improvements in grades and test scores after switching to the single-sex format – without any change in funding or class size.[6]
2. Fewer discipline referrals.  In one of the few large studies to examine the effect of single-sex education vs. coeducation on disciplinary referrals, Cornelius Riordan presented compelling evidence that both girls and boys in single-sex schools are less likely to have discipline problems than boys in coed schools are.  See his book, Girls and Boys in School, page 59, where he states:    ATable 3.1 shows, however, that for both boys and girls the likelihood of being a disciplinary problem decreases considerably in single-sex schools.  Hence, problems of order and control might be considerably reduced by a policy of single-sex schooling.@   Table 3.1, also on page 59, shows that 13.9% of boys in single-sex schools reported that they had disciplinary problems, vs. 20.9% of boys in coed schools.  Likewise, 8.8% of girls in in single-sex schools reported that they had disciplinary problems, vs. 12.7% of girls in coed schools.  The “before and after” experience of public schools in the United States bears out this expectation, actually much more dramatically than might be expected from Professor Riordan’s findings.  For example, at the Moten Elementary School described in the previous paragraph, Principal George Smitherman reported a “99%” reduction in discipline referrals after the switch to the single-sex format.  Likewise, at the Thurgood Marshall school in Seattle, Principal Ben Wright reported that discipline referrals dropped from an average of thirty (30) a day to an average of “one or two” a day.
3. Expanding educational opportunity.  Single-sex education breaks down gender stereotypes.  In coed schools, especially at the high school level, subjects such as advanced math, computer science, and physics, are taken mostly by boys.  Likewise, courses in subjects such as art, music, advanced Spanish, advanced French, and drama, are taken mostly by girls.  Single-sex schools expands educational opportunities.  Girls in single-sex schools and classrooms are more likely to pursue interests in advanced math, computer science and physics.  The largest study to examine girls’ subject preferences as a function of single-sex education compared with coeducation was published in 2002 by the National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER).  This study examined the course choices of 369,341 pupils from 2,954 schools.  These researchers found that girls in girls-only schools were about 40% more likely to take advanced science courses than were girls of comparable ability at coed schools.  In this respect, “being in a girls’ school counteracted the effect of being a girl, since girls in mixed schools [i.e. coeducational schools] were less likely to take [advanced] sciences than boys. . .” (p. 42).  More generally, they found that girls’ schools break down the distinctions between traditional ‘girls’ subjects’ such as English and foreign languages and ‘boys’ subjects’ such as physics and computer science (p. 43). “ You can read more about this study online, and link to the NFER Web site, at www.singlesexschools.org/evidence.html .  Likewise for boys:  a University of Virginia study published last year found that boys who attended single-sex schools were more than twice as likely to pursue interests in subjects such as art, music, drama, and foreign languages, compared to boys of comparable ability who attended coed schools.  (See Abigail Norfleet James and Herbert Richards, “Escaping Stereotypes:  educational attitudes of male alumni of single-sex and coed schools,” Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 4:136-148, 2003)

Non-academic (or extra-academic) benefits of single-sex education

1. Decreased risk of teenage pregnancy.  One very robust finding in American schools is that girls who attend girls’ schools are dramatically less likely to experience pregnancy than are girls who attend coed schools.  For example, at The Young Woman’s Leadership School (TYWLS) in Harlem, the rate of teenage pregnancy is about one girl in 40; the rate of teenage pregnancy for other girls in the neighborhood is about one girl in three (Chris Farmer, personal communication, 2003).  Thus, the risk of pregnancy for girls attending TYWLS is roughly an order of magnitude lower than for other girls in the neighborhood.  Critics respond that TYWLS is a selective school and that girls selected to attend TYWLS may be less likely to experience an unwanted pregnancy regardless of what school they attend.  For that reason, the “before and after” experience of schools such as the James Lyng High School is instructive.  When the school was coed, about 15 girls a year experienced an unwanted pregnancy; after the switch to a coed format, only about “one or two” girls a year experienced a pregnancy (Wayne Commeford, personal communication, 2003).  Because the Lyng High School is not a selective school but is a regular public school which did not change its enrollment procedures after the switch to the single-sex format, it seems clear that the dramatic reduction in pregnancies was due to the change in format from coed to single-sex.
2. Leadership.  This effect is demonstrated particularly for girls.   Girls who attend single-sex schools are much more likely to hold leadership positions in their profession as adults, compared with girls of comparable ability who attend coed schools.  Fewer than 2% of American women have ever attended any single-sex school, public or private.  However, more than 20% of the women in the United States Congress (House and Senate) have attended single-sex schools.  Thus, women who attend single-sex schools are about an order of magnitude more likely to serve in the House or Senate than would be expected based on their numbers.  A few examples:  Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland) and Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (D-California) both attended the same single-sex school, the Notre Dame High School for Girls in Baltimore.  You are of course aware that Congresswoman Pelosi leads the Democrats in the House.  Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-California) attended the Sacred Heart School for Girls in San Francisco, where her two daughters now attend.  Who are the two women who have held the highest posts in any American administration?  The answer is:  Madeleine Albright, the first woman Secretary of State; and Condoleezza Rice, the first woman to serve as National Security Advisor.  Both these women attended all-girls high schools:  Secretary Albright attended the Kent Academy in Denver; Dr. Rice attended St. Mary’s Academy, also in Denver.    Christine Todd Whitman, the first woman governor or New Jersey and the first woman commissioner of the EPA, attended the all-girls Chapin School in New York.  Dr. Sally Ride, the first American woman astronaut, attended the Westlake School in Los Angeles (which was then an all-girls school).  Dr. Ride attributes her interest in science to attending an all-girls high school; Dr. Ride now devotes much of her time to organizing all-girls summer science camps.  Dr. Bernadine Healy, the first woman to head the National Institutes of Health, attended the Hunter College High School for Girls in New York.  And so on.
3. Self-esteem, self-image and related issues.  There is a very extensive literature demonstrating the beneficial effects of single-sex education on self-image, particularly for girls.  (None of this evidence was presented in OCR’s publication.)  To summarize:  girls at coed schools tend to be most concerned with how they look.  Girls at single-sex schools tend to be more concerned about who they are.  I will present just one representative study which demonstrates this distinction.  Psychologists Josephine Granleese and Stephen Joseph set out to study the self-esteem of girls at coeducational schools compared with girls at single-sex schools.  They asked the girls all sorts of questions about themselves: Are you a good student?  Do your parents have good jobs?  Are you good at sports?  Do you think you’re pretty?  Do you have lots of friends?  The researchers then correlated each girl’s answers with that girl’s self-esteem.  They found that at the coed schools, you don’t need to ask a dozen questions to predict the girl’s self-esteem.  You only have to ask one question: “Do you think you’re pretty?” If a girl at a coed school answers that question Yes, then her self-esteem is high.  It doesn’t matter if she is failing all her classes, if her parents are out of work, if she’s no good at sports.  If she thinks she’s pretty, her self-esteem is great.  Conversely, and more darkly: If a girl at a coed school answers that question No, then her self-esteem is low.  It didn’t matter if she is a straight-A student, if her parents have great jobs, if she is an ace soccer player.  If a girl at a coed school thinks that she’s ugly, then her self-esteem is in the toilet.   At single-sex schools, it’s not so simple.  For girls at single-sex schools, self-esteem is a more complex product of school performance, social experience, family income, and other factors.  Personal appearance is in the mix, but it’s only one factor out of many.^[7] 

Johns Hopkins sociologist James Coleman made the same discovery more than 40 years ago, interviewing students at single-sex and coed high schools in the United States.  Coleman found that at the coed schools, kids were most concerned with who was the best-looking, who was the most popular, and (for the boys) who was best in sports.  He concluded that the adolescent culture of coed schools exerts “a rather strong deterrent to academic achievement.”    When asked about their career aspirations, girls at coed schools talked about becoming a fashion model or an actress.  Girls at single-sex schools talked about making a career, either in business or in the sciences.  “It is commonly assumed that it is ‘better’ for boys and girls to be in school together,” Coleman wrote, “if not better for their academic performance, then at least better for their social development and adjustment.  But this may not be so.  Coeducation may be inimical to both academic achievement and social adjustment. . . Just putting boys and girls together in the same school is not necessarily the ‘normal, healthy’ thing to do.  It does not necessarily promote adjustment to life.  It may promote, as indicated by these data, maladjustment to life after school.”^[8]

Specific questions raised in OCR’s announcement in the Federal Register March 9, 2004

Question, regarding 34 CFR 106.34 (b)(iii)(4):  How often should schools assess whether there is a continuing need for single-sex classrooms?

Answer:  We would suggest that this assessment be performed on a biennial basis (i.e. every two years).  Such an interval provides adequate time to determine whether the intervention has been successful, and if so, whether there is a need to continue offering the single-sex format.

Question (from page 11278 of OCR’s announcement, regarding proposed 34 CFR 106.34(b)(1)(i):  Are there additional important objectives that could also be the basis for single-sex classes?

Answer:  Yes, certainly.  The objectives need not be strictly academic.  For example, if a high school is experiencing a high rate of unwanted pregnancy, single-sex classes may be a reasonable option to offer students.  Likewise, schools which are struggling with discipline problems might also choose to offer single-sex classes.  In view of the publications by Avshalom Caspi and associates demonstrating that students in single-sex schools are less likely to abuse drugs than students at coed schools, single-sex classes might also reasonably be offered at schools which are struggling with problems of drug and alcohol abuse.

Question (from page 11280 of OCR’s announcement, regarding proposed 34 CFR 106.34(b)(1)(iii):  How should OCR assess whether a recipient is implementing its objective in an evenhanded manner?

Answer:  One useful measure, we believe, is to ask whether the intervention breaks down gender stereotypes or whether it strengthens gender stereotypes.  For example, if a high school were to offer a single-sex class in physics for girls, a substantially equal opportunity for boys could reasonably be a coed class, since high school physics classes in the United States are currently majority male.  However, if a high school were to offer a single-sex class in physics for boys, without offering a substantially equal single-sex  class for girls, such an offering would merit close scrutiny, since offering a single-sex class in physics for boys would tend to reinforce the gender stereotype that boys take physics and girls don’t.

Respectfully submitted,

Leonard Sax, MD, PhD

Executive Director, NASSPE

19710 Fisher Avenue, Suite J

Poolesville, Maryland  20837

Phone:  301 972 7600

Fax:  301 972 8006

Notes: