http://eaq.sagepub.com/Quarterly

Educational Administration

http://eaq.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/07/01/0013161X13492794The online version of this article can be found at:

 DOI: 10.1177/0013161X13492794

published online 1 July 2013Educational Administration QuarterlySuzanne Elizabeth Eckes and Stephanie D. McCall

Surrounding Single-Sex Classrooms and SchoolsThe Potential Impact of Social Science Research on Legal Issues

  

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of: 

  University Council for Educational Administration

at: can be foundEducational Administration QuarterlyAdditional services and information for

   

  http://eaq.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

 

http://eaq.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:  

What is This? 

- Jul 1, 2013OnlineFirst Version of Record >>

at COLUMBIA UNIV on September 27, 2013eaq.sagepub.comDownloaded from at COLUMBIA UNIV on September 27, 2013eaq.sagepub.comDownloaded from at COLUMBIA UNIV on September 27, 2013eaq.sagepub.comDownloaded from at COLUMBIA UNIV on September 27, 2013eaq.sagepub.comDownloaded from at COLUMBIA UNIV on September 27, 2013eaq.sagepub.comDownloaded from at COLUMBIA UNIV on September 27, 2013eaq.sagepub.comDownloaded from at COLUMBIA UNIV on September 27, 2013eaq.sagepub.comDownloaded from at COLUMBIA UNIV on September 27, 2013eaq.sagepub.comDownloaded from at COLUMBIA UNIV on September 27, 2013eaq.sagepub.comDownloaded from at COLUMBIA UNIV on September 27, 2013eaq.sagepub.comDownloaded from at COLUMBIA UNIV on September 27, 2013eaq.sagepub.comDownloaded from at COLUMBIA UNIV on September 27, 2013eaq.sagepub.comDownloaded from at COLUMBIA UNIV on September 27, 2013eaq.sagepub.comDownloaded from at COLUMBIA UNIV on September 27, 2013eaq.sagepub.comDownloaded from at COLUMBIA UNIV on September 27, 2013eaq.sagepub.comDownloaded from at COLUMBIA UNIV on September 27, 2013eaq.sagepub.comDownloaded from at COLUMBIA UNIV on September 27, 2013eaq.sagepub.comDownloaded from at COLUMBIA UNIV on September 27, 2013eaq.sagepub.comDownloaded from at COLUMBIA UNIV on September 27, 2013eaq.sagepub.comDownloaded from at COLUMBIA UNIV on September 27, 2013eaq.sagepub.comDownloaded from at COLUMBIA UNIV on September 27, 2013eaq.sagepub.comDownloaded from at COLUMBIA UNIV on September 27, 2013eaq.sagepub.comDownloaded from at COLUMBIA UNIV on September 27, 2013eaq.sagepub.comDownloaded from at COLUMBIA UNIV on September 27, 2013eaq.sagepub.comDownloaded from at COLUMBIA UNIV on September 27, 2013eaq.sagepub.comDownloaded from at COLUMBIA UNIV on September 27, 2013eaq.sagepub.comDownloaded from at COLUMBIA UNIV on September 27, 2013eaq.sagepub.comDownloaded from at COLUMBIA UNIV on September 27, 2013eaq.sagepub.comDownloaded from at COLUMBIA UNIV on September 27, 2013eaq.sagepub.comDownloaded from at COLUMBIA UNIV on September 27, 2013eaq.sagepub.comDownloaded from at COLUMBIA UNIV on September 27, 2013eaq.sagepub.comDownloaded from at COLUMBIA UNIV on September 27, 2013eaq.sagepub.comDownloaded from at COLUMBIA UNIV on September 27, 2013eaq.sagepub.comDownloaded from at COLUMBIA UNIV on September 27, 2013eaq.sagepub.comDownloaded from at COLUMBIA UNIV on September 27, 2013eaq.sagepub.comDownloaded from at COLUMBIA UNIV on September 27, 2013eaq.sagepub.comDownloaded from at COLUMBIA UNIV on September 27, 2013eaq.sagepub.comDownloaded from at COLUMBIA UNIV on September 27, 2013eaq.sagepub.comDownloaded from at COLUMBIA UNIV on September 27, 2013eaq.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Educational Administration QuarterlyXX(X) 1 –38

© The University Council forEducational Administration 2013

Reprints and permissions:sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0013161X13492794eaq.sagepub.com

Article

The Potential Impact of Social Science Research on Legal Issues Surrounding Single-Sex Classrooms and Schools

Suzanne Elizabeth Eckes1 and Stephanie D. McCall2

AbstractPurpose: This article examines the role social science has played in litigation involving public single-sex educational programs. It also explores a body of social science research related to gender and education that we believe could assist the courts and school leaders in better examining the possibilities and the limitations of single-sex programs in the public sector. Specifically, we want to show how a particular set of social science research at the intersection of gender and education, from a range of theoretical frameworks, could assist school leaders in demonstrating to the courts that a justification for single-sex programs may exist in current empirical research. Method: This article uses traditional legal research methods, which is a form of historical-legal research used to investigate the interpretation of law. We used the two major legal databases (i.e., Lexis-Nexis, Westlaw) to determine how many lawsuits have been initiated as a result of the amendments to the Title IX regulations. The retrieved cases were coded to determine the legal claims relied upon by plaintiffs and to learn if/how social science research was considered in these cases. Findings: We analyzed four

1Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA2Columbia University, New York, NY, USA

Corresponding Author:Suzanne Elizabeth Eckes, Indiana University, 201 N. Rose Ave, 4234 W.W. Education Bldg, Bloomington, 47405, USA. Email: seckes@indiana.edu

492794 EAQXXX10.1177/0013161X13492794Educational Administration QuarterlyEckes and McCallresearch-article2013

2 Educational Administration Quarterly XX(X)

schools currently involved in litigation. We report the social science that was relied upon by school districts and analyzed by courts. Implications: We encourage school leaders and the courts to explore more diverse theoretical frameworks related to gender and education that we believe could add some analytic strength to the existing body of empirical research about single-sex schooling.

Keywordslaw, gender, single-sex schools, social science, Title IX

“At its best, single-sex education can be an effective tool of empowerment and self-realization for some boys and girls,” and at its worst it can be “a tool of gender polarization and oppression” (Salomone, 2003, p. 243).

Introduction

A central argument in the justification for excluding girls from public schools in the 1800s rested on the acceptance of girls’ destiny to enact their potential solely in the sphere of domesticity (Graves, 1998). Despite the existence of gender-segregated schooling in the history of U.S. education, coeducation has been the accepted norm in public schooling for decades in the United States (Tyack & Hansot, 1992). To depart from this norm and establish sin-gle-sex educational programs, the law requires that public school leaders demonstrate an exceedingly persuasive justification among other require-ments (Groshoff, 2010).

As a result of the increase of single-sex schools as a viable public school option, the belief in “same” as “equal” dominates the current debate. Specifically, an assumption embedded in many debates, policies, and prac-tices about single-sex schools is that boys and girls learning together ensures access to the same knowledge and the same educational opportunities. Yet there is much research about the experiences of boys and girls in coeduca-tional schooling to show that historical patterns of exclusion and stratified knowledge by race, class, gender, sexuality, and ability continue to persist in U.S. schooling (Anyon, 2006; Apple, 2004; Banks, 2004; Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005; Ervelles, 2009; Luttrell, 1992; Smith, 1990). These his-torical patterns and practices of exclusion by gender in school provide some context for the contested legal landscape of public single-sex schools and programs today (Mead, 2003).

Debates in popular discourses and media about single-sex schooling are frequently framed in scientific claims about biological-based gender

Eckes and McCall 3

differences, or “misconstrued scientific claims” (see Halpern et al., 2011). We think the historical context of exclusion by gender in school has meaning for how debates about single-sex public schools are framed in discourses of gender equity and gender differences, particularly when making sense of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. Title IX prohibits educa-tional institutions that receive federal funds from discriminating based on sex.1 Some recent critiques of Title IX have come about because of the U.S. Department of Education regulations promulgated in 2006 (Groshoff, 2010). These new regulations permit school boards to offer voluntary public single-sex in nonvocational classes and in schools. They were a result of language included in the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 that encourages school boards to experiment with public single-sex education programs (U.S. Department of Education, 2006).

The exact number of single-sex classrooms and schools is difficult to determine, but there is evidence that such schools are on the rise (Bigler & Signorella, 2011). Single-sex educational programs continue to be an increas-ingly popular answer to meeting the needs of students of color in large city schools (Bigler & Signorella, 2011; Noguerua & Fergus, 2010; Patterson & Pahlke, 2010). Schemo (2006) reports that only three single-sex public edu-cation programs existed in 1995. Today there are roughly 500 schools in 40 states that offer single-sex classes (Lewin, 2011) and 90 single-sex public schools in the United States (Patterson & Pahlke, 2010). This trend is likely to continue as public schools experiment with school reform initiatives, par-ticularly those that create different opportunities to address the needs of stu-dents who have not traditionally experienced success in school. The effects of these diverse reforms have been playing out for some years now, and educa-tors and policymakers will continue to wrestle with the dilemma of public single-sex education in America.

Adding to the continuous work for gender equity and access that has taken educational policy this far, this article presents the complexity of single-sex school policy by infusing our legal analysis with desires for a conversation about the salience of gender, curricular knowledge, and student experience in single-sex learning environments. To do this, we examine legal issues affect-ing the emergence and stability of public single-sex programs and discuss current litigation that is specifically focused on the 2006 Title IX amend-ments. One goal of this article is to learn what research school districts have relied upon in current litigation. Accordingly, our intent was not to evaluate the merit of the existing research but to show the limited use of social science research by school districts. We then argue that research about gender, cur-riculum, and student experiences in school could assist school leaders in bet-ter examining the possibilities and the limitations of single-sex programs.

4 Educational Administration Quarterly XX(X)

Specifically, we want to explore how a particular set of social science research at the intersection of gender and education from a range of theoretical frame-works could assist school leaders when grappling with a justification for single-sex programs.

Our findings show that school districts tend to draw on research grounded in biological differences about sex and gender. As school leaders and the courts negotiate the complexities of gender-related policy in schools, our intention is to encourage them to explore diverse theoretical frameworks related to gender and education to strengthen the discussion and arguments about single-sex schooling. In so doing, we challenge the strongly held notion that equal educational opportunity should always entail providing “the same” educational opportunities. We argue that the rationale for a single-sex pro-gram is highly contextual and more complicated than how boys and girls are the same and different. This article exposes our desires for a different kind of debate by reframing dilemmas about how public sex-segregated education may or may not be justified under the law.

Legal Context

Under the 2006 amended Title IX regulations, schools implementing single-sex educational programs must offer equal educational opportunities to both sexes, and enrollment should be completely voluntary. Public single-sex schools are permitted, but a substantially comparable coeducational school or single-sex school for students of the other sex must be available (Title IX Regulations, 2006). School districts that have implemented single-sex classes must conduct a self-evaluation every 2 years to ensure that there is a substan-tial relationship between the single-sex class and achievement of an impor-tant objective (U.S. Department of Education, 2007). Also, one of the two objectives must be satisfied before implementing a single-sex educational program: (1) the program must improve the educational achievement of a recipient’s students through an established policy to provide diverse educa-tional opportunities or (2) the program must meet the particular, identified educational needs of a recipient’s students (Title IX Regulations, 2006, 34 C.F.R. §106.34 (b)(1)(i)(A)&(B)).

It is not surprising that litigation involving the amended Title IX regula-tions has already begun. Challenges to public single-sex education have been initiated under Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, in combination with other claims arising out of state law. In these legal challenges, the plaintiffs argue that the school boards must pro-vide an “exceedingly persuasive” justification for permitting single-sex edu-cational programs and the approach used must be substantially related to an

Eckes and McCall 5

important governmental interest (see, e.g., Doe v. Vermilion Parish School Board, 2009). Specifically, the use of single-sex programs must be substan-tially related to the problem being targeted (e.g., improving student achieve-ment levels in science for girls).

In order to set the context for social science’s contributions to the legal issues surrounding public single-sex educational programs, it is important to understand how the courts apply the Equal Protection Clause, Title IX, and the Equal Educational Opportunities Act in single-sex education cases. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment states “No State shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” (U.S. Const. amend. XIV, §1), requiring that similarly situated individuals be treated the same (City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 1985). Given patterns of past discrimination, courts have interpreted the Equal Protection Clause as requiring the state to provide more justification for the use of some classifications of individuals than others. In other words, the Court has employed different levels of scrutiny for different classes of people (see Grutter v. Bollinger, 2003). There are three levels of judicial scrutiny (i.e., strict scrutiny, midlevel scrutiny, and rational basis). For example, race falls under strict scrutiny, which requires both a compelling governmental objec-tive and a demonstration that the classification is necessary to serve that interest.

The next level is intermediate scrutiny, which is the standard used when the government makes sex-based classifications. This important justification within the context of public single-sex programs has been referred to by courts as an exceedingly persuasive justification (Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan, 1982). As noted, the government must demonstrate that the classification based on sex serves important governmental objectives and that the discriminatory means employed are substantially related to the achieve-ment of those objectives. For example, the problem being targeted might be student achievement or more positive experiences in school life; the problem is likely to be specific to local concerns and contexts. Thus, if a school wanted to target local achievement gaps by gender, the district would need to demon-strate that a single-sex program is substantially related to addressing that problem.

The third level of judicial scrutiny is referred to as rational basis, which requires a legitimate government objective with a minimally rational relation between the means and the ends (Rapp, 2009). Sexual orientation, for exam-ple, falls under this level of scrutiny. This difference in standards is a double-edged sword; it is easier for the state to discriminate both in favor of and against persons on the basis of sex than it is to do the same on the basis of race. For example, it would be easier to justify a program focused on

6 Educational Administration Quarterly XX(X)

enrolling women in engineering schools than one focused on enrolling racial minorities because of the lower level of scrutiny assigned to sex.

The other most applicable law to single-sex schools is Title IX, which is part of the Education Amendments of 1972, and it states that “no person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subject to discrimination under any educa-tional program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance” (Title IX, 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a)). Lawmakers created the statute in response to widespread academic discrimination against women, which cannot be dis-connected from the historical practices and patterns of exclusion by gender. Although the focus of Title IX is generally on athletics, Title IX prevents discrimination in all aspects of education (Eckes, 2006; Eckes & Thompson, 2008). Under Title IX’s regulations, there were only a few instances where males and females could be segregated in public schools before the recent amendments (e.g., contact sports, sex education) (Piatt, 2009).

The Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (“the EEOA”) also may prohibit the segregation of students based on sex. Although the EEOA states that “all children enrolled in public schools are entitled to equal educational opportunity without regard to race, color, sex, or national origin” (Equal Education Opportunity Act of 1974, 20 U.S.C.A. §1701(a)), courts have been reluctant to rely on the EEOA when addressing single-sex education. Calce (2009) explains the reluctance, finding that the EEOA was centered almost entirely on segregation as it relates to busing after the Brown v. Board of Education (1954) decision and may not have been intended to apply within this context. Thus, despite the plain language of the statute prohibiting dis-crimination based on sex, it appears that the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX are the main legal claims available for plaintiffs arguing against single-sex educational programs. Although it is likely that plaintiffs could bring other types of claims (e.g., state law claims), our analysis will focus on these two legal avenues.

Selected Relevant Court Decisions

The U.S. court system has undoubtedly played a role in addressing discrimi-nation based on sex, and there have been some court cases that have addressed issues of equity related to sex in public schools. For example, in U.S. v. Virginia (1996) the Supreme Court held that the exclusion of females from the Virginia Military Institute denied the equal protection of laws to women. Also, in Franklin v. Gwinett County Public Schools (1992), the Supreme Court held that students who had been subjected to discrimination based on sex could receive monetary damages through Title IX. Indeed, the resolution

Eckes and McCall 7

of educational equity issues will continue to develop in courts as students challenge the constitutionality of segregation in public schools (Jenkins, 2006). Kiselewich (2008) contends that “litigation of this subject appears to be inevitable” (p. 220). This section highlights some relevant decisions with a focus on single-sex education.

The Supreme Court has only considered one case within the context of sex segregation in public school classrooms. Specifically, in Vorchheimer v. School District of Philadelphia (1977), an equally divided Supreme Court affirmed a Third Circuit case without opinion. In this case, a female student and a class of plaintiffs who were denied admission to an all-male public high school in Philadelphia sued the school district alleging gender discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Reversing the federal district court’s injunction, which had granted the female plaintiffs’ access to the all-male school, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals found the school’s admissions policy to be constitutional because attending the single-sex schools was voluntary and the educational opportunities in the district were equal. The court also reasoned that the school district had a substantial interest in allowing parents to determine what was in the student’s best inter-est. This case is often cited because it is the only K-12 single-sex school deci-sion that has had any contact with the U.S. Supreme Court. The case sets no precedent, however, because the Court reached no majority view on the case.

After Vorchheimer, at least two lower courts have addressed the issue within the K-12 context. In Newberg v. Board of Public Education (1983), which involved the same Philadelphia school in the Vorchheimer case, three female students were denied admission at the all-male Philadelphia high school. In this case, the court did not find the public school for the girls and the public school for the boys to be substantially similar. Some of the alleged inequities between the two schools included that the boys’ school offered a “Bachelor of Arts” degree instead of a typical high school diploma, smaller class sizes, a larger building, and more books and computers. As a result of some of the alleged inequities, the court held that the female students must be admitted to the all-male school.

Likewise, in Garrett v. Board of Education of School District of City of Detroit (1991), a federal district court granted a preliminary injunction block-ing the operation of six all-male academies because there were no equivalent schools for female students. The school board sought to open these all-male academies in order to address issues of unemployment, dropout, and homi-cide rates among males in Detroit. Parents and female students opposing the academies argued that an all-male academy was not necessary and that these issues could be confronted in a coeducational environment. The court granted the preliminary injunction because it was likely that the school board would

8 Educational Administration Quarterly XX(X)

not be able to demonstrate constitutionally why it was necessary to exclude female students and because the female students and parents would likely succeed in demonstrating a Title IX violation.

The Supreme Court’s reasoning in cases of higher education might also inform this issue. In the 1982 case, Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan, the Court struck down a women-only admission policy at the Mississippi University for Women’s School of Nursing because the State failed to prove that women would be “adversely affected” by men in the classroom. The Court did not find that this all-women’s nursing program would meet the important interest of remedying past discrimination because women had not faced discrimination in the field of nursing. Though there were coeducational nursing programs within the state that the plaintiff could have attended, the all-female program was still found to be impermissible. As a result of Hogan, courts may require that the gender-based classification “intentionally and directly assists members of the sex that is disproportion-ately burdened” (Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan, 1982, p. 728).

The 1996 U.S. v. Virginia (VMI) case may also provide some guidance regarding the Court’s acceptance of single-sex education. In this case the United States sued Virginia under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment after Virginia denied women admission to a publicly funded state university. Justice Ginsburg wrote in VMI that the state must prove that there is an “exceedingly persuasive justification” when defending public single-sex institutions (U.S. v. Virginia, 1996, pp. 532-533). The U.S. Supreme Court found that Virginia failed to meet its burden of demonstrating an exceedingly persuasive justification for not admitting women to its pub-licly funded university. In addition to demonstrating that the classification based on sex serves important governmental objectives and that the discrimi-natory means employed are substantially related to the achievement of those objectives, it must also be shown that the excluded sex has access to a com-parable benefit. The Court held that even though Virginia had established the Women’s Institute for Leadership, a university for women, it failed to offer females the premier education they would have received at VMI. The Court noted that universities “may not exclude qualified individuals based on fixed notions concerning the roles and abilities of males and females” (p. 541). Finally, this case highlighted that there is a presumption of invalidity of sex-based classifications. Specifically, the Court reasoned that “the burden of jus-tification is demanding and it rests entirely on the state” (p. 532). Thus, public schools will have a heavy burden in justifying the classification.

According to Piatt (2009), Justice Ginsburg’s opinion would require more justification than the use of learning theory before a school district may seg-regate students by sex. Mead (2003) similarly argued that all-female schools

Eckes and McCall 9

need to articulate a clear and “contemporary rationale” in operating in order to demonstrate an exceedingly persuasive justification (p. 177). It appears from the reasoning in Hogan and VMI that courts may require evidence of current inequities or historical discrimination in public schools that would necessitate the development of single-sex education programs. Specifically, defenders of single-sex education programs may need to demonstrate that one sex has been “disproportionately burdened” or has experienced “differ-ential treatment” in a co-educational environment in order to justify single-sex educational programs.

Methods and Data Sources

This article used traditional legal research methods (First, 2006; Lee & Adler, 2006; Russo, 2006; Schimmel, 1996). Russo (2006) explains legal research methodology as “a form of historical-legal research that is neither qualitative nor quantitative ... it is a systemic investigation involving the interpretation and explanation of the law” (p. 6). Employing traditional legal research meth-ods, we first examined the legal issues surrounding public single-sex class-rooms and schools based on the most recent challenges of the 2006 amended regulations. We used the two major legal databases (i.e., Lexis-Nexis, Westlaw) to determine how many lawsuits have been initiated as a result of the amendments to the Title IX regulations. The following search terms were used to retrieve any relevant cases: “Title IX or Equal Protection and Single Sex.” We only searched for cases beginning in 2006—after the Title IX regu-lations were amended.2 The retrieved cases were coded to determine the legal claims relied upon by plaintiffs and to learn if and how social science research was considered in these cases. Specifically, an Excel spreadsheet was created to code and track the various legal arguments, case outcomes, and the variety of social science that was relied upon. To identify whether a case has been overturned, reaffirmed, questioned, or cited by subsequent courts, the cases were “Sheparized.” When a case is “Shepardized,” the researcher relies on Shepard’s citatory services, which is available on Lexis-Nexis. Shepardizing allows the researcher to determine if a case has been overturned, criticized, or relied upon in subsequent litigation. After we identified the cases, we con-ducted an in-depth analysis of those cases that have been litigated. In doing so, we analyzed the relevant court decisions as well as the plaintiffs’ com-plaints and the defendants’ responses and any relevant briefs of amici curiae.

Next, we selected and analyzed social science research related to gender and education across a variety of theoretical perspectives. In addition to stud-ies about academic achievement in single-sex educational programs, we draw

10 Educational Administration Quarterly XX(X)

attention to studies related to gender, curricular knowledge, and student expe-riences in schools. As our objective is to broaden the range of research used to justify gender-segregated education programs, we want to highlight the research not specifically about single-sex schools but more broadly about gender in education.

We use the data generated from legal cases and empirical research to offer recommendations for school leaders to consider when establishing a single-sex educational program. We think it is important to note that our choice of social science research has been informed by each of our theoretical commit-ments and academic interests—one of us working from a legal perspective on educational equity and the other drawing on feminist theories (Smith, 1990; Weedon, 1997) in her analysis of gender in education. A prevailing assump-tion we share in this analysis is that power is always present in gender rela-tions, and gender relations are always part of social relations in school (Apple, 2004; Arnot, 2002; Smith, 1987).

In our approach to this article, we have enacted our own recommendation to consider broader theoretical perspectives in legal analysis and litigation of gen-der-segregated schooling. We have seen first-hand how combining social sci-ence research framed in the postmodern turn (Alvesson, 2002) with education law can be challenging as we have brought our differing perspectives to this article. Combining our theories and commitments provides a different approach to the existing analysis of issues related to single-sex schooling, which often hovers within discourses of equity as the “same.” There are urgent implications for gender-segregated schools when conceptions of gender differences are lim-ited to ensuring that girls and boys have the “same” opportunities.

Findings

Since the Title IX regulations were promulgated in 2006, we found that there have been at least four legal challenges filed in court. One of the cases was filed under Title IX but dismissed based on a joint request of the parties. This case is only briefly discussed. We provide an in-depth analysis of the other three identified cases below. These cases were analyzed to determine how social science research was used, how gender was invoked, and to examine which research might have better informed school leaders and the courts.

As noted, the first case was dismissed by the court at the joint request of the parties, and thus, the plaintiff’s complaint is the focus of this section in order to highlight the relevant issues. In M.S. v. Livingston Parish School Board (2006), a female middle school student in Louisiana pursued injunc-tive relief to the mandatory single-sex classes at her middle school. The stu-dent alleged that the school district was unlawfully segregating students and

Eckes and McCall 11

engaging in gender stereotyping in violation of Title IX, the Equal Protection Clause, and the state constitution. She argued that the school district made overbroad and inaccurate generalizations about gender differences to justify its single-sex educational program. The 2006 Title IX Amendments were not at issue because it appears that the regulations had not been passed when the lawsuit was initiated. However, the facts of the case are still relevant to this discussion to show the problematic use of gender-related research.

The plaintiff did not cite social science research to support her own argu-ments, but she did critique the research that was relied upon by the school district. The plaintiff stated in the complaint the reasons she felt the purposes of the policy were overgeneralized by gender, including that boys and girls process information in different ways, which is related to “brain structure and brain maturation” (pp. 2-3). Also at issue was concern about the purpose to assist “teachers and parents [to] understand the neurological, developmental, and hormonal differences/similarities by gender in order to identify strengths and weaknesses of boys and girls” (p. 13). The principal explained that instruction in the single-sex classrooms would be “based on quantifiable dif-ferences between male and female adolescents supported by scientific educa-tional research” (p. 13).

The school district relied on the work of Leonard Sax and Michael Gurian as resources when designing their single-sex education program. The plain-tiff claimed that this research was based on overgeneralizations made about gender. Although this case did not proceed to trial on the merits, it is an instructive glimpse into one school district’s attempt to rationalize its public single-sex program. As demonstrated below, the facts in this case are very similar to the other cases focused on the 2006 Amendments.

For example, a second Louisiana case with similar issues did involve the 2006 Amendments. In Doe v. Vermilion Parish School Board (2009), two female middle school students alleged that their public school in Louisiana was unlawfully segregating students by sex, violating the Equal Protection Clause, Title IX, and the EEOA among other claims. They argued that the single-sex classrooms were not voluntary and that the girls were placed in a public single-sex class without receiving a coeducational option.

The principal of the middle school in this district collected data related to single-sex schools for his dissertation. He told the school board that participa-tion in the study would be voluntary but neither parents nor students were given consent forms (Doe v. Vermilion Parish School Board, 2009). The principal cited his belief in the possibility of significant improvements in academic per-formance based upon his literature review for his dissertation and was eventu-ally given permission to adopt single-sex classes for all middle school grades. His plan included five classes for each of the core courses within each grade

12 Educational Administration Quarterly XX(X)

(i.e., two all-male classes, two all-female classes, and one coeducational class). Parents were not given the option to choose between single-sex and coed classes before the school year began. After the plaintiffs’ counsel complained that the single-sex classes were not voluntary, letters were eventually sent to the parents but not all parent requests for a coed placement were met. It appeared that the justification for the single-sex program was based solely on the princi-pal’s dissertation, which was discredited at trial because as the court noted, the data collected by the principal contained “significant flaws” (Doe v. Vermilion Parish School Board, 2010, p. 5). The plaintiffs requested a temporary restrain-ing order to stop the single-sex classes. The district court conceded that even though the single-sex program was inappropriately implemented, the school district did not intend to harm students in creating single-sex classrooms. Interestingly, the burden of proof was shifted to the plaintiffs, requiring them to prove discrimination by demonstrating an intent to harm them.3 The district court found that the single-sex plan was in the “best interest of the children,” and ordered the school district to implement the Judge’s plan for single-sex classes (Doe v. Vermilion Parish School Board, 2010, p. 6). The Judge’s plan required improving notice to parents and a monthly update to the court.

The plaintiffs appealed this case to the Fifth Circuit, and two amicus briefs were filed in support of the female plaintiffs. The Brief for the U.S. Department of Justice (2010) stated that the 2006 Regulations “generally prohibit a recip-ient from establishing single-sex classes. The regulations provide for an exception in limited circumstances and only when the recipient meets all of the requirements for the regulations” (p. 12). As noted earlier, single-sex classes must be based on one of two important objectives, and the brief argues that neither objective has been met. The Fifth Circuit denied the school dis-trict’s motion to dismiss the appeal and the case was remanded because the court found that the students provided sufficient evidence that the single-sex program was harmful to the overall educational environment at the school (Doe v. Vermilion Parish School Board, 2011). A settlement was eventually reached in the case in which the school board agreed to halt the single-sex classes through the end of the 2016-2017 school year (American Civil Liberties Union [ACLU], 2011). The court should hold that the school board’s single-sex program was based on a defective study, which was not related to an important governmental interest. Similar to M.S., this case ignores the salience of gender and misses much research available to school leaders about the competing discourses and policies that complicate the implementa-tion of single-sex programs (Herr & Arms, 2004). Also, this case demon-strated a lack of attention to the complexity of gender in school reform initiatives where the implementation of single-sex learning environments were tangled up in stakeholder investments.

Eckes and McCall 13

A case from Kentucky also sheds light on this controversial issue. In A.N.A. v. U.S. Department of Education (2008), an amended claim was filed in a case against Breckinridge County Middle School. This case was a short-lived attempt to directly challenge the constitutionality of the U.S. Department of Education’s regulations regarding sex-segregated classes within a tradi-tional public school context. The lawsuit, filed by the Kentucky American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on behalf of several current and former stu-dents at Breckinridge County Middle School in Kentucky, challenged the middle school’s policy of assigning students to same-sex classes, asserting that it was a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, Title IX, the EEOA, and Kentucky’s own sex equity law (A.N.A. v. U.S. Department of Education, 2008; ACLU-KY, 2008a).

Even before the U.S. Department of Education loosened its restrictions on single-sex education in 2006, Breckinridge County School District began instituting single-sex programs. In 2003, Breckinridge County Middle School offered both single-sex and coeducational classes that used different text-books and covered material at different rates. Several parents were not given the option of choosing a single-sex or coeducation classroom during the 2007-2008 school year; the school assigned students to either single-sex or coeducational classes without input from families. Though parents were noti-fied several weeks later that they could opt out of the assignments, several classes were not offered in coeducational form, and the complaint states that many parents did not receive the letter providing them the choice to opt out of single-sex classes.

The ACLU’s amended complaint added the Department of Education as a defendant. According to the ACLU:

(1) … the Dept. of Education’s 2006 regulations are unconstitutional because they allow schools to segregate students on the basis of gender without showing an “exceedingly persuasive” justification as required by the Equal Protection [C]lause, (2) even if the regulations are constitutional, Breckinridge County Middle School’s single-sex plan does not comply with the 2006 regulations because students are not afforded a “substantially equal coeducational alternative” to the single-sex classes, and (3) because the school receives federal funding from other governmental agencies (e.g. Dept. of Agriculture, Dept. of Health and Human Services), it is bound to follow those agencies’ regulations prohibiting sex-based discrimination (those agencies’ regulations mirror the Dept. of Education’s pre-2006 regulations and thus prohibit single-sex classes). (ACLU-KY, 2008b, p. 1)

In 2009, a district court judge ruled that the plaintiffs could not sue the Department of Education under Title IX, which only allows for judicial review in situations where relief “may otherwise be provided by law for

14 Educational Administration Quarterly XX(X)

similar action taken by such department or agency on other grounds” (A.N.A. v. Breckinridge County Board of Education, 2009a, p. 9). In granting the Department’s motion to dismiss, the court noted that Title IX only creates an implied right of action against those educational institutions that receive fed-eral funds and that no private right of action exists against the government. The court also held that while the Administrative Procedure Act allows courts to invalidate regulations that are “arbitrary and capricious” or that violate statutory and constitutional law, the plaintiffs had access to “other adequate remed[ies] in court” through their suit of the school district, which nullifies the court’s ability to provide a review (p. 10). The court did eventually grant class certification, however, and the A.N.A. v. Breckinridge County Board of Education case continued (A.N.A. v. Breckinridge County Board of Education, 2009b; Buzuvis & Newhall, 2009). In a subsequent case, the federal district court in 2011 dismissed the students’ claims, holding that the students failed to present evidence that the single-sex program was substandard or unequal (A.N.A. v. Breckinridge County Board of Education, 2011).

In the 2009 district court decision dismissing the suit against the Department of Education, there was no discussion of social science research. The complaint, however, does include the reasoning behind establishing the single-sex program, some of which is based on empirical research. For exam-ple, when the Breckinridge School District first created single-sex math and science classes, the school district claimed that its classes offered differenti-ated learning instruction to address the difference of learning styles, capaci-ties, and interests between girls and boys. Girls’ classrooms had softer lights and music, whereas boys had brighter lights. In discussing the differences between male and females classes, one math teacher stated that “boys, gener-ally, are capable of abstract thought,” while girls need more hands-on activi-ties to understand mathematical concepts (p. 20). This example amplifies the concerns about overly broad generalizations related to gender that were raised in the M.S. and Vermilion cases.

In the most recent case, Doe v. Wood County Board of Education (2012), a federal district court in West Virginia granted in part and denied in part a preliminary injunction prohibiting the school district from operating single-sex classes because the classes failed to comply with the requirement that the classes be completely voluntary. The facts suggest that a middle school in the district began offering single-sex classes during the 2010-2011 school year for reading, math, social studies, and science. The court highlighted the Department of Education’s requirement that programs be voluntary and that schools are “strongly encouraged to notify parents” about the gender classifi-cation involved. School officials automatically placed all students into the single-sex classes unless parents objected, which the court found to be in

Eckes and McCall 15

violation of the regulations. The plaintiffs had argued also that single-sex classes should never be permissible under the Constitution or Title IX. However, the court stressed that “[n]o legal authority supports the conclusion that optional single-sex programs in public schools are ipso facto injurious to the schools’ students” and that single-sex classes that meet the heightened scrutiny set forth in U.S. v. Virginia “can certainly be constitutional” (p. 10).

The court focused on the voluntariness of the program and not whether the district had an exceedingly persuasive justification for offering the program. Interestingly, the court did refer to the district’s expert, Professor Rosemary Salomone, who stated that the district did not rely on gender stereotypes in the single-sex classrooms. Salomone agreed with the plaintiffs that the research conducted by Leonard Sax is pseudoscience.

Specifically, our findings suggest that three of the four school districts discussed did not take a nuanced approach when trying to justify the need for a single-sex educational program or when examining issues of equity and access within the single-sex education context. There is little evidence that gender mattered in such a way that required an exploration of different kinds of research evidence. Some of the research cited was highly accessible but may not have been considered the most rigorous among scholars. And we argue that “rigorous” or not, the reliance on biological difference sets up a different set of problems and harmful conditions for making policy about gender-based reform initiatives. This was especially true in Doe v. Vermilion Parish School Board where the district only seemed to consider research from one dissertation. It was therefore not surprising when the National Women’s Law Center’s amicus brief argued that the research that the school district relied upon was “based on harmful sex stereotypes disguised as sci-ence” (Brief for the National Women’s Law Center, 2010, p. 16). In the same brief, the National Women’s Law Center cited Dr. Diane Halpern, the former President of the American Psychological Association, who opined: “By teaching to perceived differences, in many cases, educators unwittingly ignored the power of schooling in shaping gender ideologies” (Brief for the National Women’s Law Center, 2010, p. 17). We agree. This quote captures one of our goals, which is to encourage a wider collection of empirical and theoretical literature that can be used to analyze gender and schooling.

It also appears that the school leaders in these cases may not have made a strong enough justification for the single-sex program before the program was implemented. As noted by the U.S. Supreme Court, reliance on social science research should be well documented before the single-sex program is implemented—instead of trying to justify the program during litigation. This documentation is a requirement of the amended regulations as well. Like the Court explained in the VMI decision, the justification for a single-sex

16 Educational Administration Quarterly XX(X)

program must be genuine and not created “post hoc” in response to litigation, and school districts should not rely on overly broad stereotypes about gender. Finally, as was evident in Doe v. Vermilion Parish School Board, school dis-tricts must provide proper notice to parents that the single-sex program is voluntary, and a coeducational option must be available. In the Doe v. Wood County Board of Education decision, the court also stressed the importance of notification. Based on what we know from the cases, the school districts missed the mark in Vermilion, M.S., and A.N.A. where the districts relied on brain research. From what little we know from the expert testimony in the Wood decision, it appears that the district may not have relied on gender ste-reotypes in this case.

In our analysis, we are hoping to show that research based on biological differences and static conceptions of gender does not address the many pos-sible issues related to gender in education. In other words, brain-based research or biological explanations of difference limit the analysis for the diverse ways in which students experience school, ignore the historical struc-tures of gendered social relations that inform the selection of curricular knowledge, and negate the complexity of gender identity formation. In three of the four cases discussed, the school districts relied on this type of research to their detriment. We believe the theories discussed below might be useful to school districts when justifying the use of a single-sex program. As noted, a single-sex program needs to be based on the school board’s important objec-tive of (1) improving academic achievement or (2) meeting a particular edu-cational need of its students provided that the program is substantially related to achieving that objective. Specifically, if the research is sufficiently relied upon, a district might be able to overcome the presumption of invalidity dis-cussed earlier.

The Potential for Social Science Research in Public Single-Sex Education Cases

Social science research has the potential to inform courts about an exceed-ingly persuasive justification for public single-sex educational programs. The use of social science research to support a legal argument has not been with-out controversy, but it certainly has been considered by courts in the past (Groshoff, 2010; Hass, 2002; Salomone, 2006). While at times courts have embraced data generated through social science research, on other occasions they have been reluctant to do so (Nemko, 1998). For example, in Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Supreme Court cited sociological studies to demonstrate that segregation had a negative effect on Black students. However, Nemko (1998) suggests that the Court rejected important findings

Eckes and McCall 17

from the American Psychological Association related to the rights of minors in other cases. Nemko (1998) posits that despite these complexities:

There are strong legal grounds for considering social science studies as evidence to support or to discredit particular facts, such as the effects of single-sex education, and to render legal conclusions from the weight of that evidence. Chief among these grounds are the Federal Rules of Evidence, which encourage admission of any evidence that is relevant and not prejudicial or subject to other exclusions, and entrust fact finders to resolve conflicting facts and theories. These evidentiary rules provide a basis for the use of social science research to determine whether a sex-based classification is substantially related to the goal of providing equal educational opportunities and results for girls and boys. (pp. 52-53)

In the 2007 Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School School District No. 14 (PICS) U.S. Supreme Court decision, Justice Breyer’s dissent carefully considered social science research related to the benefits of race-conscious admissions programs. However, this research was quickly dismissed by Justice Thomas in his concurring opinion when he wrote that “the dissent unquestioningly cites certain social science research to support propositions that are hotly disputed among social scientists (p. 761).

Despite the court’s dismissal of social science research in some cases, we are confident that research can and should be considered. Mead (2003) agrees that “social science research will play a pivotal role in persuading jurists as to the constitutionality or lack thereof associated with single-gender approaches” (p. 182). Several education and legal scholars have commented on the role social science research could play in the judicial systems (Dunn & West, 2008; Morgan & Pullin, 2010; Ryan, 2003; Welner, 2006), and others have discussed the role the courts should play in shaping educational policy (Chemerinsky, 2003; Parker, 2003).

To urge courts and school personnel to consider the use of social science research in these matters, this section suggests possible areas of inquiry related to gender-segregated education. The research agendas and educa-tional topics we highlight are implicitly embedded in discourses, debates, and dilemmas in public single-sex education. We believe that bringing an analysis of gender and education to the foreground of this debate could significantly inform decisions on the justification of single-sex programs. In our review of research about single-sex education, we have found the emphasis to be on efficacy of school type (Hayes & Pahlke, 2010; Marsh, 1991; Patterson & Pahlke, 2010; Riordan, 1990), school reform (Brown & Russo, 1999; Herr & Arms, 2004), and the effects of school type on postschool success (Lee & Byrk, 1986; Riordan, 2002; Sullivan, Joshi, & Leonard, 2010; Watson, Quatman, & Edler, 2002).

18 Educational Administration Quarterly XX(X)

We argue that what has been missing from the mainstream debates and legal discourses have been research on gender that is relevant to the inten-tionally gendered context of single-sex education. We highlight research where gender issues have been shown to directly intersect education such as within curricular practices, social relations, and school experience. It is not within the scope of this article to provide a specific literature review on all of the areas of research. Also, it is difficult to argue which research is “exceed-ingly persuasive” because the needs calling for particular school reform ini-tiatives are highly contextualized. Instead, our article points to several areas of research concerned with gendered practices and experiences in school that we believe could inform school leaders in explaining their single-sex pro-grams to the community and courts.

For the purposes of this article, we look back to examine what research exists about single-sex schools and then look forward to propose several broad areas of research that have not been previously considered in relation to single-sex schools. We have selected this research to highlight based on our review of how social science literature was used in the four cases. First, we will discuss the current landscape of the research on single-sex schools. Then, we consider three areas of research related to student achievement, gendered curricular practices, and gendered social relations in school. Finally, we conclude with a brief discussion of our recommendations for how courts and school leaders could take a more nuanced approach in considering social science research in their decisions.

The Current Landscape of Research on Single-Sex Schools

Gender is generally undertheorized in education (Arnot & Mac an Ghaill, 2006), and Riordan (1994) suggests that “single-sex schools are perhaps the least studied of all major topics in education” (p. 177). Furthermore, there is little agreement on the effects and benefits of single-sex education in the public and private sectors in the amount of research that exists (Bigler & Signorella, 2011; Mael, Alonso, Gibson, Rogers, & Smith, 2005; Salomone, 2006). Much of the research on single-sex schools has been conducted in Catholic single-sex schools and by comparison studies of co-ed Catholic to single-sex Catholic schools (Lee & Byrk, 1986) as well as comparison stud-ies among Catholic co-ed, Catholic single-sex, and public co-ed schools (Marsh, 1991). The studies on single-sex schooling have been primarily gen-erated in secondary schools in Great Britain, Australia, and New Zealand, where single-sex schools have historically been a public school option (Patterson & Pahlke, 2010; Riordan, 1994). Public sector single-sex educa-tion has been more closely inspected in recent governmental reports (Mael

Eckes and McCall 19

et al., 2005; U.S. Department of Education, 2008) and policy analysis such as a recent 3-year study conducted by the Metropolitan Center of Urban Education (Noguerua & Fergus, 2010) of seven all-boys public schools.

Limitations of the research on single-sex education have instigated much debate when trying to apply the findings of the qualitative and the quantita-tive studies (Halpern et al., 2011; Hubbard & Datnow, 2005; Lee & Byrk, 1986; Lee & Marks, 1992; Lewin, 2011; Salomone, 2006). Selection bias has been considered to be the most problematic methodological challenge because most single-sex schools are private. Thus, students choose to attend the Catholic or independent schools, unlike a public neighborhood school to which students are typically assigned. Riordan (1994) argues that the simple fact of school choice, which he terms a pro-academic choice, presumes a good fit between the student and the school, making it difficult to attribute increased achievement or other positive outcomes to gender segregation.

Also, in a systematic review of the literature conducted for the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) titled Single-Sex Versus Coeducational Schooling: A Systematic Review (Mael et al., 2005), researchers examined over 300 studies related to single-sex schools and classrooms. At the time of the literature review, no research was available on public single-sex schools in the United States. Researchers reviewed 88 quantitative studies, only 40 of which were deemed robust by the researchers’ codified standards of quality research and only four qualitative studies met the same standards of quality. The social science research in international contexts can also offer some guidance to school leaders and courts (Jimenez & Lockheed, 1989; Malacova, 2007; Mbilizi, 2008; Rostam-Kolayi, 2008; Wong, Lam, & Ho, 2002). To be certain, there is much agreement on the need for more research, but not always agreement on what traditions of research are needed or the standards of quality that define robust.

Research related to student achievement. One of the two objectives that justify single-sex education in the 2006 Amendments is to improve students’ achievement levels (Title IX Regulations, 2006). Hence, we would be remiss to not include a brief discussion about the research on student achievement in single-sex educational programs and how it informs a school board’s decision to implement a single-sex educational program. While researchers are hesitant to claim that segregating students by gender is the primary fac-tor for increases in student achievement (Salomone, 2006), there has been empirical evidence supporting the finding that girls benefit academically from single-sex schools more than boys (Jimenez & Lockheed, 1989; Ken-way & Willis, 1998; Lee & Byrk, 1986). The evidence of girls benefiting the most is mixed along various dimensions of schooling such as occupational

20 Educational Administration Quarterly XX(X)

aspirations (Francis, Hutchinsons, Archer, & Melling, 2003), likelihood to pursue STEM careers (Cherney & Campbell, 2011), and the life course of achievement (Sullivan et al., 2010). Some research has demonstrated that students of color and students from working-class families experience more educational benefits, including student achievement and academic aspira-tions from a single-sex setting than a coeducational one (Patterson & Pahlke, 2010; Riordan, 2002).

Furthermore, the 2008 DOE review suggests “some support for the prem-ise that single-sex schooling can be helpful, especially for certain outcomes related to academic achievement and more positive academic aspirations” (U.S. Department of Education, 2008, p. xi). Of the academic outcomes stud-ied, 53% of the studies favored neither single-sex nor coed schooling, 10% of the studies offered mixed results, 35% favored single-sex schooling, and only 2% favored coed schooling. When considering socioemotional outcomes, 39% of the outcomes favored neither single-sex nor coed schooling, 6% offered mixed results, 45% favored single-sex schooling, and only 10% favored coed schooling.

After the systematic literature review, the Department of Education con-ducted a study in 2008 which included survey data and an observational study of U.S. public single-sex schools (U.S. Department of Education, 2008). Results from this study, however, were inconclusive in regards to the effects of this school type on student achievement. The observational study did, however, show that students at the single-sex schools showed some enhanced academic behaviors such as classroom engagement and homework completion, especially at the middle school level. These results were some-what less significant at the elementary level, where students in single-sex elementary schools showed equal amounts of classroom engagement as their coed school peers, but still had improved rates of homework completion. No data for high schools were available because a comparison coed school could not be obtained for a site visit.

In another study, the National Center for Education Statistics concluded that “females are now doing as well as or better than males on many indica-tors of achievement and educational attainment, and that large gaps that once existed between males and females have been eliminated in most cases and have significantly decreased in other cases” (Freeman, 2004, p. 1). Some observers may argue that recent research on boys suggests that boys may face the most obstacles related to academic achievement in schools, as one study found that the average high school grade point average is 2.86 for boys and 3.09 for girls. Additionally, boys are also almost twice as likely as girls to repeat a grade (Kristof, 2010). Despite this perception, some scholars very thoughtfully question segregated schools for boys (see Cohen, 2009).

Eckes and McCall 21

Academic achievement may be one piece of evidence courts hope to use as “exceedingly persuasive” and to demonstrate a substantial interest, yet there has not been a “gold standard” study conducted on academic achieve-ment for U.S. public or private single-sex schools (Campbell & Sanders, 2002). Much of the research on single-sex schools cites benefits that extend beyond academic achievement data to include the conditions that create posi-tive learning environments (Arnot, David, & Weiner, 1999; Kenway & Willis, 1998; Lee & Marks, 1992; Riordan, 2002). As is the case with many studies that suggest environmental features to be more positive for students in single-sex schools, researchers hypothesize that these environmental aspects of this school type can be related to increased academic achievement.

Accordingly, reconceptualizing equity and achievement in relation to gen-der could encourage a more nuanced discussion about the merits of single-sex education. Courts and school leaders would benefit from research that informs which girls and boys are achieving and in what ways. With this infor-mation, we could better understand which girls and boys need access to which types of schools. This approach to equity considers differences within groups. Discussion about achievement in relation to gender can be problem-atic when the notion of what is equitable is conceptualized as same treatment and same outcomes. Indeed, gender experiences in school are understood at intersections with race/ethnicity, social class, ability, and sexuality (Anderson & Collins, 2007; Archer, Halsall, & Hollingworth, 2007; Diaz, 2006; Erkut, Fields, Sing, & Marx, 1996). While our article emphasizes gender as the ana-lytic force for understanding policies and issues related to sex-segregated schooling, we realize that research that explains school experiences across many categories of analysis (Anderson & Collins, 2007) could also be pro-ductive for this debate.

Areas of Research Related to Gendered Curricular Practices

The research related to the intersection of gender and school curriculum could be most useful for furthering the debate on the benefits and conse-quences of sex-segregated schooling. Curriculum and gender are inextricably intertwined through the gendered social relations that produce and transmit curricular knowledge (Apple, 2004; Young, 1971). This section presents three areas of research that could be relevant for courts and school leaders, including gender inequality in the curriculum, gender-based learning differ-ences, and gendered course selection patterns.

Research on gender inequality in curriculum. An important question for the courts and school leaders to consider is who has access to what knowledge. In

22 Educational Administration Quarterly XX(X)

this nation, historical structures of dominance in schools have limited access to knowledge in the form of school curriculum based on gender, race, and class (Anderson, 1988; Anyon, 1980, 2006; Kleibard, 2002; Tyack & Hansot, 1992). Decisions about which groups of students have access to which forms of schooling, quality of knowledge, and teaching are influenced by the way differences among students are conceptualized. For example, when girls were expected to maintain their place in the domestic sphere, they had very limited or no access to the knowledge taught in public school (Graves, 1998).

Two studies are often cited in more contemporary debates as the fulcrum for the public acknowledgement of gender inequality in classrooms and cur-ricular practices across the United States: The Report Card: The Cost of Sex Bias in Schools (Sadker & Sadker, 1981) and subsequently Failing at Fairness (Sadker & Sadker, 1994). These studies marked important historical moments in the research on gender bias and equity, which demonstrates not just the costs of ignoring girls in formal curriculum materials and in instruc-tional practices but that gender is a formative issue in classroom curricula, teacher-student interactions, and teaching practices. Likewise, the American Association of University Women (AAUW) report How Schools Shortchange Girls (Bailey, 1992) found that educational sexism and exclusion in curricu-lum still existed in classrooms and schools across the nation. Riordan (2002) suggests that these findings indicate the need for coeducational schools to “demonstrate first that they are free of gender bias, and second, that they are at least as effective as single-sex schools in terms of achievement and gender equity” instead of the current practice of requiring single-sex schools to prove their merit (p. 11).

Gender-based learning differences. There is research that addresses “the sci-ence” about what boys and girls should learn (Sax, 2005), and there is much disagreement about the ways in which curriculum should or should not be differentiated based on gender (see Eliot, 2009; Halpern et al., 2011). We point out this literature to underscore the ways in which theoretical beliefs about sex and gender can limit or expand access to curriculum content and pedagogical practices. Are there gender-specific ways of learning? If so, what does this mean for teaching? Theories and paradigms of gender are less often explored for other ways to explain differences related to learning and achievement patterns (Campbell & Sanders, 2002). In addition to claiming that there is little evidence of academic advantage to single-sex schooling based on many confounding variables and problematic methods, an article in Science magazine extols the lack of scientific evidence in the existing brain-based research widely used by educators to justify different teaching practices for boys and girls (Halpern et al., 2011). In addition to differences

Eckes and McCall 23

viewed as biological or innate (Sax, 2005), there are psychosocial theories (Walkerdine, Lucey, & Melody, 2001), social theories of practice (Connell, 1996), and theories of performativity (Butler, 1990, 2004).

Understanding theories of gender is significant for understanding class-rooms and schools (Bernstein, 1975/2003). This body of research may not appear to be helpful for understanding curricular implications because of the disparate viewpoints from which to choose and understand; however, we argue that the diverse theories of gender-based differences related to learning is important for just this reason—to demonstrate that claims made and evi-dence used to justify sex-segregated learning environments can be challenged by research from another paradigm. Given this, school leaders and the courts should carefully consider what evidence and which perspectives of research are drawn upon, as there are curricular implications in the enactments of these perspectives. Some school districts have attempted to examine this area but only at the surface (e.g., Doe v. Vermilion Parish School Board, 2010). The research could better problematize the idea that there is one kind of evi-dence in research that can exceedingly persuade when so much research exists from varying theoretical stances. School leaders are encouraged to explore these areas when deciding whether to create a single-sex educational program.

Gendered course selection patterns. Course selection patterns are another important area of research because they further the discussion about who has access to what knowledge and which opportunities to learn. Studies show that gender is a salient feature of course selection patterns in secondary school with much of the emphasis on math and science courses (Corbett & Hill, 2008). As noted, the AAUW report How Schools Shortchange Girls (Bailey, 1992) found uneven participation in school subjects by gender, which fueled a line of inquiry about curriculum, equity, and access to college over the next decade. Girls were underenrolled in math and science courses, while boys were underenrolled in English, social sciences, and the arts (Bailey, 1992). Lee (1998) asserts that gender equity related to boys’ course taking patterns is often not discussed. She questions why girls’ patterns are often prioritized and suggests research on gender patterns in all curriculum areas. While stan-dardized testing data and enrollment counts do not tell the whole story, this type of course selection data can be found in each of the subject areas (Bailey, 1992).

There has been much concern about the interest, abilities and positioning of girls in the sciences and math (Hughes, 2001; Oakes, Joseph, & Muir, 2004; Walkerdine, 1998); some of this research has prompted calls for single-sex learning environments. The more recent report by the AAUW (Corbett &

24 Educational Administration Quarterly XX(X)

Hill, 2008) summarizes its findings and contends that “girls’ enrollment pat-terns are beginning to look more like boys’ … but progress is not uniform” (p. 292). For some single-sex school advocates, sex-segregated schools are one way to combat the gender gaps in course-taking patterns, which creates a possibility for increased access to content for both sexes and can thus be seen to combat gender inequities (Lee, 1998). There is evidence that coed schools have reduced the gender gap in course-taking in math and sciences but have been unsuccessful with girls in generating high levels of interest in math and sciences (Campbell & Sanders, 2002). There is an increasing amount of research in single-sex schools about girls and their engagement in math and science that should be explored (Cherney & Campbell, 2001; Shapka & Keating, 2003).

This area of research draws attention to the issue of gender imbalances in specific school disciplines and could be beneficial to policymakers and school leaders in trying to justify single-sex educational programs. A related research agenda is the empirical and theoretical evidence on the gendering of subject area knowledge and the school policies that reify or resist the gen-dered discourses of knowledge (Fine, 1988; Hughes, 2001; Paechter, 2000; Walkerdine, 1998).

Gendered Social Relations

There is evidence that single-sex schooling has positive effects on student interactions and behavior, and this important aspect of single-sex education should not be overlooked. Results from the U.S. DOE’s (2008) site visits discussed earlier showed that “students in the single-sex elementary and mid-dle schools visited exhibited a greater sense of community, interacted more positively with one another, showed greater respect for their teachers, were less likely to initiate class disruptions, and demonstrated more positive stu-dent role modeling than students in the coed comparison school sample” (U.S. Department of Education, 2008, p. xiv).

These findings are not surprising because much of the research conducted in single-sex schools has uncovered a variety of affective outcomes such as student attitudes, self-esteem, and college aspirations (Lee & Marks, 1990). While high student performance on standardized test scores presumably pro-vides some insight into curriculum access, there are also affective factors at play related to academic attainment, which are not measured by test scores. For example, Lee and Marks (1990) examined sustained effects of attending an all-girls high school and found that these girls had higher educational aspi-rations and were more likely to attend 4-year colleges than girls who attended coed schools. Lee and Marks (1992) have also conceptualized factors that

Eckes and McCall 25

may be related to academic achievement as “opportunity structures,” or prac-tices and policies that are in place to support increased opportunities for a variety of educational outcomes.

Environmental factors contribute to how students experience school and their relations and relationships in school. Research that considers student experience relies on methodological approaches that capture students’ articu-lation of their daily life in schools and classrooms and seeks to understand aspects of schooling that affect student experience (Erickson et al., 2008). Erickson et al. (2008) set out a compelling analysis for why research on schools, curricula, classrooms, and school change should account for stu-dents’ experiences—going beyond the normative quantitative data of student test scores. Research that emphasizes student experience in school generally falls into three types of interest: “how students participate in and make sense of life in classrooms and schools, who students are and how they develop in classrooms and schools, and how students are actively involved in shaping their own learning opportunities and in the improvement of life in schools” (p. 199). Kenway and Willis (1998) attribute the benefits for girls to the pos-sibilities of enacting a feminist pedagogy and an overt commitment to girls’ education. There is much theoretical literature to argue that sex-segregated schools for girls are beneficial because they have the potential to disrupt the effects of hegemonic gendered social relations and argue that these relations often typify the environment of coeducational schools (Arnot et al., 1999; Howe, 1984; Kenway & Willis, 1998).

Schools are not just spaces for learning academic content and skills, but places where students spend a significant amount of time interacting with others, learning about themselves, and constructing their identities through their interactions with teachers and peers (Erickson et al., 2008; Kessler, Ashenden, Connell, & Dowsett, 1985). The social relations in school are dis-tinctly gendered and occur in a highly political process of knowledge trans-mission (Apple, 2004; Kessler et al., 1985; Young, 1971). For example, the increase in research on bullying and sexual harassment in the recent years is evidence that day-to-day experiences of life in school cannot be taken for granted, and particularly when issues of gender and sexuality are at stake (Pascoe, 2007; Youdell, 2004). This section presents two topics related to social experiences of school that are highly sensitive to gender: sexual hostil-ity and gender stereotyping.

Sexual hostility. While a single-sex school’s gender composition may not reflect the same historical patterns of gender hierarchy, power and gender are always present and tend to interact in sexualized ways in school. Research concerned with gender regimes in schools has examined forms of sexual hos-tility related to heteronormativity and harassment (Youdell, 2004) as well

26 Educational Administration Quarterly XX(X)

as in sports and hypermasculinization processes (Messner, 2002). Sexual harassment is one form of sexual hostility that could affect a student’s daily experience in school. Research on student experiences of sexual harassment in different types of schools could shed light on the extent to which coed and single-sex schools are considered safe or unsafe places for learning.

An often cited benefit for single-sex schools for girls is that they are pro-tected from the distractions of boys (Campbell & Sanders, 2002; U.S. Department of Education, 2008). Kenway and Willis (1998) found that girls are more comfortable in single-sex schools and find them less threatening environments to be who they want to be. Presumably, boys are believed to pose a sexual threat to girls in addition to the perception that they dominate the classroom space and teacher’s attention. Yet sexual hostility can also manifest in same-sex peers. Research has shown that peer-peer relations, both same-sex and different-sex peers, play an important role in how students understand themselves and others and how they experience schools (Holland & Eisenhart, 1990; Lesko, 1988; Mac an Ghaill & Haywood, 1998; Pascoe, 2007; Thorne, 1999). What school leaders and the courts may find useful in this line of inquiry are the ways in which gender differences and desires inter-sect with power in school environments.

Sexism and gender stereotyping. Every school has a gender regime (Arnot, 2002; Connell, 1987) or gendered norms, patterns, and practices for social relations. Classrooms are one space in schools where sexist socialization occurs (Lee, Marks, & Byrd, 1994). The research on sexism and sex stereo-typing in coed and single-sex schools is critical for understanding the ways in which schooling perpetuates and reifies gender regimes (Connell, 1987) that limit students’ opportunities to understand gender beyond fixed hierarchical gender patterns (see Nosek, 2009). Messner’s (2002) study about gender and sports in high school and beyond is an example of research on gender ste-reotyping and sexism transmitted in school practices. The study shows how traditional and dominant gender regimes are perpetuated in school policies and practices related to athletics and athletic participation.

Lee and Marks (1990) found that students at all-girls’ schools were found to hold less stereotypic views of women’s societal roles when com-pared to their coeducational counterparts. In another study on sex stereo-typing, however, the researchers compared single-sex schools to coed schools and found no less gender stereotyping in same-sex environments (Lee et al., 1994). Their study found that sexism exists in girls’ schools, boys’ schools, and coed schools in one form of behavior or another. This study examined how private school students experienced engenderment, or socialization to gender, within the classroom in single-sex schools as

Eckes and McCall 27

compared to coeducational schools. The researchers observed whether and how single-sex or coeducational groupings of students impacted the fre-quency, form, and severity of sexism in the classroom. In addition to look-ing for gender reinforcement, embedded discrimination, sex-role stereotyping, gender domination, active discrimination, and explicitly sex-ual incidents as examples of sexism, the researchers also looked for posi-tive examples of behavior that reinforced ideas of gender equity. While the most positive examples reinforcing notions of gender equity were observed in girls’ schools, the researchers also observed a subtler form of sexism in the way of unchallenging instruction in some girls’ schools. The research-ers also found that there were few efforts in boys’ schools to foster gender equity, and almost all of the sexist events observed in boys’ schools were initiated by the teachers at these schools. Whelen’s (2011) ethnographic study about boys’ experiences in coeducational school found that teachers’ expectations for the ideal student were highly gendered in ways that nar-rowed the membership of “achieving boys” for those boys who were disaf-fected by their daily school experiences. Other researchers observed that boys-only programs can reinforce traditional notions of masculinity (Datnow, Hubbard, & Woody, 2001), while others contend that gender-con-scious educational programs can challenge stereotypes (Davies, 2003).

The Application of the Research to the Law

The purpose of this article was not to evaluate the existing research to deter-mine which studies are more rigorous than others. Instead, we wanted to highlight the various studies that are available to school districts. We know from the analysis of the four cases that brain-based research is often only considered by some school districts when implementing single-sex programs. It is our hope that districts consider the wide variety of other research avail-able on single-sex programs. To illustrate, looking at experience of schooling through concerns about sexism and stereotyping in many kinds of schools could be useful for understanding the ways in which students’ school experi-ences are affected by gendered social relations.

Although much of the research on single-sex programs is inconclusive, some of the research discussed could be relied upon by school districts when trying to overcome the presumption of invalidity. For example, expert wit-nesses are often called upon to help explain conflicting research in litigation. Specifically, courts often admit competing expert testimony to assist the fact-finder in deciding a case and judges have “a fair amount of latitude on how best to use the expert’s testimony to understand the information presented” (Welch, 2010, p. 162). Of course some observers might argue that much of

28 Educational Administration Quarterly XX(X)

the research related to single-sex programs has been highly politicized or that researchers may have an outcome in mind before they begin their study (Ryan, 2003). Nevertheless, as Ryan (2003) suggests, experts could play a role in sorting out which social science research has employed more rigorous methodologies. Thus, expert witnesses could be useful in demonstrating an exceedingly persuasive justification for single-sex programs in a given con-text. Likewise, experts could present evidence that a single-sex policy adopted by the school board bears a substantial relationship to the school board’s legitimate interest in a certain area (e.g., addressing sex stereotyping in math and science courses). In short, school districts will be challenged to overcome the heavy burden when defending their single-sex education pro-grams, but as courts have noted it is not impossible.

Conclusions and Recommendations

The case analyses revealed that in three of the four cases discussed, the research was used by the school board in an uncritical manner. Specifically, the research relied upon in three cases focused mainly on biological differ-ences of gender or brain-based research. Brain-based research has been referred to as flawed by some courts (see Doe v. Vermilion Parish School Board, 2011). More recent neuroscience research related to gender differ-ences might be useful in future cases to show which differences about the brain, biology, and gender matter (Jordan-Young, 2010), how brains are more plastic, flexible, and capable of change (Eliot, 2009), and how “scientific” knowledge is socially and politically constructed (Choudhury & Slaby, 2012; Fausto-Sterling, 2000, 2012).

Our concern was that only one source of social science research related to gender and education in single-sex schooling was highlighted in these cases instead of possible links to other areas of research. Historically, narrow theo-ries of biologically determined notions of gender have informed access to knowledge and perpetuated relations of dominance (Connell, 1987). As high-lighted in the various studies, students learn more than academic content knowledge in school (Anyon, 2006; Apple, 2004); they learn knowledge about gender and sexuality that they use in their process of gender identity formation (Arnot, 2002; Thorne, 1999).

As school leaders and courts consider laws and policies concerning single-sex education, we advise them to consider a broader body of social science research in education related to gender. School districts should look beyond brain-based research to the many other areas discussed. We urge social sci-ence researchers to make their work more accessible to courts and school leaders. Our hope is that this research assists school officials in taking a more

Eckes and McCall 29

critical view of existing research about biologically based gender differ-ences—what Halpern et al. (2011) referred to as “pseudoscience.”

We think it important to consider the context of the particular school envi-ronments and needs of a community. The social science research does not provide a definitive answer as to which type of school—coeducational or single-sex—best suits the needs of which students; different students across social locations benefit in different ways from one school setting or another (see Sherwin, 2005). In this way, districts and school leaders need to better attend to differences within categories of “girl” and “boy” in their planning and implementing gender-based school reform initiatives. Finally, school leaders need to make their cases for change, reform, and single-sex programs using a variety of research and theoretical support. The cases we analyzed for this discussion show that the justification for a public single-sex program must be genuine and not created “post hoc” in response to litigation. Likewise, school leaders and school boards should not rely on overbroad generaliza-tions about the capacities of males and females, as was done in three of the four cases discussed. In doing so, school officials might consider collaborat-ing with attorneys and researchers when they are creating policies that permit single-sex education programs (see Morgan & Pullin, 2010). Of course, school boards should be sure to follow the 2006 regulations during the imple-mentation process.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publica-tion of this article.

Notes

1. In this article we use the terms sex and gender. We, however, do not use these terms interchangeably. When citing federal law or court cases or citing others’ analysis of these, we use the term sex because that is the language of most legal discourse from which we have drawn. We use the term gender in constructing our analysis and discussion. We invoke the term gender to signify our stance of a social theory of gender as practice (Connell, 1987). It is important to us to note that we do not intend to invoke gender as a stable signifier in the way the terms and meanings of sex and gender are often invoked. We have found it difficult to navigate these terms in our attempts to blend legal discussions of law and policy with social science research in postmodern theories of gender and education.

30 Educational Administration Quarterly XX(X)

Precise language has been one issue, among many, where the merging of our dif-ferent investments, theories, and discourses has been important for strengthening and challenging commitments to the discourses of our own work.

2. One limitation associated with this method is that some controversies involv-ing single-sex educational programs may not be reported on the Lexis-Nexis or Westlaw databases. Because the regulations were amended in 2006 and litigation is a slow process, it is likely that some controversies have not made their way to the court system yet. As such, we also searched major news databases, the American Civil Liberty Union’s website, and the National Women’s Law Center’s website to learn about controversies that might not have been reported on Lexis or West. Our search within major news databases found that the Pittsburgh Public School District agreed to drop its plan for single-sex classes after the ACLU threatened legal action (Rose & Frietsche, 2011). We also learned that a proposed all boys’ school in Madison, Wisconsin was voted down by the Madison School Board after much controversy (Sherwin, 2011).

3. Requiring the plaintiffs to prove discrimination by demonstrating an intent to harm them is contrary to what Supreme Court stated in U.S. v. Virginia.

4. 551 U.S. 701, 220 Ed.Law Rep. 84 (2007).

References

Alvesson, M. (2002). Unpacking categories. In M. Alvesson (Ed.), Postmodernism and social research (pp. 90-106). Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). (2011, Oct. 13). Louisiana school board to halt single-sex classes after ACLU intervention. Retrieved from http://www.aclu.org/womens-rights/louisiana-school-board-halt-single-sex-classes-after-aclu-in-tervention

ACLU-KY. (April 29, 2008). A.N.A., et al vs. Breckinridge Co. Board of Education, et al. Retrieved from http://aclu-ky.org/content/view/232/

ACLU-KY. (April 19, 2008). A.N.A. v. U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www.aclu.org/womensrights/edu/39089res20080519.html

A.N.A. v.U.S. Department of Education, No. 3:08-cv-0004_CRS (W.D. KY 2008).A.N.A. v. Breckinridge County Board of Education, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26198

(W.D. Ky. Mar. 27, 2009a).A.N.A. v. Breckinridge County Board of Education, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26106

(W.D. Ky. Mar. 30, 2009b).A.N.A. v. Breckinridge County Board of Education, 833 F.Supp.2d 673 (W.D. Ky.

2011).Anderson, J. D. (1988). The education of Blacks in the South, 1860-1935. Chapel Hill:

University of North Carolina Press.Anderson, M. L., & Collins, P. H. (2007). Race, class, and gender: An anthology.

Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.Anyon, J. (1980). Social class and the hidden curriculum Journal of Education, 62(1),

67-92.

Eckes and McCall 31

Anyon, J. (2006). Social class, school knowledge, and the hidden curriculum. In L. Weis, C. McCarthy & G. Dimitriadis (Eds.), Ideology, curriculum, and the new sociology of education (pp. 37-45). New York and London: Routledge.

Apple, M. (2004). Ideology and curriculum (3rd ed.). New York and London: Routledge Falmer.

Archer, L., Halsall, A., & Hollingworth, S. (2007). Inner-city femininities and educa-tion: “Race,” class, gender, and schooling in young women’s lives. Gender and Education, 15(4), 549-568.

Arnot, M. (2002). Reproducing gender? New York and London: Routledge.Arnot, M., David, M. E., & Weiner, G. (1999). Closing the gender gap: Post war

education and social change. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Arnot, M., & Mac an Ghaill, M. (2006). (Re)contextualizing gender studies in edu-

cation: Schooling in late modernity. In M. Arnot, & M. Mac an Ghaill (Eds.), The RoutledgeFalmer reader in gender and education (pp. 1-14). New York and London: Routledge.

Bailey, S. (1992). How schools shortchange girls. Wellesley, MA: American Association of University Women.

Banks, J. (2004). Multicultural education: Historical developments, dimensions, and practice. In J. Banks & C. McGee Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on mul-ticultural education (pp. 3-29). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bernstein, B. (1975/2003). Class, codes and control: Volume III Towards a theory of educational transmission. New York: Routledge.

Bigler, R. S., & Signorella, M. L. (2011). Single-sex education: New perspectives and evidence on a continuing controversy. Sex Roles, 65, 659-669.

Brief for the Nat’l Women’s Law Center as Amici Curiae Supporting Appellants, Doe v. Vermilion Parish School Board, No. 10-30378 (5th Cir. 2010).

Brief for the U.S. Dept. Justice as Amici Curiae Supporting Appellants, Doe v. Vermilion Parish School Board, No. 10-30378 (5th Cir. 2010).

Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).Brown, F., & Russo, C. (1999). Single-sex schools, the law, and school reform.

Education and Urban Society, 31(2), 145-158.Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble. New York and London: Routledge.Butler, J. (2004). Undoing gender. New York and London: Routledge.Buzuvis, E., & Newhall, K. (April 1, 2009). Court dismisses Department of Education

as defendant in single-sex education suit. Title IX Blog. Retrieved from http://title-ix.blogspot.com/2009_04_01_archive.html

Calce, C. (2009). 10th annual review of gender & sexuality law: Education law chapter: Single-sex education, Georgetown Journal of Gender and Law, 10(1), 573-597.

Campbell, P., & Sanders, J. (2002). Challenging the system: Assumptions and data behind the push for single-sex schooling. In A. Datnow & L. Hubbard (Eds.), Gender in policy and practice: Perspectives on single-sex and coeducational schooling (pp. 31-46). London and New York: Routledge Falmer.

Chemerinsky, E. (2003). The segregation and resegregation of American public edu-cation: The court’s role. North Carolina Law Review, 81(4), 1598-1620.

32 Educational Administration Quarterly XX(X)

Cherney, I. D., & Campbell, K. L. (2011). A league of their own: Do single-sex schools increase girls’ participation in the physical sciences? Sex Roles, 65, 712-724.

Choudhury, S., & Slaby, J. (Eds.). (2012). Critical neuroscience: A handbook of the social and cultural contexts of neuroscience. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432 (1985).Cohen, D. (2009). No boy left behind? Single-sex education and the essentialist myth

of masculinity. Indiana Law Journal, 84(1), 135-188.Connell, R. W. (1987). Gender and power: Society, the person, and sexual politics.

Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Connell, R. W. (1996). Teaching the boys: New research on masculinity, and gender

strategies for school. Teachers College Record, 98(2), 206-235.Corbett, C., & Hill, C. (2008). Where the girls are: The facts about gender equity in

education. Washington, DC: American Association of University Women.Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (Eds.). (2005). Preparing teachers for a

changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.

Datnow, N., Hubbard, L., & Woody, E. (2001). Is single-gender schooling viable in the public sector? Lessons from California’s pilot program. New York: Ford Foundation.

Davies, B. (2003). Working with primary school children to deconstruct gender. In C. Skelton & B. Francis (Ed.)., Boys and girls in the primary classroom. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.

Diaz, R. (2006). Latinas in single-sex schools: Constructing a transnational feminist identity. Unpublished PhD, City University of New York.

Doe v. Vermilion Parish School Board, 2009 U.S. Dist. Ct. Pleadings 124761 (2009).Doe v. Vermilion Parish School Board, Civil Action No.: 09-CV-1565 (April 19,

2010).Doe v. Vermilion Parish School Board, 421 F. App’x 366 (5th Cir. 2011).Doe v. Wood County Board of Education, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122627 (W.D. Ky.

Mar. 30, 2012).Dunn, J., & West, M. (2008). Calculated justice: Education research and the courts. In

F.M. Hess (Ed.), When research matters: How scholarship influences education policy (pp. 155-176). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Eckes, S. (2006). Title IX and high school opportunities: Issues of equity on and in the court. Wisconsin Women’s Law Journal, 21(2), 175-194.

Eckes, S., & Thompson, D. (2008). Retaliation lawsuits in public schools: What impact has the Jackson v. Birmingham decision had on school personnel? Education Law Reporter, 232(2), 557-569.

Eliot, L. (2009). Pink brain, blue brain: How small differences grow into troublesome gaps, and what can be done about it. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

Equal Education Opportunity Act of 1974, 20 U.S.C.A. § 1701(a)).Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, U.S. Const. amend. XIV, §1.Erickson, F., Bagrodia, R., Cook-Sather, A., Espinoza, M., Jurow, S., Shutltz, J., &

Spencer, J. (2008). Students’ experiences of school curriculum: The everyday

Eckes and McCall 33

circumstances of granting and withholding assent to learn. In M. Connelley, M. F. He & J. I. Phillion (Eds.), The Sage handbook of curriculum and instruction (pp. 198-218). London: Sage Publications.

Erkut, S., Fields, J. P., Sing, R., & Marx, F. (1996). Diversity in girls’ experiences: Feeling good about who you are. In B. J. R. Leadbeater & N. Way (Eds.), Urban girls: Resisting stereotypes, creating identities (pp. 53-64). New York: New York University Press.

Ervelles, N. (2009). Curriculum as normalizing text: Disability studies meets curricu-lum theory. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37(4), 421-439.

Fausto-Sterling, A. (2000). Sexing the body: Gender politics and the construction of sexuality. New York: Basic Books.

Fausto-Sterling, A. (2012). Sex/gender: Biology in a social world. New York: Routledge.Fine, M. (1988). Sexuality, schooling and adolescent females: The missing discourse

of desire. Harvard Education Review, 58(1), 29-53.First, P. (2006). Researching legal topics from a policy study perspective. In

S. Permuth & R. Mawdsley (Ed.), Research methods for studying legal issues in education (No. 72, pp. 131-162). Dayton, OH: Education Law Association.

Francis, B., Hutchinsons, M., Archer, L., & Melling, L. (2003). Subject choice and occupational aspirations among pupils at girls’ schools. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 11(3), 425-442.

Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools, 503 U.S. 60 (1992).Freeman, C. E. (2004). Trends in educational equity of girls & women: 2004 (No.

NCES 2005-016). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, National Center for Education Statistics.

Garrett v. Board of Education of School District of City of Detroit, 775 F. Supp. 1004 (E.D. Mich. 1991).

Graves, K. (1998). Girls’ schooling during the Progressive Era: From female scholar to domesticated citizen. New York and London: Garland Publishing, Inc.

Groshoff, D. (2010). Unchartered territory: Market competition’s constitutional collision with entrepreneurial sex-segregated charter schools. Brigham Young University Education and Law Journal, 2010(2), 307-358.

Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003).Halpern, D., Eliot, L., Bigler, R., Fabes, R., Hanish, L., Hyde, J., & Martin, C. (2011).

The pseudoscience of single-sex schooling. Science, 333(6050), 1706-1707.Hass, E. (2002). Associate Justice Thurgood Marshall: An indispensable voice in the

struggle for the civil rights of people with disabilities. Seton Hall Constitutional Law Journal, 12(2), 371-470.

Hayes, A. R., & Pahlke, E. E. (2010). The efficay of single-sex education: Testing for selection and peer quality effects. Sex Roles, 65, 639-703.

Herr, K., & Arms, E. (2004). Accountability and single-sex schooling: A collision of reform agenda. American Educational Research Journal, 41(3), 527-555.

Holland, D., & Eisenhart, M. (1990). Educated in romance: Women, achievement, and college culture. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.

Howe, F. (1984). Myths of coeducation. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

34 Educational Administration Quarterly XX(X)

Hubbard, L., & Datnow, A. (2005). Do single-sex schools improve the education of low-income and minority students? And investigation of California’s public single-gender academies. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 36(2), 115-131.

Hughes, G. (2001). Exploring the availability of student scientist identities within curriculum discourse: An anti-essentialist approach to gender-inclusive science. Gender and Education, 13(3), 275-290.

Jenkins, K. (2006). Constitutional lessons for the next generation of public single-sex elementary and secondary schools. William and Mary Law Review, 47(6), 1953-2044.

Jimenez, E., & Lockheed, M. E. (1989). Enhancing girls’ learning through single-sex education: Evidence and a policy conundrum. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(2), 117-142.

Jordan-Young, R. (2010). Brainstorm: The flaws in the science of sex differences. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Kenway, J., & Willis, S. (1998). Answering back: Girls, boys and feminism in school. London: Routledge.

Kessler, S., Ashenden, D. J., Connell, R. W., & Dowsett, G. W. (1985). Gender rela-tions in secondary schooling. Sociology of Education, 58(January), 34-48.

Kiselewich, R. A. (2008). In defense of the 2006 Title IX regulations for single-sex public education: How separate can be equal. Boston College Law Review, 49(1), 217-262.

Kleibard, H. (2002). Changing course: American curriculum reform in the 20th cen-tury. New York: Teachers College Press.

Kristof, N. (2010, March 27). The boys have fallen behind. The New York Times, p. 12.Lee, J., & Adler, L. (2006). Qualitative research redux: Researching contemporary

legal issues concerning education. In S. Permuth & R. Mawdsley (Ed.), Research methods for studying legal issues in education (No. 72, pp. 5-25). Dayton, OH: Education Law Association.

Lee, V. (1998). Is single-sex secondary a solution to the problem of gender ineq-uity? In S. Morse (Ed.), Separated by sex: A critical look at single-sex education (pp. 41-52). Washington, DC: American Association of University Women.

Lee, V., & Byrk, K. (1986). Effects of single-sex secondary schools on student achievement and attitudes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(5), 381-395.

Lee, V., & Marks, H. M. (1990). Sustained effects of the single-sex secondary school experience on attitudes, behaviors, and values in college, Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(3), 578-592.

Lee, V., & Marks, H. M. (1992). Who goes where? Choice of single-sex and coed-ucational independent secondary schools. Sociology of Education, 65(July), 226-253.

Lee, V. E., Marks, H. M., & Byrd, T. (1994). Sexism in single-sex and coeducational independent secondary classrooms. Sociology of Education, 67(2), 92-120.

Lesko, N. (1988). The curriculum of the body:Lessons from a Catholic high school. In L. Roman, L. K. Christian-Smith & E. Ellsworth (Eds.), Becoming feminine: The politics of popular culture. London, New York, and Philadelphia: The Falmer Group.

Eckes and McCall 35

Lewin, T. (2011, Sept. 22). Single-sex education is assailed in report. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/23/education/23single.html

Luttrell, W. (1992). Working-class women’s ways of knowing: Effects of gender, race, and class. In J. Wrigley (Ed.), Gender and education equality (pp. 175-194). London: Falmer Press.

Mac an Ghaill, M., & Haywood, C. (1998). Gendered relations beyond the curricu-lum: Peer groups, family and work. In A. Clark & E. Millard (Eds.), Gender in the secondary curriculum. New York and London: Routledge.

Mael, F. A., Alonso, A., Gibson, D., Rogers, K., & Smith, M. (2005). Single-sex versus coeduational schooling: A systematic review. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Malacova, E. (2007). Effect of single-sex education on progress in GCSE. Oxford Review of Education, 33(2), 233-259.

Marsh, H. (1991). Public, Catholic single sex, and Catholic coeducation high schools: Their effects on achievement, affect, and behaviors. American Journal of Education, 99(3), 320-356.

Mbilizi, M. A. (2008). In two different worlds: How Malawian girls experience schooling. Journal of International Women’s Studies, 9(3), 223-240.

Mead, J. (2003). Single-gender “innovations”: Can publicly funded single-gender school choice options be constitutionally justified. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(2), 164-186.

Messner, M. (2002). Taking the field: Women, men and sports. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan, 458 U.S. 718 (1982).Morgan, J. M., & Pullin, D. (2010). Social science and the courts: Challenges and

strategies for bridging gaps between law and research. Educational Researcher, 39(7), 515-523.

M.S. v. Livingston Parish School Board, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Pleadings 553C (M.D. La. August 2, 2006).

Nemko, A. (1998). Single-sex public education after VMI: The case for women’s schools. Harvard Women’s Law Journal, 21(1), 19-78.

Newberg v. Board of Public Education, 26 Pa. D. & C.3d 682 (1983).No Child Left Behind Act, P.L. 107-110, § 5131(a)(23)-c (2002).Noguerua, P., & Fergus, E. (2010). Theories of change among single-sex schools

for Black and Latino boys: An intervention in search of theory. New York: New York University, Metropolitan Center for Urban Education.

Nosek, B. (2009). National differences in gender-science stereotypes predict national sex differences in science and math achievement. Washington, DC: National Academy of Science of the U.S.

Oakes, J., Joseph, R., & Muir, K. (2004). Access and achievement in mathemat-ics and science: Inequalities that endure and change. In J. Banks & C. McGee Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (pp. 69-90). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Paechter, C. (2000). Changing school subjects: Power, gender and curriculum. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

36 Educational Administration Quarterly XX(X)

Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, 551 U.S. 701 (2007).

Parker, W. (2003). The decline of judicial decision making: School desegregation and district court judges. North Carolina Law Review, 81, 1624-1659.

Pascoe, C. J. (2007). Dude, you’re a fag: Masculinities and sexuality in high school. Berkley: University of California Press.

Patterson, M. M., & Pahlke, E. E. (2010). Student characteristics associated with girls’ success in single-sex school. Sex Roles, 65, 737-750.

Piatt, B. (2009). Gender segregation in the public schools: Opportunity, inequality, or both? St. Mary’s Law Review on Minority Issues, 11(1), 561-576.

Rapp, J. (2009). Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 Protections. In Education Law Ch. 10, § 10.16. Retrieved from www.lexisnexis.com.

Riordan, C. (1990). Boys and girls in school: Together or separate? New York: Teachers College Press.

Riordan, C. (1994). Single-gender schools: Outcomes for African and Hispanic Americans. In A. Pallas (Ed.), Research in sociology of education and socializa-tion (Vol. 10, pp. 177-205). Greenwich, CT; London: Jai Press, Inc.

Riordan, C. (2002). What do we know about the effects of single-sex schools in the private sector? Implications for public schools. In A. Datnow & L. Hubbard (Ed.), Gender in policy and practice: Perspectives on single-sex and coeduca-tional schooling (pp. 10-30). New York: Routledge Falmer.

Rose, S., & Frietsche, S. (2011, Nov. 11). Following ACLU demands Pittsburgh ditches single-sex school plans. Retrieved from http://www.aclu.org/blog/wom-ens-rights/following-aclu-demands-pittsburgh-ditches-single-sex-school-plans

Rostam-Kolayi, J. (2008). Origins of Iran’s modern girls’ schools: From private/national to public/state. Journal of Middle East Women’s Studies, 4(3), 58-88.

Russo, C. (2006). Legal research: The traditional method. In S. Permuth & R. Mawdsley (Eds.), Research methods for studying legal issues in education (No. 72, pp. 5-25). Dayton, OH: Education Law Association.

Ryan, J. E. (2003). The limited influence of social science evidence in modern deseg-regation cases. North Carolina Law Review, 81(4), 1659-1702.

Sadker, M., & Sadker, D. (1994). Failing at fairness. New York: Scribner.Sadker, M., & Sadker, D. (1981). The report card: The cost of sex bias in schools.

Washington, DC: The Mid-Atlantic Center for Sex Equity, The American University.

Salomone, R. (2003). Same, different, equal. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Salomone, R. (2006). Single-sex programs: Resolving the research conundrum.

Teachers College Record, 108(4), 778-802.Sax, L. (2005). Why gender matters: What parents and teachers need to know about

the emerging science of sex differences. New York: Doubleday.Schemo, D. (2006). Change in federal rules backs single-sex public education. The

New York Times, p. A1.Schimmel, D. (1996). Research that makes a difference: Complementary methods for

examining legal issues in education. Dayton, OH: Education Law Association.

Eckes and McCall 37

Shapka, J. D., & Keating, D. P. (2003). Effects of girls-only curriculum during ado-lescence: Performance, persistence and engagement in mathematics and science. American Educational Research Journal, 4(4), 929-960.

Sherwin, G. (2005). Single-sex schools and the antisegregation principle. New York University Law Review and Social Change, 30(1), 35-88.

Sherwin, G. (2011, December 23). Madison school board rejects sex segregated school. Retrieved from http://www.aclu.org/blog/womens-rights/madison-school-board-rejects-sex-segregated-school

Smith, D. (1987). The everyday world as problematic: A feminist sociology. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.

Smith, D. (1990). Conceptual practices of power: A feminist sociology of knowledge. Boston: Northeastern University Press.

Sullivan, A., Joshi, H., & Leonard, D. (2010). Single-sex schooling and academic attainment at school and through the lifecourse. American Educational Research Journal, 47(1), 6-36.

Thorne, B. (1999). Gender play: Girls and boys in school. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a) (1994).Title IX Regulations, 34 C.F.R. § 106.34 (2006).Tyack, D., & Hansot, E. (1992). Learning together: A history of coeducation in

American public schools. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.U.S. Const. Amend. XIV § 1.U.S. Department of Education. (2006). Secretary Spellings announces more choices

in single sex education amended regulations. Retrieved July 9, 2009 from http://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2006/10/10242006.html

U.S. Department of Education. (2007). Dear colleague letter. Office for Civil Rights. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/single-sex-20070131.html

U.S. Department of Education, O. o. P., Evaluation and Policy Development and Program Studies Service. (2008). Early implementation of public single-sex schools: Perceptions and characteristics. Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996).Vorchheimer v. School District of Philadelphia, 430 U.S. 703 (1977), affirming 532

F.2d 880 (3d Cir. 1976).Walkerdine, V. (1998). Counting girls out: Girls and mathematics. London: Falmer

Press.Walkerdine, V., Lucey, H., & Melody, J. (2001). Growing up girl: Psychosocial

explorations of gender and class. New York: New York University Press.Watson, C. M., Quatman, T., & Edler, E. (2002). Career aspirations of adolescent

girls: Effects of achievement level, grade and single-sex school environment. Sex Roles, 46(9/10), 323-335.

Weedon, C. (1997). Principles of poststructuralism. In C. Weedon (Ed.), Feminist practice and poststructuralist theory (2nd ed., pp. 13-41). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

38 Educational Administration Quarterly XX(X)

Welch, S. (2010). From witness box to the hot tub: How the “Hot Tub” approach to expert witnesses might relax an American finder of fact. Journal of International Commercial Law and Technology, 5(3), 154-165.

Welner, K. (2006). K-12 race-conscious student assignment policies: Law, social sci-ence, and diversity. Review of Educational Research, 76(3), 349-382.

Whelen, J. (2011). Boys and their schooling: The experience of becoming somebody else. New York: Routledge.

Wong, K.- C., Lam, Y. R., & Ho, L.- M. (2002). The effects of schooling on gender differences. British Educational Research Journal, 28(6), 827-843.

Youdell, D. (2004). Bent as a ballet dancer: The possibilities for and limits of legiti-mate homomasculinity in school. In R. Rasmussen & S. Talburt (Eds.), Youth and sexualities: Pleasures, subversions, and insubordination in and out of schools (pp. 201-222). New York: Palgrave.

Young, M. F. D. (Ed.). (1971). Knowledge and control: New directions for the sociol-ogy of education. London: Collier-Macmillan Publishers.

Author Biographies

Suzanne E. Eckes is an associate professor in the Educational Leadership and Policy Studies Department at Indiana University where she researches and teaches about school legal issues.

Stephanie D. McCall is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Curriculum and Teaching at Teachers College, Columbia University. Her research interests include curriculum theory, gender and sexuality in education, the education of girls, and single-gender schooling.