Running Head: SINGLE-SEX INSTRUCTION FOR AFRICAN-AMERICAN, LOW-INCOME
STUDENTS
1
Single-Sex Instruction for African-American, Low-Income Students
Elizabeth A. Self
Vanderbilt University
SINGLE-SEX INSTRUCTION FOR AFRICAN-AMERICAN, LOW-INCOME STUDENTS
Abstract
Single-sex instruction is increasingly popular as a means to close the standardized testing
achievement gap between White and African-American students. This is especially the case in
urban school districts that have high-minority, low-income populations. Research on this topic,
which is limited, shows that single-sex instruction generally leads to improved outcomes for
students in single-sex instruction in terms of regular attendance, graduation rates, and college
acceptance. Some data shows improved standardized test scores. The data is inconsistent in
terms of long-term outcomes, like college graduation rates, but is positively correlated with
decreased drop-out and unemployment rates. When implemented with a gender equity focus,
single-sex instruction can have positive outcomes for African-American, low-income students,
both academic and socioemotional. Furthermore, such a setting provides educators the
opportunity to better individualize for their students, and for teachers and students to consider the
multiple contexts of students’ identities as relevant to the classroom as a result of this
intersection of race, gender, and family income.
Keywords: Single-sex instruction, African-American, low-income, intersectionality
2
SINGLE-SEX INSTRUCTION FOR AFRICAN-AMERICAN, LOW-INCOME STUDENTS
Introduction
At Urban Prep Charter School Academy for Young Men, Chicago’s only all-male public
school, students and staff, in jackets and ties, gather each morning together to celebrate their
successes and account for their offenses, such as being late for school. They recite their school
creed and chant about their commitment to school, responsibility for each other, and belief in
their futures (Gerwetz, 2007). This year, all 107 seniors in its first graduating class were
accepted to a four-year college. This is no small success in a community where only 40 percent
of African-American boys graduate from high school and only half of all students are accepted to
some form of college (Paulson, 2010). About six miles north of the boys’ Englewood campus,
Young Women’s Leadership Charter School, Chicago’s only all-girls public school, focuses on
math, science, technology, and leadership for its 350 students, 80 percent of whom come from
low-income families. Last year, 96 percent of the senior class graduated, and 89 were accepted
to college and professional careers (DeFiglio, 2010).
More and more, educators are turning to single-sex instruction to close the standardized
testing gap between White and African-American student. While single-sex instruction has long
been available to White families through private school, and an option to many Latino families
who may send their students to parochial school, single-sex instruction in traditional public
schools has only very recently been made available to many African-American, low-income
families. This is especially the case in urban school districts, where schools are historically
underfunded. Schools are restructured as single-sex academies or made into charter schools,
now increasingly popular under the current federal administration. So what are the benefits of
single-sex education specifically for African-American, low-income students? What are the
3
SINGLE-SEX INSTRUCTION FOR AFRICAN-AMERICAN, LOW-INCOME STUDENTS
drawbacks, especially as related to this segregation of the sexes? And finally, how can singlesex education be implemented so as to maximize benefits and minimize drawbacks?
The Needs of African-American and Low-Income Students
According to the 2009 Condition of Education (Planty et al., 2009), Black1 students, who
make up approximately 15 percent of the U.S.’s public school students, continue to
underperform compared to their White counterparts on several important educational outcomes.
The reading scores gap has narrowed somewhat since 2005, but the math scores gap remains
consistent. Black students are more likely to be retained during their school career and are less
likely to graduate from college. African-American boys are especially at risk. They are more
likely than their African-American female counterparts or White male counterparts to be
suspended, classified as learning disabled, emotionally disturbed, or mentally retarded, and less
likely to graduate from high school or go to college (Gerwetz, 2007). These outcomes are not
necessarily surprising given the conditions in which many African-Americans students are
schooled. African-American students are at least five times as likely as their White counterparts
to be in a high-poverty school and more than 25 times more likely to be in a high-minority
school, where both teacher quality and funding is lower.
There is increasingly a recognition among researchers and educators that AfricanAmerican students may not be performing on par with their White peers because of a cultural
dissonance between the school and/or teacher and the students. Lisa Delpit (2006) is prominent
among those who support this claim. She talks about the “culture of power” in classrooms – one
most commonly led by a White, female teacher – and explains the importance of making the
rules of that culture explicit to students who may not already know them (p. 24). There has also
I use “African-American” throughout my paper as I refer specifically to the African-American population and
culture, which is but one subset of those who self-report as “Black.” I use the term “Black” here as the referent used
by the U.S.D.O.E. in their statistical reporting.
1
4
SINGLE-SEX INSTRUCTION FOR AFRICAN-AMERICAN, LOW-INCOME STUDENTS
been an increased emphasis within the last decade or more on creating culturally responsive
classrooms, looking at the learning styles and preferences of African-American, AmericanIndian, Mexican-American, and Asian-American students compared with the classroom norms of
dominant culture schools. Those who have focused specifically on African-American students,
like Boykin (1994), mention specific dimensions of the African-American culture that manifest
themselves the lives of African-American students. Many of these, including movement, affect,
communalism, and orality, are often in conflict with the traditional classroom culture, which
tends to emphasize, for example, individualism and efferent over affect. Shade, Kelly, and
Oberg (1997) show how cultural dissonance can lead teachers to misread students’ behavior.
The teacher sees students who are distractible and says they have low attention spans, but Boykin
(1994) calls it verve. The teacher sees students who come to school late or do not complete tasks
on time, but Boykin (1994) casts it within the polychronic ethos of the African-American culture.
The teachers sees students who are always talking to their neighbors, but Boykin (1994) says it is
part of the communalistic nature of African-American students. It is important to remember that
these researchers do not suggest that these cultural dimensions are true for every AfricanAmerican student or African-American community. Further, they do not suggest that students
do not need to learn to lengthen their attention span, complete tasks on time, or stop talking to
their neighbors. That is part of what Delpit (2006) argues when she calls for those within the
culture of power to explicate the rules of that culture to those who are not in it, such that they
might more easily acquire such power.
But what Boykin (1994) and Shade, Kelly, and Oberg (1997) also assert is that if teachers
do not have knowledge of these cultural differences, students from such cultures are immediately
at a disadvantage in the classroom. The teacher sees them as behaving inappropriately for the
5
SINGLE-SEX INSTRUCTION FOR AFRICAN-AMERICAN, LOW-INCOME STUDENTS
classroom, which causes her to teach them differently, even lowering her standards for them.
Thus, what many African-American students need in order to help them be successful in the
classroom is someone who is familiar with and respectful of the cultural ethos of her students,
both from culturally responsive pedagogy and personal relationships with her students, a
familiarity with the mainstream culture of power, and the desire and willingness to create
culturally responsive classrooms while making explicit to students the rules of that culture of
power such that they might become participants within it. This dynamic is often especially true
for low-income students, who have not had the opportunity to access mainstream culture with
regularity. Low-income students in particular may be unfamiliar with the cultural differences
between their home life and dominant school life and may be uncomfortable managing those
tensions on their own.
High-performing schools that serve high-minority, low-income populations tend to share
certain characteristics that make them especially effective. Quite simply, what most of these
schools offer is more of what works. High-performing schools set high expectations, provide
high individualization in highly supportive environments, invest more instructional time, and do
so in smaller learning communities (Merseth et al., 2009). At Urban Prep, the school culture is
based on the four R’s: ritual, respect, responsibility, and relationships. Students have an
extended school day that provide 72,000 additional minutes each year, and they have a double
period of English (Paulson, 2010). Young Women’s has four strategic priorities: academic
achievement, career and college preparation, leadership, and personal and social development.
Students have a longer school year with scheduled non-academic days between grading periods
to allow time for extracurricular outings, in-depth conferences among teachers and with students
and families, and bonding time for advisories. Ladson-Billings (2009) provides similar guidance
6
SINGLE-SEX INSTRUCTION FOR AFRICAN-AMERICAN, LOW-INCOME STUDENTS
for teachers of African-American students in The Dreamkeepers. Successful teachers believe
that all students can succeed, help students make connections between their various identities,
and see learning as “digging knowledge out” of their students (Ladson-Billings, 2009, p. 56).
Such teachers are familial and encouraging, and they individualize their instruction based on
personal relationships with students. Much of this advice is, of course, not necessarily exclusive
to African-American students. All students benefit from teachers who believe in them, know
their cultures and help students make connections between their various identities, and who see
knowledge as something found, not given. However, what these researchers and educators are
telling us is that these conditions are especially important for African-American students and that
they are often not present in the schools that serve them.
In Theory
Critical race theory is situated on the propositions that race continues to be a factor in
inequity in the United States and that property rights, upon which our society is based, relates to
education, explicitly in that more affluent communities have higher per-pupil expenditures in
their schools, and implicitly in that such schools offer greater intellectual property to their
students (Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995). Milner (2008) says that critical race theorists are
“concerned with disrupting, exposing, challenging, and changing racist policies that work to
subordinate and disenfranchise certain groups of people and that attempt to maintain the status
quo” (p. 333). Critical race theory holds that racism is endemic to American society, uses
storytelling or counter-narratives to integrate experiential knowledge to into the common culture,
critiques liberalism, and argues that Whites have been the primary beneficiaries of civil rights
movement (Ladson-Billings, 1998). Critical race theory connects to education in a variety of
ways. Colorblindness in the curriculum, claims of meritocracy, restricted access to the
7
SINGLE-SEX INSTRUCTION FOR AFRICAN-AMERICAN, LOW-INCOME STUDENTS
curriculum, deficit thinking, intelligence testing, and disparate school funding are all examples of
the relevance of race in contemporary American schooling, and many are issues that, when
framed through a dominant perspective, serve to reinforce preexisting stereotypes and preserve
the status quo. For example, policymakers may point to low achievement test scores at a
predominantly African-American high school and use them as an argument not to increase
funding.
The primary tenet of critical race theory relevant to single-sex charter schools for
African-American students is that of intersectionality. There is a focus in critical race theory on
the multiple cultural and personal contexts that make up one’s identity, including race, gender,
class, and socioeconomic status (Howard-Hamilton, 2003). Intersectionality, as a sociological
tenet, suggests that these contexts of one’s identity do not act independently but rather on
multiple and simultaneous levels, which result in a multidimensional form of discrimination.
Crenshaw (1991) states that identity politics often ignores differences within groups, which
contributes to tension among groups, one of the reasons that the feminist movement has been
unsuccessful in recruiting significant representation from women of color into the mainstream
movement and part of the reason, perhaps, that anti-racist efforts have failed to unite populations
from multiple races and ethnicities.
Intersectionality manifests itself differently with African-American males and females.
African-American males represent the intersection of a racial minority group but a gender
dominant group. Recent research related to African-American males focuses on the issue of
masculinity. Weaver-Hightower (2003) describes the multiple masculinities created by
individuals and various social groups for their own uses. African-American males often adopt a
“gangster persona” or “cool pose” to create or retain power within “the realities of a racist,
8
SINGLE-SEX INSTRUCTION FOR AFRICAN-AMERICAN, LOW-INCOME STUDENTS
classist society” (p. 480). These multiple masculinities then struggle for dominance, which
results in hegemony, and some groups, often men of color, do not achieve it. This leaves
African-American boys as either dangerous or endangered. For African-American boys, who
may already be in cultural conflict with their school or teacher, this marks them, either way, as at
risk. Carter (2005) shows how this version of masculinity ultimately works against AfricanAmerican males. Though most in her study aspired to white-collar professions, their ideas about
masculinity were in conflict with the acculturation required by such jobs. They were
noncompliant believers, or those who struggle with the cultural codes of mainstream America
and those of their racial, ethnic, and gender identities. As such, these “hard” African-American
males would have to “soften” themselves substantially to be able to assimilate sufficiently to
hold a white-collar job, something few were willing to do. This tension could likewise be an
issue in the classroom, where similar “soft” skills are in use. So while African-American men
may be seen as in the gender dominant group, their version of masculinity often causes them to
be once again subordinate to White society.
African-American females, unlike their male counterparts, represent the intersection of a
racial minority group and a gender subordinate group. African-American women are sometimes
referred to as a “double minority,” and as a result their voices are left out of the mainstream
discourse (Sutherland, 2009, p. 368). Yet African-American girls have better educational
outcomes than their male counterparts. Girls have higher grade point averages and college
graduation rates and perform better in subjects related to verbal competence (Carter, 2005). Yet
whereas African-American boys are either dangerous or endangered, African-American girls
receive very little focus within the classroom or in educational research. Girls, while “softer”
than their male peers, still feel a need to be “hard” against the social and economic conditions of
9
SINGLE-SEX INSTRUCTION FOR AFRICAN-AMERICAN, LOW-INCOME STUDENTS
their worlds. Yet their competence related to verbal skills and other such “soft” skills make them
less threatening and more capable in the eyes of potential employers. Carter (2005) also found
that parental expectations helped explained the difference in schooling behaviors. AfricanAmerican mothers, often the head of the household, were more likely in this study to “baby and
protect” their boys and had higher expectations of their daughters (p. 102). So unlike AfricanAmerican males, African-American females may find their femininity, or “softness,” helping
them despite being in the gender subordinate group.
Why Single-Sex?
While single-sex education has long been available to affluent families in the United
States, it has only very recently become an option for those without the means to pay for private
or parochial education. In 1998, only 4 public schools in the United States offered genderseparate educational opportunities, but by 2006, thanks to a measure in the No Child Left Behind
Act and changes in Title IX regulations, there were 223, 44 of which were wholly single-sex
(Dee, 2006; Gurian, Stevens, & Daniels, 2009). What bears remembering in the debate over
single-sex schools is the fact that coeducation came about not as the result of any education
vision but rather as a matter of expediency. Public education of boys and girls separately was
too expensive to continue (an argument also made in the case of Brown), and so boys and girls
began to be schooled together (Herr & Arms, 2004). Ironically, the case for many single-sex
schooling experiments have not been based in a desire to meet the learning styles of boys and
girls generally, but to decrease disciplinary problems and increase tests scores.
The increasing popularity of single-sex education in the United States has been spurred
by media wars, beginning in 1992 with the American Association of University Women’s
(AAUW) How Schools Shortchange Girls and 1994 with Mary Pipher’s Reviving Ophelia and
10
SINGLE-SEX INSTRUCTION FOR AFRICAN-AMERICAN, LOW-INCOME STUDENTS
continuing in 2000 with Christina Hoff Sommers’ The War Against Boys. Whereas early
publications revealed a tendency by teachers to interact more with boys than girls in the
classroom and a loss of confidence by many girls from the school experiences, later publications
alleged a “feminization” of schools and noted that the higher levels of interaction with boys were
often negative interactions. Coeducational settings are said to stifle girls’ risk-taking and inhibit
their participation (Hoffman, Badget, & Parker, 2008),
There are at least four camps surrounding single-sex education: those who believe that
coeducation is best (most notably to include groups like the AAUW and the Feminist Majority
Foundation), those who believe that single-sex is sometimes best, those who believe that singlesex is best for at-risk groups, and those who believe that single-sex is always best (Bracey,
2006). Those who argue for single-sex schools for urban, minority students generally fall into
the second or third of these camps. For some, single-sex classrooms and schools are a viable
alternative when the ideals of coeducational schooling are not realized. This could be argued
about many urban schools districts who consistently fail to provide an optimal learning
environment for their high-minority, low-income student populations. In this situation, many
researchers and educators argue that it is better to put students in single-sex settings where girls’
and boys’ specific needs, both academic and behavioral, can be specifically addressed. Others
argue that at-risk students, which would include portions of the urban, minority population, need
single-sex settings, which proponents say set a more serious tone about learning by removing
distractions in the form of the opposite sex.
According to a 2005 meta-analysis by the United States Department of Education, more
studies on single-sex education show positive effects for both genders in achievement test scores,
with more pronounced effects for females, than show null or mixed results (Mael, Alonso,
11
SINGLE-SEX INSTRUCTION FOR AFRICAN-AMERICAN, LOW-INCOME STUDENTS
Gibson, Roers, & Smith, 2005). Those studies that show more positive effects in coeducational
settings tend to favor White females without comparable effects for African Americans. These
same studies, however, show no apparent long-term effects on outcomes like college graduation
rates. There is more limited quantitative research on the socioemotional effects of single-sex
education, especially long-term, but the few large-scale studies that do exist show that students in
single-sex schools tend to show interest in higher academic aspirations and more difficult course
loads. These studies also show a correlation to decreased drop-out and unemployment and
increased non-traditional majors and career choices among females. What is notable in this
meta-analysis is that there was virtually no mention of adverse effects of single-sex schools.
While some studies showed that single-sex schools had no greater effects on target populations
than did coeducation, none showed evidence of weaker or adverse effects. This recurrent theme
provides sound data for providing single-sex education as a choice to students and families.
Not all attempts at single-sex education have been successful, of course, though these
attempts have much to teach us about future efforts. In 1999, the Single Sex Academy (SSA)
middle school in California, with all single-sex classes, opened to serve low-income, urban
students of color. When it opened, the school was the largest public single-sex school in the
country. The school did not open as an effort at gender equity, but rather in an effort to increase
poor student scores on standardized tests. According to Herr & Arms (2004), one of the major
factors contributing to the downfall of these schools was conflicting reforms. High-stakes testing
had a significant impact on curriculum and instruction, especially time spent on mandated
instruction related to test-taking skills and decreased time spent on non-tested content areas like
science and social studies. Herr & Arms (2004) found that the boys’ classrooms were “hypercontrolled” with teachers resorting to“defensive teaching” at the end of the day (p. 545).
12
SINGLE-SEX INSTRUCTION FOR AFRICAN-AMERICAN, LOW-INCOME STUDENTS
Teachers attributed to the boys’ behavior in part to the absence of girls as a calming factor.
Girls’ classroom fared better, but even there researchers noted the considerable tension between
preparing students for the test and teaching from a gender equity standpoint. Teachers often felt
the need to gloss over teachable moments in terms of girls’ development in order to have time
for mandated teaching and testing. Teachers at this school did not receive any training in
teaching for single-sex classrooms, nor was there any stated goal related to gender equity. The
SSAs were closed after one year because of a successful lawsuit backed by the ACLU. Other
studies of single-sex education suggest that single-sex instruction can have countereffects for
boys, similar to those seen by Herr & Arms (2004). Teachers focus on relating to the boys and
in turn decrease their intellectual demand (Hoffman, Badgett, & Parker, 2008).
One researcher, Cornelius Riordan at Providence College in Rhode Island, argues
strongly for the third camp previously mentioned. His research, based primarily in private
schools, indicates that historically disadvantaged students, including African American and lowincome, are significantly benefited by attending a single-sex school (Riordan, 2002). However,
at least one study has shown mixed results for this population. Hoffman, Badgett, & Parker
(2008) found that while single-sex classes benefited the classroom culture for girls, who worked
more collaboratively and with greater enthusiasm, boys were more aggressive, competitive, and
hegemonic. What is clear, then, is that specific conditions need to be in place in order to singlesex instruction to have the greatest benefit, without creating disadvantages for one group over the
other.
The Intersection in Single-Sex Schooling
The combined findings of research related to culturally responsive classrooms and to
single-sex instruction leaves us with a clearer vision of how such instruction might benefit
13
SINGLE-SEX INSTRUCTION FOR AFRICAN-AMERICAN, LOW-INCOME STUDENTS
African-American, low-income students. A successful single-sex academy for AfricanAmerican boys could mediate the tensions between the African-American culture – collectivism,
for example – and the ideas of masculinity created by African-American men – one in which
individualism, inasmuch as “hardness” requires self-reliance, is important. Such a classroom
would incorporate verve and movement, especially for younger boys. African-American boys
can be provided with the structure that may be lacking in their own lives, where parents are more
likely “baby and coddle” them (Carter, 2005, p. 102). These young men need to learn how to
maintain their “cool pose” while still succeeding academically and socially. African-American
boys need the opportunity to build relationships with their teachers, who can then help boys
consider the history and current social and economic conditions that shape their identity.
African-American boys need a chance to find a version of masculinity that allows them connect
those various identities to help them be successful in dominant society while still permitting
themselves to challenge the status quo. Alfred Tatum (2005) shows in his research how specific
texts can be especially useful in helping African-American boys learn about the historical and
contemporary examples of men who have done just this. Most importantly, the school culture in
such a single-sex school – whether it comes in the form of a jacket and tie or some other way –
must help counter the alleged “feminization” (Mulvey, 2010) of schools such that AfricanAmerican boys, who so want to be men, can see that males do have a place in schools.
A successful single-sex academy for African-American girls would look somewhat
different. Students will still need consistency but perhaps a less structured school culture, one
that recognizes the sense of responsibility and self-reliance that is encouraged at home. A singlesex school for African-American girls would provide opportunity for very tailored classrooms:
ones that are collaborative, less competitive, and oral in nature. African-American girls, like
14
SINGLE-SEX INSTRUCTION FOR AFRICAN-AMERICAN, LOW-INCOME STUDENTS
their male counterparts, need examples of women from their culture who have been successful in
the dominant culture, even while maintaining their cultural identity. This might come through
teachers and administrators, mentors, or characters in African-American history and literature,
especially the poets and poetry of strong, African-American women like Toni Morrison and
Lucille Clifton. African-American girls need focused instruction in math and science, where
they tend to underperform and are underrepresented in the industries. Girls need relationships
with teachers and other school officials with whom they can communicate openly about their
sexuality, the pressures of dating, and healthy sexual behaviors, especially given teen
pregnancies among African-American girls that can lead to girls dropping out of school. Finally,
girls need an opportunity to become leaders in a supportive climate, where being successful does
not necessarily mean acting like a man.
Single-sex instruction for African-American students, both boys and girls, would serve
two primary purposes, a both/and situation in which neither is successful without the other.
First, single-sex instruction provides an opportunity for teachers and school administrators to
tailor the school culture and classroom norms to reflect the cultures of the students – both in
terms of race and gender. This is especially helpful for low-income students because it lessens
the transition from home life to school life, providing a positive schooling experience that builds
upon itself. Students see that they can be successful in school not despite who they are, but
because of who they are. They, and their teachers, see their cultural identities as funds of
knowledge rather than deficits. This allows for the connections between various identities
mentioned by Ladson-Billings (2009). Second, single-sex instruction provides an opportunity
for teachers and school administrators to make explicit for students the rules of the culture of
power. Students begin to see the cultural dissonance that exists, but rather than seeing it as a
15
SINGLE-SEX INSTRUCTION FOR AFRICAN-AMERICAN, LOW-INCOME STUDENTS
binary relationship, they understand the need for code-switching and can learn those soft skills
that are necessary for many white-collar jobs in a supportive environment. Students may commit
their lives to changing the status quo, but for most, the opportunity to do so requires the ability to
function within the status quo, and that means obtaining the knowledge and skills that are
respected in White, mainstream America. This does not mean assimilation, but what Carter
(2005) calls cultural straddling, something that students can only learn to successfully do with
support.
Conditions for Successful Single-Sex Schools
Single-sex education provides a choice to students and families in the United States
education system. In the case of those public schools who target high-minority, low-income
students, these schools are providing choice to students and families who otherwise may not
have had one. As such, it requires extra effort to apprise these families of the options, help them
understand the benefits and potential drawbacks of attending such a school, and extended support
to help students make the transition into a single-sex environment.
Weaver-Hightower (2003) provides in his literature review suggestions made to better
meet the needs of boys. These include whole-school approaches, considering the gender of
teachers, training teachers, creating respectful approaches to working with them, and teaching
boys about gender and its construction. These same suggestions could be applied for girls. The
studies that showed the greatest benefits for students in terms of academic and socioemotional
outcomes were examples of whole-school reform, not programmatic changes. This means
single-sex charter schools, for example, in lieu of large schools restructured as small school in a
turnaround effort. Part of that may be due to the fact that such restructuring destroys the existing
16
SINGLE-SEX INSTRUCTION FOR AFRICAN-AMERICAN, LOW-INCOME STUDENTS
school culture without replacing it with something else, whereas a new school provides the
opportunity to build school culture from the ground up.
Next, single-sex instruction calls for the careful consideration of teacher gender. This is
relevant both in classrooms for boys, given the dearth of male teachers, especially at the
elementary and middle school levels, but also in math and science classrooms for girls. Dee
(2006) finds that, even when accounting for a variety of other characteristics, when girls are
taught by women and boys are taught by men, student achievement increases for both groups.
Much of this is attributed to teacher bias towards each gender, which impacts their expectations
and treatment of each group. Female teachers see boys as disruptive, for example, and male
teachers are likely to acknowledge girls’ responses but not praise it in the way they would a
boy’s. Student bias also impacts this finding. Both girls and boys report looking forward less to
a subject when taught by a teacher of the opposite gender. This premise can be further
extrapolated to also consider the race of teachers. There is a scarcity of African-American
teachers in the classroom, and providing such role models to African-American students would
likely see similar positive outcomes in terms of teacher expectations and student motivation.
Furthermore, teachers in single-sex schools and classrooms need training in how to use
the single-sex content to their advantage and how modify their teaching methods to meet the
needs of their same-sex students. This means learning about not only the cultural learning styles
based in race and ethnicity but also gender. Teachers might read the controversial research of
Leonard Sax and debate its merits or do observational studies in their classrooms to gather their
own data about how their boys and girls learn best. Most importantly, teachers need to see the
assets offered by having a group of only boys or girls in their classroom and plan to offset any
detriment incurred by the lack of gender diversity. Simply putting all boys and all girls in classes
17
SINGLE-SEX INSTRUCTION FOR AFRICAN-AMERICAN, LOW-INCOME STUDENTS
together, without training teachers or providing them with the opportunity to plan how to
respond to this shift, will be ineffective. Teaching as usual in single-sex classrooms will
generally result in the same outcomes.
Finally, evidence from the failed California experiment shows that in order for single-sex
schools to be effective, gender equity concerns must be a focus of teachers and administrators
(Bracey, 2006). Gender equity simply means moving towards greater equality between the sexes
by providing more of what each group needs to them; for example, boys’ classrooms that allow
more movement, and girls’ classrooms that allow more orality are a response to concerns about
gender equity. This might mean an emphasis on reading and writing for boys or on math and
science for girl. It also means helping students see how gender is constructed in society through
literary archetypes and pop culture. Providing students with or having them find role models
who fall outside of stereotypical gender roles will provide them with an example of someone
who successfully reshaped their gender identity. If schools are not cognizant of the gender gap,
inclusive of the gap that exists between African-American boys and African-American girls,
their efforts will fail to yield optimal results. Again, single-sex instruction is not a scientificallybased method to improve standardized test scores. It is, however, an empirically-supported
method to improve other educational outcomes, especially for African-American, low-income
students, that may help improve those test scores.
There is considerable danger of what single-sex education might look like were it to
extend from the previously-mentioned fourth camp: those who believe that single-sex schooling
is always better and for everyone. The National Association for Single Sex Public Education
(SSPE) is based on Leonard Sax’s hypothesis that boys and girls are hardwired differently, and
that those differences must be accounted for in for students to learn in the classroom. In reality,
18
SINGLE-SEX INSTRUCTION FOR AFRICAN-AMERICAN, LOW-INCOME STUDENTS
Sax’s theory results in boys’ schools that are competitive and high-energy and girls’ schools that
are cooperative and quiet. Such applications result in schools and classrooms that operate on
stereotype and fail to consider the diversity of individuals and learning styles that exist within the
categories of boys and girls. A short-lived, mandatory, single-sex schooling experiment in
Theodore, Alabama, just last year provided evidence of this behavior. At Hankins Middle
School, “[b]oys were to be taught ‘heroic behavior’” and “[g]irls were to learn ‘good character.’
Sixth-grade language arts exercises called for boys to brainstorm action words used in sports.
Girls were instructed to describe their dream wedding cake. Electives were gender-specific. Boys
took computer applications. Girls took drama” (Holthouse, 2010). This is exactly what many
people fear when they hear about single-sex education – curriculum and instruction that draws on
archaic gender roles that are out of touch with contemporary society.
Finally, it is essential that single-sex instruction not become a stand-alone solution for
failing schools. A study by Hubbard & Datnow (2005) of other schools (elementary, middle, and
high) in the California experiment of the late 1990’s found three interrelated conditions that
contributed to positive experiences for low-income and minority students: the single-sex setting,
financial support, and caring, proactive teachers. Thus, the combined recommendations of those
who focus on African-American, especially low-income, students, and those who focus on
single-sex education, often land on the same suggestions. It is not one thing that will help these
students succeed and close any kind of an achievement gap; it is a combination of approaches
that includes, always, a trained and caring teacher.
It is important that, whenever we choose to segregate students in the United States,
whether by gender, race, ethnicity, family income, or disability status, there is significant thought
given to how the lack of diversity will affect students and student outcomes. As Brown
19
SINGLE-SEX INSTRUCTION FOR AFRICAN-AMERICAN, LOW-INCOME STUDENTS
evidenced, what sometimes is necessary often has unintended consequences, and while we
cannot stop change for fear of what might happen in the face of what is happening, it is essential
that educators and families alike consider the ramifications of when and how such changes are
made. Single-sex education will likely never become a mandate in the United States in the way
that Brown did, nor should it. However, if it becomes a popular enough choice, nationally or
even in localized areas, it could have far-reaching effects on both the students who are enrolled
in the single-sex schools as well as those who are not. Single-sex schools must provide
opportunity for students to socialize with members of the opposite sex and even provide
guidance as to what healthy interactions look like. For example, Urban Prep and Young
Women’s do social activities and even occasionally field trips together to provide such
opportunities, especially in the younger grades.
Implications for Coeducational Schools
There are lessons to be learned from single-sex instruction for coeducational schools. An
important one is the recruiting and retaining of effective African-American and male teachers. It
is not so much that boys need men or African-American girls need African-American women in
order to be successful in schools, or that other teachers cannot provide what these students need.
Instead, it is that these students cannot sufficiently challenge the dominant culture without seeing
role models who are already doing it. At Urban Prep, the overwhelming majority of the teachers
are African-American men, who wear the same jacket and tie as their students each day and
exemplify a form of African-American masculinity that helps them be successful (Paulson,
2010). At Young Women’s, the board is purposeful in recruiting and retaining female directors
and predominantly female teachers in the math and science departments.
20
SINGLE-SEX INSTRUCTION FOR AFRICAN-AMERICAN, LOW-INCOME STUDENTS
The most important implication for coeducational schools is the need to see the
multidimensional nature of students’ identities and tailor curriculum and instruction to them.
Students in traditional, comprehensive high schools often feel as though they are a part of the
masses. They are not seen as individuals by their teachers, and they are not helped to examine
their identities in terms of gender or race. These students feel they must fit the school culture to
be successful, but if they see no possibility to do so without giving up their cultural identity, they
instead reject school culture and are consequently unsuccessful. Teachers and school officials in
coeducational schools need to also talk about teaching boys and girls and teaching AfricanAmerican and Latino students and teaching low-income students. They should think carefully
about what is being explicitly communicated about classroom norms, whose norms are valued in
the classroom, and what dissonance might exist between the two. Teachers need not feel like
they are generalizing about these various groups when considering these things, so long as their
information is based in research or personal knowledge of students and is not based in
stereotypes. Finally, coeducational schools should consider when, if ever, single-sex instruction
might be useful, whether using same-sex groups as part of a flexible grouping pattern or offering
certain electives or core subjects as single-sex. This would provide teachers and students with
the opportunity to make direct comparisons between the experiences and examine the related
outcomes.
Implications for Research
The vast majority of research on single-sex education focuses on school in countries
other than the United States, given their greater popularity abroad, and on private and parochial
schools in the United States. The challenge of conducting research on single-sex schools, even
for non-selective, public schools, is that attendance there is voluntary, which removes the
21
SINGLE-SEX INSTRUCTION FOR AFRICAN-AMERICAN, LOW-INCOME STUDENTS
possibility for any kind of randomized study. Thus, the closest most researchers have come is
statistically-controlled studies with what is still a small sample (Bracey, 2006). Given the
limitations, it is important for research in the field to be continued and that researchers
conducting such studies adhere to the strictest levels of reliability. In the review conducted by
the U.S. Department of Education (Mael et al., 2005), only 40 studies were included, even
though 102 were identified as on-topic. Studies were eliminated for, among other reasons,
failure to apply statistical controls during the analyses. Furthermore, the U.S. Department of
Education’s review was only of quantitative studies and excluded all qualitative work.
Therefore, it may be useful, especially now five years later, to conduct a meta-synthesis of
qualitative studies.
Studies on single-sex schooling can be confounded by a variety of other measures put in
place, like smaller class sizes and increased funding. Furthermore, studies on single-sex
instruction, especially for African-American and low-income students, should consider
alternative achievement measures, including attendance, drop-out rates, graduation rates, college
acceptance and post-secondary degree attainment rates, and other various socioemotional
outcomes. While single-sex schools can and must focus on improving standardized test scores, it
is only one outcome and the one with the smallest impact on individual students’ lives and
educational experiences.
Finally, research should continue on the learning styles and preferences of boys and girls,
with no one taking a “turn.” The next step in this research should begin to look at the
intersection of race, gender, and family income examined in this paper to see what remains
consistent and what varies, helping to document that diversity that exists with the boy and girl
populations. Further qualitative research would help further document the effect single-sex
22
SINGLE-SEX INSTRUCTION FOR AFRICAN-AMERICAN, LOW-INCOME STUDENTS
schooling has on teacher quality and job satisfaction, as well as student perceptions towards
gender role and career aspirations. Thick qualitative research would also help show the various
forms of single-sex instruction and help researchers see how teachers are implementing a gender
equity focus in the classroom at various age levels and the correlation between that and
educational outcomes.
Conclusions
In order to help African Americans “catch up” with their White counterparts, the
educational sector must “redress past inequities” (Ladson-Billings, 1998, p. 18) and address the
“education debt” (Ladson-Billings, 2006, p.4). This includes providing options to AfricanAmerican, low-income families that have previously been available to White, wealthy families in
private schools. This paper does not address one of the major reasons single-sex education is not
more widespread, specifically the economic inefficiency of doing so. However, if single-sex
education truly benefits African-American, low-income students, it seems a worthwhile
investment by the public to help close the academic achievement gap.
Single-sex instruction is not a panacea for African-American, low-income students.
These students, whether in single-sex or coeducational classrooms, also need relevant curriculum
and responsive instruction from trained and caring teachers. Single-sex instruction, when
implemented in its ideological form, simply increases the likelihood that these other conditions
will be present.
23
SINGLE-SEX INSTRUCTION FOR AFRICAN-AMERICAN, LOW-INCOME STUDENTS
References
American Association of University Women. (1992). How schools shortchange girls. New York:
Marlowe.
Boykin, A. (1994). Afrocultural expression and its implications for schooling. In E.R. Hollins,
J.E. King, & W.C. Hayman (Eds.), Teaching diverse populations: formulating a
knowledge base (pp. 243-274). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Bracey, G.W. (2006). Single sex education – No easy answer. Principal Leadership, 7(4), 52-55.
Carter, P.L. (2005). Keepin’ it real: School success beyond black and white. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence
against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43, 1241-1300.
Dee, T.S. (2006). The why chromosome. Education Next, 6(4), 68-75.
DeFiglio, P. (2010). Subtract boys, add confidence. Chicago Tribune. Retrieved from
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-04-21/features/ct-x-all-girls-school-042120100421_1_chicago-public-schools-magnet-school-girls
Delpit, L. (2006). Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New York: The
New Press.
Gerwetz, C. (2007, June 20). Black boys’ educational plight spurs single-gender schools.
Education Week, 26(42), pp. 1, 24-25.
Gibb, S.J., Fergusson, D.M., & Horwood, L.J. (2008). Effects of single-sex and coeducational
schooling on the gender gap in educational achievement. Australian Journal of
Education, 52, 301-317.
Gurian, M., Stevens, K., & Daniels, P. (2009). Single-sex classrooms are succeeding.
24
SINGLE-SEX INSTRUCTION FOR AFRICAN-AMERICAN, LOW-INCOME STUDENTS
educational HORIZONS, 87(4), 234-245.
Herr, K., & Arms, E. (2004). Accountability and single-sex schooling: A collision of reform
agendas. American Educational Research Journal, 41, 527-555.
Hoffman, B.H., Badgett, B.A., & Parker, R.P. (2008). The effect of single-sex instruction in a
large, urban, at-risk high school. Journal of Educational Research, 102, 15-35.
Holthouse, D. (2010,April). Gender segregation: Separate but effective? Teaching Tolerance, 37.
Retrieved from http://www.tolerance.org/magazine/number-37-spring-2010/gendersegregation-separate-effective
Howard-Hamilton, M.F. (2003). Theoretical frameworks for African American women. New
Directions for Student Services, 104, 19-27.
Hubbard, L., & Datnow, A. (2005). Do single-sex schools improve the eation of low-income and
minority students? An investigation of California’s public single-sex gender academies.
Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 36, 115-131.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1998). Just what is critical race theory and what’s it doing in a nice field
like education? Qualitative Studies in Education, 11, 7-24.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From the achievement gap to the education debt: Understanding
achievement in US schools. Educational Researcher, 35, 3-12.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2009). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American
Children (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Ladson-Billings, G., & Tate, W.F., IV (1995). Toward a critical race theory of education.
Teachers College Record, 97, 47-68.
Mael, F., Alonso, A., Gibson, D., Rogers, K., & Smith, M. (2005). Single-sex versus
25
SINGLE-SEX INSTRUCTION FOR AFRICAN-AMERICAN, LOW-INCOME STUDENTS
coeducational schooling: A systematic review. U.S. Department of Education,
Washington, DC.
Merseth, K.K., Cooper, K., Roberts, J., Tieken, M.C., Valant, J., & Wynne, C. (2009). Inside
urban charter schools: Promising practices and strategies in five high-performing
schools. Boston: Harvard Education Press.
Milner, H.R., IV (2008). Critical race theory and interest convergence as analytic tools in teacher
education policies and practices. Journal of Teacher Education, 59, 332-346.
Mulvey, J. (2010). The feminization of schools. Education Digest, 75(8), 35-38.
Paulson, A. (2010, April 8). Inner-city Chicago charter school has perfect acceptance rate. The
Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved from http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/
2010/0408/Inner-city-Chicago-charter-school-has-perfect-college-acceptance-rate
Pipher, M. (1994). Reviving Ophelia: Saving the selves of adolescent girls. New York:
Ballantine Books.
Planty, M., Hussar, W., Snyder, T., Kena, G., KewalRamani, A., Kemp, J., Bianco, K., &
Dinkes, R. (2009). The Condition of Education 2009 (NCES 2009-081). National Center
for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
Washington, D.C.
Riordan, C. (2002). What do we know now about the effects of single-sex schools in the private
sector? Implications for public schools. In A. Datnow & L. Hubbard (Eds.), Gender in
public policy and practice,: Perspectives on single-sex and coeducational schooling (pp.
10-30). New York: Rutledge Falmer.
Shade, B.J., Kelly, C., & Oberg, M. (1997). Creating culturally responsive classrooms.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
26
SINGLE-SEX INSTRUCTION FOR AFRICAN-AMERICAN, LOW-INCOME STUDENTS
Sommers, C.H. (2004). The war against boys: How misguided feminism is harming our young
men. New York: Touchstone.
Sutherland, L.M. (2009). Black adolescent girls’ use of literary practices to negotiate boundaries
of ascribed identity. Journal of Literacy Research, 37, 365-406.
Tatum, A. (2005). Teaching reading to black adolescent males: Closing the achievement gap.
Portland, ME: Stenhouse Publishers.
Weaver-Hightower, M. (2003). The “boy turn” in research on gender and education. Review of
Educational Research, 73, 471-498.
27