 In March, 2004 the US Department of Education proposed changes to the Title IX regulations that would extensively weaken Title IX by making it significantly easier for schools and school districts to have single sex classes and single sex schools.
On October 25, 2006 the Department of Education issued the final changes to the Title IX Regulations without remedying the key objections of over 5000 who criticized the proposed 2004 regulations.
The 1975
Title IX regulations permit some sex segregated education, such as single-sex schools and classes when they are needed to overcome the effects of gender discrimination. The
October, 2006 changes to the Title IX regulations allow K-12 non vocational single sex schools, classes, and extracurricular activities in elementary and secondary schools for a variety of vague purposes such as “the achievement of an important governmental or educational objective”. These 2006 regulations no longer tie the key justification for allowing this sex segregation to overcoming the effects of sex discrimination, the sole purpose of Title IX.
The 2006 regulations allow separate facilities or classes as long as the gender that is not given the special class or school receives a "substantially equal" educational opportunity probably in a coeducational setting. "Substantially equal" is not specifically defined in the regulation and there are no instructions on how to learn if the single sex activities contribute to increased sex stereotyping and sex discrimination or if they contribute to achieving any important governmental objectives such as increased academic achievement . There is also no expectation that this risky single sex experiment show that it is any better than (more equitable) high quality instruction designed to meet the same needs in mixed sex environments.
FMF and many women's rights groups see this weakening of Title IX and related government encouragement of single sex education as an improper use of Title IX, to change it from protecting against sex discrimination to facilitating sex discrimination.
Single sex education is generally a risky education fad based on multiple false assumptions about sex differences in learning and in how to best teach girls and boys. Although some carefully developed single sex programs may focus on combating sex stereotypes and addressing some common needs of the girls or boys, most single sex instruction has more negatives than positives.
• Separate is not equal. It is very difficult to provide even substantial equality in separate girls and boys schools, classes, or activities.
• Costs are higher. The separate operation and facilities for single sex education are more costly than comparable coeducation. Additional resources are also needed for staff training.
• Evaluations are critically important, but costly. The evaluations needed to assure continued parity and avoidance of increased stereotyping in single sex education “experiments” need to be done carefully and rigorously to meet the Department of Education's own What Works Clearinghouse standards of effectiveness. This is expensive.
• The institutions responsible for the single sex education may face lawsuits. Unless the voluntary sex segregation is totally equitable, the responsible institution is likely to face a sex discrimination lawsuit perhaps using the 14 th Amendment or State laws.
Additional Information
See Title IX Defined Page for the Department of Education's proposed and final Title IX Regulations and Guidelines on single sex education.
FMF's objections to the proposed 2004 changes
Other comments on the proposed changes from the National Coalition for Women and Girls in Education
Learn more about the assumptions behind the push for sex segregated schooling by Patricia B.Campbell & Jo Sanders
How sex segregated schooling threatens Title IX - Turning Back the Clock by Lory Stone
Title IX and single sex education by Sue Klein
Single-sex schools: A good idea gone wrong? By David Sadker & Karen Zittleman
The Myth of the "Boy Crisis" by Caryl Rivers & Rosalind Barnett |
