United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to the Chairman, Committee on

the Budget, House of Representatives

May 1996 PUBLIC EDUCATION

Issues Involving

Single-Gender Schools

and Programs

G O A

years

1921 - 1996

GAO/HEHS-96-122

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

Health, Education, and

Human Services Division

B-271256 

May 28, 1996

The Honorable John R. Kasich

Chairman, Committee on the Budget

House of Representatives

Dear Mr. Chairman:

Growing concern over student performance and behavior in public

elementary and secondary schools has led some educators and

policymakers to consider single-gender educational settings to improve

student performance. Local efforts have produced a variety of

single-gender in-school and after-school programs. Certain states have also

shown interest in promoting single-gender settings. For example, Virginia

recently passed legislation permitting schools to establish single-gender

classes consistent with constitutional principles, and in California the

governor’s 1996-97 budget proposes single-gender academies for students

at risk of low achievement or dropping out. On the federal level, in recent

years the Senate has seen at least three bills with single-gender education

components. The latest, S. 1205, the Mentor Schools Act, was introduced

in the fall of 1995.

Because of this recent interest, you asked us to identify the major

educational and legal issues involved with public single-gender education

and to cite some examples of recent public single-gender education

programs. To develop this information, we interviewed local education

agency officials in certain districts that had a variety of single-gender

programs and officials at the Department of Education and other

organizations who have had a role in single-gender education issues or

research. We also reviewed some recent court decisions, law review

articles, and other literature. In addition, the Department of Education’s

Office for Civil Rights (OCR) provided us with examples of different types

of single-gender educational settings from the complaints and requests for

guidance it had received. We conducted our study between February and

April 1996 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing

standards.

Results in Brief Legal and educational issues surround single-gender elementary and

secondary public education. Specifically, the basic issues involve the

(1) legality of single-gender programs; (2) effectiveness of such programs

in promoting desired educational outcomes; and (3) even if effective,

Page 1 GAO/HEHS-96-122 Single-Gender Public Education
B-271256 

desirability of using such programs to achieve identified goals, such as

fostering improved academic and social performance in boys and teaching

girls mathematics in a nonthreatening setting.

Some public elementary and secondary schools have recently offered

single-gender classes or programs in a coeducational setting. However,

some of these programs have been terminated or have been modified to

not exclude anyone on the basis of gender because federal or state

officials determined that the programs had violated Title IX of the

Education Amendments of 1972 or applicable state laws and policies.

School districts that have such programs could face lawsuits brought

under Title IX, the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution, state

constitutions, or state laws.

Background Public education evolved from primarily single-gender (boys’) education

to primarily coeducation before the turn of the 20th century.1

 In colonial

America, formal public education was primarily available to boys; girls

were typically educated informally and in the home. Gradually, girls began

to be integrated into the public elementary or “common” schools and, by

the middle of the 19th century, almost as many girls as boys were

attending these schools.

Most of the common schools were small and located in rural areas where

the economy of educating boys and girls together may have played a part

in the coeducational model. Coeducational schools also thrived, however,

in urban areas where population density made separate schools a more

practical alternative. During the 1800s, the desirability of coeducation in

secondary schools was debated, and opponents cited the need to protect

girls both from danger to their health and from boys. In addition,

considerable discussion centered on the appropriate curriculum, including

differences in abilities and learning styles of boys and girls and whether

they should learn the same subjects in school.

By 1890, coeducation was clearly the most common model for public

schools; in a survey of 628 U.S. school superintendents, only 41 reported

having single-gender schools. Reviewing the findings of this survey, the

U.S. Office of Education and the National Education Association’s

Committee on the Education of Girls concluded at that time that the

1

David Tyack and Elisabeth Hansot, Learning Together, A History of Coeducation in American Public

Schools (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1990).

Page 2 GAO/HEHS-96-122 Single-Gender Public Education
B-271256 

debate over the preferability of coeducation had been settled.

Nevertheless, some single-gender schools existed.

In 1972, nondiscrimination legislation was passed to protect students from

discrimination in education on the basis of gender. Title IX of the

Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits school districts from

discriminating against students on the basis of sex and sets legal limits to

single-gender public education. In addition, several court cases in recent

years have challenged single-gender public education under the

Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

In the last 2 years, at least three bills with single-gender education

components were introduced in the Senate. In 1994, the Senate passed the

Danforth Amendment to the Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994. The

amendment would have allowed a limited number of single-gender

classrooms as demonstration projects; however, the demonstration

projects were eliminated from the bill in conference. On May 15, 1995,

Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison introduced S. 829, a bill to provide limited

waivers from Title IX and other statutes to permit single-gender classes to

enable researchers to collect data on the effectiveness of such classes for

low-income educationally disadvantaged children. It was referred to the

Committee on Labor and Human Resources. On September 6, 1995,

Senator Dan Coats introduced S. 1205, the Mentor Schools Act. The

purposes of the proposed bill are to (1) award grants to local education

agencies for establishing same-gender schools for low-income students;

(2) determine whether same-gender schools make a difference in the

educational achievement and opportunities of low-income, educationally

disadvantaged individuals; (3) improve academic achievement and

persistence in school; and (4) involve parents in the educational options

and choices of their children. The bill authorizes an appropriation of

$300 million for fiscal year 1996 and additional sums as necessary for 1997

to 2000 to carry out the act. As of May 1996, this bill was in committee.

Educational Issues

Problems That

Single-Gender Programs

Might Address

Educators and other experts2 with whom we spoke view single-gender

programs as a way to address (1) high dropout rates, low academic

achievement, and other problems faced by many urban males—

2

The academic experts with whom we consulted were Cornelius Riordon, David Sadker, Susan McGee

Bailey, and Spencer Holland.

Page 3 GAO/HEHS-96-122 Single-Gender Public Education
B-271256 

particularly minorities—and (2) girls’ low academic performance in

advanced mathematics and science; general lack of confidence,

competence, and leadership skills; and narrow views of potential careers.

The distraction that boys and girls may cause each other when in the same

classrooms further contributes to problems for coeducation settings.

The concept of classrooms and schools that provide students male role

models and cultural and social awareness enjoys popularity among many

educators who see such settings as opportunities to combat high dropout

rates, low academic achievement, and other problems faced by many

urban males—particularly minorities. These programs typically provide

mentoring, tutoring, field trips, and other personal and academic

enrichment activities. They emphasize self-esteem building and

responsibility to the community.

Recent research on the academic achievement of young girls suggests that

they defer to boys in coeducational classrooms, are called on less than

boys, and are less likely than boys to study advanced mathematics and

science. Some educators believe that single-gender settings can improve

girls’ academic performance and attitude toward these subjects. Such

settings typically emphasize enhancing confidence, competence, and

leadership skills as well as expanding their views of potential careers.

Finally, some educators report that single-gender settings reduce the

distraction that boys and girls create for each other. They believe all-boy

or all-girl classes provide calmer classrooms with lower risk for

educational failure. The middle school years are the most distracting for

students, according to some educators.

Effectiveness of

Single-Gender Settings

Many educators are convinced of the value of single-gender settings for

urban minority males. Several program officials we spoke with reported

improved test scores, better attendance, or improved behavior among

students in single-gender settings. Although public school single-gender

programs have not been rigorously researched, some studies of minority

students in private single-gender schools suggest academic gains for both

boys and girls. The most commonly cited studies are those by Cornelius

Riordan of Providence College, who showed that African American and

Hispanic students of both sexes do better in single-gender schools on all

tests and score nearly a year above their counterparts in coeducational

Page 4 GAO/HEHS-96-122 Single-Gender Public Education
B-271256 

schools.3 In a more recent study of single-gender schools in four countries

(Belgium, New Zealand, Thailand, and Japan), however, Riordan

concluded that single-gender schools do not have uniform and consistent

effects and their effects are conditional. That is, single-gender schools are

most effective when they are atypical: “The more that these schools

remain rare and special, the more effective they will be for those [sic]

minority of students who select them.”4

 Moreover, he points out that the

most important factor contributing to the observed gains may be the

parents’ and students’ making what he calls a “proacademic choice,” not

the single-gender setting.

Officials we spoke with from all-girl programs were enthusiastic about the

girls’ performance. As evidence of success they cited increased

competence and confidence, development of leadership qualities, and

better focus on academics than girls in coeducational classes.

Some recent studies have focused on gender bias against girls; they have

viewed problems arising from such bias in coeducational settings

compared with control groups of girls in single-gender settings. For

example, a 1992 report by the Wellesley College Center for Research on

Women for the American Association of University Women5

 analyzed

more than 1,200 research studies on girls and boys in public schools. It

found, among other things, that girls receive significantly less teacher

attention than boys, the gender gap in science has not declined and may be

increasing, and many standardized tests contain elements of sex bias. In

addition, the work of Myra and David Sadker explores and documents the

gender bias girls face in coeducational classrooms and its adverse effects

on their academic and career aspirations and self-esteem.6

Also in 1992, the Department of Education’s Office of Education Research

and Improvement convened a group of researchers and practitioners to

share their views and findings about single-gender education. The

conferees reviewed and discussed various research studies and agreed

that some studies support the assertion that single-gender schools may

provide benefits. They also noted, however, that all single-gender schools

3

Cornelius Riordan, Girls and Boys in School, Together or Separate? (New York: Teachers College

Press, 1990).

4

Cornelius Riordan, “Single-Gender Schools: Outcomes for African and Hispanic Americans,” Research

in Sociology of Education and Socialization, Vol. 18 (1994), pp. 177-205.

5

Susan McGee Bailey, The AAUW Report: How Schools Shortchange Girls, Center for Research on

Women at Wellesley College (Wellesley, Mass.: 1992).

6

Myra and David Sadker, Failing at Fairness: How America’s Schools Cheat Girls, (New York: Charles

Scribner’s Sons, MacMillan Publishing Company, 1994).

Page 5 GAO/HEHS-96-122 Single-Gender Public Education
B-271256 

are not equal in providing a productive learning environment and many

factors contributing to the success of effective single-gender schools are

fundamental to effective schools regardless of their gender policy: a small

student body, strong emphasis on academics, and commitment to the

school’s mission and values.7

Desirability of

Single-Gender Settings

Although single-gender settings may help avoid gender bias and the

distractions of coeducational classrooms, some experts question whether

they are the best remedy. They acknowledge the urgent problems

single-gender programs are meant to solve; they also express concerns,

however, about the risk of a separate and unequal allocation of education

resources and the reinforcement of stereotypes that certain groups are low

achievers and need extra help. Some experts caution that a program

focusing on providing special services to urban minority males may not

acknowledge that urban minority females share some of the same social

and academic problems.

Some experts who are not proponents of single-gender education as a

strategy noted that research has not conclusively identified single-gender

education as the desired solution to gender bias in coeducational settings.

Some believe that successful strategies used in single-gender settings—

smaller classes and more individual attention—can be just as effective in

coeducational settings. They believe teacher training in diversity and

equity can also contribute to a bias-free coeducational classroom. Finally,

some experts caution that separating the sexes should not be viewed as a

simple solution to complex problems and that program goals, content, and

desired outcomes must be carefully scrutinized.

Legal Issues Whatever the effectiveness and desirability of single-gender programs,

single-gender public elementary and secondary education is limited by

law. Restricting enrollment in a public school program to either gender

may discriminate on the basis of gender and, thus, be contrary to Title IX

7

See Single-Sex Schooling: Perspectives From Practice and Research, Vol. 1, U.S. Department of

Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, OR-94-3152 (Dec. 1993) for a selective

review of the literature through 1991 on effectiveness of single-gender schooling on the elementary,

secondary, and postsecondary levels. For more current sources, see Roberta Tovey, “Gender Equity: A

Narrowly Gender-Based Mode of Learning May End Up Cheating All Students,” The Harvard Education

Letter, July/August (1995), pp. 3-6.

Page 6 GAO/HEHS-96-122 Single-Gender Public Education
B-271256 

of the Education Amendments of 1972. It may also violate the equal

protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution and state constitutions.8

Title IX Title IX prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender in educational

programs receiving federal financial assistance.9

 Although Title IX does

not govern admissions practices at the elementary and secondary school

level except for vocational schools, it does require that school districts

provide comparable facilities, courses, and services to boys and girls.

Thus, Title IX does not preclude a school district from having

single-gender schools. Title IX as implemented by the Department of

Education regulation, however, generally prohibits single-gender

classrooms in coeducational schools. The regulation has some exceptions;

for example, single-gender classes are permitted for portions of physical

education classes when students are playing contact sports or portions of

classes on human sexuality. It may also be possible for a school to have

single-gender classrooms as a remedy for past discrimination or as a form

of affirmative action under certain specific conditions. (See app. I for a

complete list of exceptions.)

Officials at the Department of Education’s OCR, which enforces Title IX,

state they have had relatively few complaints or requests for guidance on

either single-gender schools or single-gender classrooms in the last 10

years. In each instance in which a complaint about a single-gender

program has been filed with OCR, the school district and OCR have resolved

the matter.

Single-Gender Schools Single-gender public elementary and secondary schools may violate Title

IX if the school districts do not provide comparable facilities, courses, and

services to both boys and girls. OCR has investigated complaints against

two allegedly single-gender public schools10 but concluded that neither of

them violated Title IX.

8

Our overview of legal issues does not include discussion of the Equal Educational Opportunities Act,

which was passed in 1974 and prohibits, among other things, student assignment to a school other

than a neighborhood school if assignment results in more segregation of students on the basis of race,

color, sex, or national origin among the schools than would result if such students were assigned to

the school closest to their homes. The purpose of the act was to specify appropriate remedies for the

orderly elimination of vestiges of dual (for example, racially segregated) school systems; it has limited

applicability in gender discrimination where choice of school is voluntary and has rarely been invoked

in gender-based lawsuits.

9

Title IX, of course, also applies to postsecondary education, but this report and the discussion of Title

IX are limited to elementary and secondary schools.

10These were the only public schools with single-gender enrollments at the elementary or secondary

level that we could identify as operating in recent years.

Page 7 GAO/HEHS-96-122 Single-Gender Public Education
B-271256 

In 1992, OCR investigated complaints in Philadelphia and Baltimore alleging

that the school districts maintained single-gender public high schools for

girls only—Baltimore’s Western High School and Philadelphia High School

for Girls. OCR examined whether the school districts were excluding

anyone on the basis of gender from the districts’ schools. School officials

of both schools stated that they did not deny admission to boys and the

schools were open to both boys and girls.

Philadelphia High School for Girls traces its inception to the Model

School, which opened as a coeducational teacher’s training school in 1818

and became the Girl’s Normal School in 1848. A school district official

reported that the school offers an academic enrichment curriculum and

the usual extracurricular activities such as sports and music. Currently,

about 1,500 girls attend the school, which includes grades 9 through 12.

According to school officials, the school draws students from all over the

city, and—reflecting school district demographics—about 44 percent of

the students are from families below the poverty line. They told us that the

school targets for admission students with high academic performance

and good attendance and report that about 98 percent of its graduates

attend college. In 1992, the school was one of nine magnet high schools in

the city. During OCR’s investigation, district officials stated that all students

are encouraged to apply to these magnet schools and are provided with

booklets that describe the high school programs. OCR found that district

officials had no policy of excluding males from this school so the district

had not violated Title IX.

Baltimore’s Western High School was founded in 1844 to provide girls an

opportunity to receive an education beyond the elementary level. School

officials told us that the school became college preparatory in the 1960s;

about 96 percent of the current graduates go to college. From the

beginning it offered a liberal arts curriculum as it does today; it also

provides the typical after-school programs such as sports and clubs.

Western is 1 of 10 citywide high schools in Baltimore and draws qualified

students from the entire city. To be accepted for admission, students must

have a B average, and, to remain at the school, they must maintain a C

average. Total enrollment in grades 9 through 12 is about 1,250. Students

at the school come from about 30 national and ethnic groups, and about

80 percent are African American. During a review of Western’s policies

and curriculum, OCR found that other citywide high schools also offered

programs to both sexes similar to those offered at Western. District

officials stated that the booklets the guidance staff distribute have no

language indicating that Western is for girls only and applications are

Page 8 GAO/HEHS-96-122 Single-Gender Public Education
B-271256 

evaluated on merit and ranked in order without regard to sex. OCR found

that the district did not exclude male students from applying or attending

Western and was therefore in compliance with Title IX.

Single-Gender Classrooms Typical requests for guidance and complaints brought against school

districts involving single-gender classrooms, which are generally

prohibited under the Title IX regulation,11 include single-gender physical

education classes, segregated technology classes, single-gender math

classes for math-phobic girls, and single-gender mentoring clubs.

Complaints were resolved in a variety of ways.

Complaints against single-gender physical education classes are among the

most common. OCR states that schools segregate the sexes, unaware that

in most cases this is not permissible under the Title IX regulation, although

the regulation does permit portions of classes when students are playing

contact sports to be separated by gender. These complaints are generally

resolved by changing the physical education classes to coeducational

classes. Merely adding coeducational classes while maintaining

single-gender classes does not resolve the violation. Schools must

discontinue segregating their physical education classes on the basis of

gender to comply with the Title IX regulation.

Another type of complaint OCR has received alleges single-gender

mathematics classes for girls. For example, in Ventura, California, the

school district piloted a program to see if math sections composed

primarily of girls who were math phobic or otherwise reluctant math

students could, with support from adults, increase the girls’ enrollment in

higher level math courses. Some boys also fit this profile and were

enrolled in the pilot classes. In response to a complaint filed with OCR, the

district modified its procedures for counseling, registering, and recruiting

students for the pilot math classes to reflect academic need rather than

gender. The classes are therefore described as providing a supportive

environment for students who are math phobic or doubtful about their

ability to succeed in challenging mathematics courses; all students

regardless of gender who fit these categories can be targeted and

encouraged to enroll.

The Connecticut Department of Education also sought OCR’s guidance on a

new introductory technology course to be offered in two formats, an

all-girl class and a mixed-gender class. After discussion with OCR,

11The Title IX regulation states that a “recipient shall not provide any course or otherwise carry out any

of its education program or activity separately on the basis of sex....” (34 C.F.R. 106.34). See app. I for

exceptions to this general prohibition.

Page 9 GAO/HEHS-96-122 Single-Gender Public Education
B-271256 

Connecticut revised the format so that it had a “regular class and a second

class targeted for female students but accessible to all students regardless

of sex.” Both classes were to be open to all students, and OCR noted that

the revised proposal did not appear to raise concerns of discrimination

under Title IX.

Concern for at-risk males has led some school districts to experiment with

a separate educational program for minority males. One such school in

Brooklyn, New York, operated a separate third grade class for at-risk

minority students, which was alleged to separate students by race and

gender. OCR’s investigation did not support the allegation of race

segregation since the school was 100-percent minority; however, it did find

that students were separated on the basis of gender. Regarding separation

by gender, the New York Public School system agreed that if it decided to

have a special program for at-risk students, it would submit criteria to OCR

for placing at-risk students in a gender-neutral manner, document the

reason each student was chosen for the class, and keep a record of the

gender of each student in the class. According to OCR, the program was a

2-year pilot program and was not renewed.

Another program, which targeted young African American males with no

male role models at home, was the object of a request for OCR guidance

from Dade County Public Schools in Florida. Dade County wanted to

evaluate the effect of having a gender- and race-segregated class with a

male teacher for young African American males in kindergarten and first

grade. OCR found that such division by race would violate Title VI of the

Civil Rights Act of 196412 and such division by gender would violate Title

IX. OCR determined that the proposal to assign students on the basis of

gender, even though voluntary on the part of the boys who would

participate, is not allowed under the Title IX regulation and does not fit

into the rationale for the stated exceptions to the regulation.

Single-Gender Clubs Mentoring is another area in which OCR has received a complaint. The

complaint alleged that Prince George’s County Public Schools in Maryland

sponsored single-gender mentoring clubs for boys. Upon investigation, OCR

found that the district operated a multimillion dollar program of

single-gender clubs for boys and operated a significantly smaller program

of single-gender clubs for girls. At least one of these clubs for boys is

operating at all of the county’s 176 schools, and, at some of the schools,

12Title VI prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in programs or

activities receiving federal financial assistance.

Page 10 GAO/HEHS-96-122 Single-Gender Public Education
B-271256 

the district also funds community-based clubs for boys only. OCR found

that the district operates only 31 clubs for girls.

The need for mentoring activities through single-gender clubs was

articulated by the district in a report on African American male

achievement recommending that the district strengthen its efforts to

provide students with mentors and experiences that forge ties between

academics and the work world. OCR noted that single-gender clubs would

comport with Title IX in meeting affirmative action standards only if

(1) those who have experienced conditions resulting in a limited

opportunity to participate in the district’s programs due to their gender are

the targeted beneficiaries, (2) less discriminatory alternatives have been

considered and rejected, and (3) the evidence demonstrates that

comparable gender-neutral means could not be reasonably expected to

produce the results desired.

OCR found that despite the laudable goals of the district’s program, it did

not appear that the means to achieve those goals had been tailored to

comply with the Title IX regulation. In response, the district opened all

district-sponsored programs, clubs, and activities to all qualified students

regardless of gender (excluding such usual Title IX exemptions as football

and other contact sports). The district also agreed to ensure that female

students are informed of and are welcomed into the district’s formerly

all-male mentoring programs and male students are informed of and are

welcomed into the district’s formerly all-female mentoring programs.

Equal Protection Clause of

U.S. Constitution

Single-gender public education could also be challenged under the

Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The equal protection

clause of the Fourteenth Amendment declares that a state may not deny

anyone its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. The U.S. Supreme

Court has not yet ruled on the constitutionality of single-gender

elementary or secondary schools. Several cases, however, such as

Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan,

13 Vorchheimer v. School

District of Philadelphia,

14 and Garrett v. Board of Education of School

District of Detroit,

15 may provide guidance for policy decisions being made

on single-gender schools.

13458 U.S. 718 (1982).

14532 F.2d 880 (3d Cir. 1976), affirmed by an equally divided court, 430 U.S. 703 (1977).

15775 F. Supp. 1004 (E.D. Mich. 1991).

Page 11 GAO/HEHS-96-122 Single-Gender Public Education
B-271256 

The U.S. Supreme Court addressed the issue of a single-gender college in

Hogan in 1982. A male student sought admission to a state-supported

professional nursing program at Mississippi State University for Women

(MSU). He was denied admission solely on the basis of gender because MSU

has been limited to women since it was created by Mississippi statute in

1884. Hogan claimed that the admissions policy violated the equal

protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court

agreed with Hogan in a five to four decision. In its analysis, the Court

defined the standard applied in this case: A state needs to show an

“exceedingly persuasive justification” for classifying individuals on the

basis of gender. That burden can be met only by showing that the

classification serves “important governmental objectives” and that the

discriminatory means employed are “substantially related” to achieving

those objectives.16 Under Hogan, this test must be applied free of fixed

notions about roles and abilities of males and females.

In applying this standard to the facts, the Court found the state’s argument

that its single-sex admissions policy compensates for discrimination

against women to be unpersuasive. Mississippi had not shown that women

lacked opportunities to obtain nursing training when the school opened its

doors or that women were deprived of such opportunities when Hogan

sought admission. The Court found that Mississippi’s policy of excluding

males from admission, rather than compensate for discriminatory barriers

faced by women, tended to perpetuate the stereotyped view of nursing as

an exclusively women’s profession. The policy also failed because the

state did not show that the gender-based classification was substantially

and directly related to its proposed compensatory objective.

The issue of single-gender public high schools came up in the Vorchheimer

case in 1976, which was decided before Hogan and therefore did not use

the same analytical framework as Hogan. A female high school student

was denied admission to an all-male academic high school in Philadelphia

solely because of her sex. The Philadelphia School District at that time

operated two single-gender academic high schools, Central High School

and Philadelphia High School for Girls. The court found both schools to

have excellent reputations for academic excellence. Enrollment in either

school was voluntary. The district also provided “comprehensive” coed

16This standard for review for gender classifications is known as “intermediate scrutiny.” The Supreme

Court has articulated two other levels of scrutiny that can be applied in constitutional cases. Race

classifications receive “strict scrutiny,” which requires that there be a compelling governmental

interest and the means employed to achieve that interest must be narrowly tailored. Other cases must

only pass the “rational basis test,” which requires that the state have a legitimate interest and that its

means of achievement have a fair and substantial relationship to its interest.

Page 12 GAO/HEHS-96-122 Single-Gender Public Education
B-271256 

high schools that included courses required for college admission and

advanced placement courses. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third

Circuit found that Girls and Central were academically and functionally

equivalent and, consequently, the admission requirements based on gender

classification did not offend the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth

Amendment. The court reasoned that gender should not be treated the

same as race under the equal protection clause because, although no

fundamental difference exists between races, differences between boys

and girls do exist that may, in limited circumstances, justify disparity in

law. It also noted that the primary aim of any school system must be to

furnish an education of as high a quality as feasible. “Thus, given the

objective of a quality education and a controverted, but respected theory

that adolescents may study more effectively in single-sex schools, the

policy of the school board here does bear a substantial relationship” to

providing high-quality education.17

Vorchheimer was decided in 1976 and predates the Supreme Court’s

decision in Hogan discussed above. In Hogan, the Supreme Court referred

to the Vorchheimer case to show how the issue it was deciding differed

from that in Vorchheimer. The Supreme Court stated, “We are not faced

with the question of whether States can provide ‘separate but equal’

undergraduate institutions for males and females,” as was the case in

Vorchheimer.

The Supreme Court may answer the “separate but equal” question for

colleges in a pending case, United States v. Virginia.

18 Virginia was found

by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to be violating the

17On appeal, the decision in Vorchheimer was affirmed without comment by an equally divided

Supreme Court, which means Vorchheimer is precedential only in the Third Circuit. Subsequently, in

1983, female students again sought admission to the all-boys Central High School and brought suit in

the Common Pleas Court of Philadelphia County alleging that being denied admission to Central

violated their rights under the Pennsylvania Constitution and the U.S. Constitution. The Court found

that Vorchheimer did not bar the claim because representation by plaintiff’s counsel in Vorchheimer

was “materially inadequate.” That is, because the plaintiff’s counsel made a very serious mistake by

not providing the court with relevant evidence, the court could hear this case even though it was on

the same facts and law. The court went on to order the admission of the girls to Central. In finding the

representation inadequate, the trial court noted many facts not considered by the Vorchheimer court:

for example, the boys’ campus was almost three times larger, its library had almost twice as many

books, the boys’ school had a computer room, and its graduates received almost twice the amount of

money for college scholarships. The court found that both the Pennsylvania Constitution and the U.S.

Constitution had been violated. Central High School is currently coeducational. The Girls School,

according to officials, does not deny admission to boys, but no boys are enrolled. See also the earlier

discussion of this school on page 8.

1844 F.3d 1229 (4th Cir. 1995), cert. granted, 116 S. Ct. 281 (1995), argued, Jan. 17, 1996.

Page 13 GAO/HEHS-96-122 Single-Gender Public Education
B-271256 

equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution19 in operating Virginia

Military Institute (VMI) as a male-only military college and not providing a

similar single-gender educational environment for women. The court of

appeals gave Virginia the option of admitting women to VMI, discontinuing

its support of VMI, or establishing a parallel program for women. Virginia

established a parallel program—the Virginia Women’s Institute for

Leadership at Mary Baldwin. In reviewing this remedy, the court of

appeals found that the distinctions in the VMI program and the Mary

Baldwin program are justifiable because of gender differences but that the

programs were otherwise comparable in substance. The following issues

are on appeal before the U.S. Supreme Court: (1) whether a state that

provides a rigorous military-style public education program for men can

remedy the unconstitutional denial of the same opportunity to women by

offering them a different type of single-gender educational program and

(2) whether coeducation is the required remedy in this case.

Finally, a district court decision may also help guide school districts. In

Garrett, the Detroit School District sought to establish three male

academies in 1991 to serve approximately 250 boys from preschool

through fifth grade, with grades six to eight phased in over the next few

years. The academies were to offer special programs, including an

Afrocentric curriculum, mentors, Saturday classes, individualized

counseling, and uniforms. The plaintiffs contended that these special

programs did not require a uniquely male atmosphere to succeed and that

they addressed issues females face, too. Moreover, the academies did not

target only at-risk boys but boys from all achievement levels.

The case came to the court on a motion for a preliminary injunction. In

such cases, the courts do not render a final decision, but they will grant an

injunction forbidding a party from engaging in certain activity if they find,

among other things, that it is likely that plaintiffs would succeed at trial

and would suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted. The

court applied the standard used in Hogan; it found that both the U.S.

Constitution and the Michigan Constitution prohibit the exclusion of an

individual from a publicly funded school because of his or her gender

unless the school district can show that gender-based classification serves

important governmental objectives and that the discriminatory means

employed are substantially related to achieving those objectives. The court

noted that no evidence existed that the education system was failing urban

males because of females attending schools with males. The preliminary

19Title IX is not applicable because the statute excepts undergraduate institutions of higher education

that have traditionally and continually had a policy of admitting only students of one sex. VMI is such

an institution.

Page 14 GAO/HEHS-96-122 Single-Gender Public Education
B-271256 

injunction was granted, and the case never came to trial.20 The parties

agreed to expand the academies to include girls and to have comparable

male-focused and female-focused classes and activities.

Equal Protection Clauses

of State Constitutions

In addition to the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution, some

state constitutions have similar equal protection provisions or equal rights

amendments that have been interpreted by their courts as more rigorous

or restrictive than the federal equal protection clause. Thus, even if a

particular example of a single-gender education program is acceptable

under federal law, it may still be challenged under state laws.

Examples of

Single-Gender

Education Programs

Most single-gender education programs we identified were classroom

rather than schoolwide programs. Several of the programs we examined,

including those described below, have not been reviewed by OCR, and

these programs may not be in compliance with Title IX. The five

single-gender programs discussed in this section were operating at the

time of our study. Following are descriptions of such programs based

primarily on information we obtained from interviews conducted with

program officials.

All-Boy Academy Within a

Coeducational Middle

School

In September 1995, a large urban middle school (grades seven and eight)

in a northeastern city established an all-boy academy within the school.

The academy is one of three magnet programs at the school. The school’s

enrollment is about 1,000 students, of whom about 99 percent are

minority. The academy program, a 2-year program for seventh and eighth

graders, is voluntary with an enrollment of 57 seventh graders. The school

plans to recruit a new class of seventh graders to begin in September 1996.

The academy has four teachers, and the boys travel among these teachers’

classrooms. The objective of the program is to help the boys become

responsible, successful people and to build self-esteem through academic

success. The standard middle school curriculum is taught with an

emphasis on individual growth, academic success, social responsibility,

and good citizenship. Special curriculum components include a mentoring

program in which boys are counseled on subjects such as careers, gangs,

family issues, and academics. In addition, the curriculum emphasizes

culture, history, society, and technology. The school is planning to initiate

an all-girl program in September 1996 or 1997.

20The court also noted that because Detroit did not offer schools for girls comparable to male

academies, the court did not need to address whether the district could provide separate but equal

public schools for boys and girls.

Page 15 GAO/HEHS-96-122 Single-Gender Public Education
B-271256 

Girls’ After-School

Program (Elementary)

In autumn 1995, a teacher in a suburban elementary school established an

after-school math and science program for fifth and sixth grade girls. The

program is intended to encourage girls to study these subjects and to build

self-confidence in their abilities. It is one of several after-school programs

offered by the school, although the others—such as basketball, chess, and

computers—are for both boys and girls. The girls meet every Thursday

afternoon for an hour to learn about science-related matters, such as

optical illusions and the metric system, and to participate in activities to

enhance their enjoyment of math and science such as building

tetrahedrons and playing math strategy games. The program founder told

us the program has been filled to capacity, and she plans to continue it

next year if the school district funds the late-running school bus that

allows the children to attend an after-school program.

Elementary School With

All Single-Gender Classes

In 1989, the principal of an urban coeducational elementary school

decided to try single-gender classes in grades one and three. She

subsequently expanded the program to include grades one through five.

The program goal is to improve academic achievement for all the children

and to identify best practices to encourage the boys to find alternatives to

violence and to be supportive of each other. All students study the

standard curriculum and this year have received special instruction in

character issues such as honesty, trust, and conflict resolution.

After-school activities include mentoring by high school and college

students as well as local business and professional people. In addition,

representatives from the U.S. Armed Forces visit the school weekly to

tutor and discuss careers. The school operates year-round and offers

summer courses aimed at building self-esteem and promoting career

awareness in such areas as hotel management, nursing, and real estate.

Middle School With Choice

of Single-Gender or

Coeducational Classes

The principal in an urban middle school launched a single-gender program

3 years ago to address both academic and social issues relative to her

students—especially African American boys with serious learning

problems. In each of the three grades (six through eight), the school has

all-girl classes, all-boy classes, and coed classes. Parents may choose

whichever setting they prefer. About 650 students attend the school, and

about 99 percent receive free or reduced-price lunch. All students in the

school study an Afrocentric curriculum that was in place before the

single-gender classes. The school has extracurricular mentoring programs

for boys and girls and about 30 other after-school activities, including

Karate, chess, and tutoring. The boys in the school serve as mentors for

Page 16 GAO/HEHS-96-122 Single-Gender Public Education
B-271256 

the second grade boys at a nearby elementary school. The single-gender

program will be discontinued after this school year to comply with the

state administrative code.

Junior High School With

Single-Gender Classes

(Boys’ and Girls’)

In 1992, the principal in this urban junior high inaugurated single-gender

homerooms for some students to provide a place where they could talk

more openly about issues important to them and where teachers could

provide crisis intervention when necessary. She believed it worked so well

that the next year she made all classes in the school (grades seven through

nine) single gender. Her primary goal was to promote the students’

academic success and to also minimize the distractions of rowdiness or

inappropriate behavior among the students. She believes that because the

students face danger in their inner city neighborhood, the school must be a

safe haven and likes to consider it a second family for the children. All

students are taught the standard junior high curriculum, and social skills

and responsibility are emphasized. The school has a Saturday program in

which students from a nearby college tutor both boys and girls.

Observations Officials we talked to in schools that have experimented recently with

single-gender education said that such programs have resulted in

observable qualitative differences in the behavior of children in

single-gender environments; conclusive quantitative research, however, on

the effectiveness of such public school programs is not available.

Opponents maintain that targeted problems can be effectively addressed

in coeducational settings without subjecting students to discrimination on

the basis of gender and that the effectiveness of single-gender programs is

questionable. Proponents believe, nevertheless, that single-gender

programs ought to be available as tools for improving the academic and

social performance of school children. Some single-gender programs,

however, are subject to legal impediments.

Agency Comments In commenting on a draft of this report, the Assistant Secretary for Civil

Rights in the Department of Education made several suggestions on the

report’s purpose, research on single-gender education, and issues

involving legal standards. As the Assistant Secretary correctly observed,

our study was not intended to be an exhaustive research effort but was

intended to identify the major issues in single-gender education and cite

some examples. We did, however, add some additional references that

may be useful to researchers.

Page 17 GAO/HEHS-96-122 Single-Gender Public Education
B-271256 

Regarding legal standards, the Assistant Secretary asked that we further

clarify and explain the applicable legal principles. We have done so in the

final report. The Assistant Secretary also provided technical comments on

specific statements and facts included in our draft report, and, where

appropriate, we used the information to clarify our report.

If you have any questions about this report, please contact me at

(202) 512-7014 or Eleanor L. Johnson, Assistant Director, at (202) 512-7209.

This report was prepared by Susan Lawless, Evaluator-in-Charge, and

Susan Poling, Assistant General Counsel.

Sincerely yours,

Carlotta C. Joyner

Director, Education

 and Employment Issues

Page 18 GAO/HEHS-96-122 Single-Gender Public Education
Page 19 GAO/HEHS-96-122 Single-Gender Public Education
Contents

Letter 1

Appendix I 

Title IX and

Single-Gender

Education in

Elementary and

Secondary Schools

22

Appendix II 

Comments From the

Department of

Education

24

Abbreviations

MSU Mississippi State University for Women

OCR Office for Civil Rights

VMI Virginia Military Institute

Page 20 GAO/HEHS-96-122 Single-Gender Public Education
Page 21 GAO/HEHS-96-122 Single-Gender Public Education
Appendix I 

Title IX and Single-Gender Education in

Elementary and Secondary Schools

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 generally states that no

person shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be

denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any

education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance (20

U.S.C. 1681 (1990)). The implementing regulation is found in part 106 of

title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulation.

Single-Gender Elementary

and Secondary Schools

The Title IX regulation permits nonvocational, single-gender elementary

and secondary schools, as long as comparable facilities, courses, and

services are made available to students of both genders (34 C.F.R.

106.35(b)).

Single-Gender Classrooms

in Elementary and

Secondary Schools

The Title IX regulation generally prohibits single-sex classrooms in

coeducational schools. It states that a “recipient shall not provide any

course or otherwise carry out any of its education program or activity

separately on the basis of sex....” (34 C.F.R. 106.34). Following are some

exceptions to this regulation:

• contact sports offered in physical education classes (34 C.F.R. 106.34(c));

• chorus, when based on vocal requirements or quality (34 C.F.R. 106.34(f));

and

• portions of classes dealing with human sexuality (34 C.F.R. 106.34(e)).

Separate classes may also be provided for pregnant students, but must be

voluntary (34 C.F.R. 106.40(b)(3)).

If the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights finds discrimination on the basis

of sex, a recipient may be required by the Assistant Secretary to take

remedial action necessary to overcome the effects of the discrimination

(34 C.F.R. 106.3(a)).

In the absence of a finding of discrimination by the Assistant Secretary for

Civil Rights, a recipient may take affirmative action to overcome the

effects of conditions that have limited participation by gender (34 C.F.R.

106.3(b)). Regarding affirmative action, in particular, the classifications

that result in single-gender classes must be directly related to the reasons

for the institution of the single-gender classes. This means that the

(1) beneficiaries of the single-gender classes or programs must have had

limited opportunities to participate in a school’s programs or activities due

to their sex, (2) less restrictive or segregative alternatives that may have

Page 22 GAO/HEHS-96-122 Single-Gender Public Education
Appendix I 

Title IX and Single-Gender Education in

Elementary and Secondary Schools

accomplished the goals of the single-gender classes or programs must

have been considered and rejected, and (3) there must be evidence that

comparable sex-neutral means could not be reasonably expected to

produce the results sought through the single-gender classrooms or

programs.

Page 23 GAO/HEHS-96-122 Single-Gender Public Education
Appendix II 

Comments From the Department of

Education

Page 24 GAO/HEHS-96-122 Single-Gender Public Education
Appendix II 

Comments From the Department of

Education

Page 25 GAO/HEHS-96-122 Single-Gender Public Education
Appendix II 

Comments From the Department of

Education

(104847) Page 26 GAO/HEHS-96-122 Single-Gender Public Education
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address

are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 6015

Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100