Public education evolved from primarily single-gender (boys’) education to primarily coeducation before the turn of the 20th century. 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 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. Educators and other experts 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— 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. 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 schools. 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 minority of students who select them.” 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 Women 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. 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 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. 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. 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 of the Education Amendments of 1972. It may also violate the equal protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution and state constitutions. Title IX prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender in educational programs receiving federal financial assistance. 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.