Single-Sex Education Will Not "Save" Black and Latino Boys, Professor Argues

In an opinion piece on the Education Week blog, NYU Professor Pedro Noguera argues that coeducation single-sex education is not the solution to problem that young men of color experience lower graduation rates and other disparities in educational outcomes. Noguera points out that there is no scientific research supporting claims that separating young men into separate schools or classrooms is the best way to meet their needs. To be sure, there are single-sex schools that boast higher-than-average graduation rates for African-American and Latino boys, but Noguera suggests that what is most likely making them successful are characteristics other than their single sex design -- characteristics like strong teachers-student relationships, personalized learning environments, and a peer culture that values academics and character. In support of this suggestion, Noguera points out that co-ed schools like Thurgood Marshall Academy in Harlem have achieved success by developing these characteristics. School districts that adopt single-sex education as a single magic bullet to the problems facing young men of color are poised not only to fail the students they are trying to help, but to project harmful gender stereotypes onto boys and girls alike. Noguera urges schools to focus on solutions that provide "positive learning environments that meet the needs of the children they serve."

Public Single-Sex Education Vulnerable to Legal Challenge, Professor Explains

A recent essay in the National Law Journal by emerita Columbia law professor Vivian Berger criticizes the trend in single-sex education. Noting that the "bloom may be off the rose" in light of some recent, high-profile decisions to cancel single-sex classes, either voluntarily and/or in response to litigation pressure (see, e.g., here, here, here, and here), she points out there are more than 500 public schools that are either wholly single-sex or sponsor some number of single-sex classes. Professor Berger's observation is timely in light of Friday's front-page story in the Boston Globe, which reported on a controversial decision to segregate the first grade at a public school in Roxbury.

Professor Berger explains that these programs are vulnerable to legal challenges on a number of grounds. The Constitution's Equal Protection Clause, for one, prohibits states and state-sponsored entities such as public schools from relying on gender stereotypes, which are frequently the basis for sex-segregated classes. In addition, she points out, many sex-segregated programs violate the Department of Education's recently-revised Title IX regulations, which, while relaxing earlier restrictions on single-sex education, still require "substantially equal" alternative for members of the excluded sex: "This claim will usually be well-founded: Much sex-segregation involves charter academies, which offer benefits like lower student-teacher ratios and special curricula not available in regular schools." Last, Professor Berger points out that other federal agencies that provide funding for education also have Title IX implementing regulations, which still retain strict restrictions on single-sex education.

Professor Berger's observations about the legal vulnerability of hundreds of segregated public schools and classrooms raise legitimate questions about the role of government education and enforcement in this application of Title IX. As we noted on the blog yesterday, when OCR took a stand against universities' lax response to sexual assault, enforcement increased. A similar approach is certainly warranted in the context of single-sex education.

More re-integration

Another school district in Alabama has opted to end its single-sex middle school classrooms.
Tallapoosa School District has said it will stop its single-sex program at the end of this year. This program had been in place for several years and, despite being legally required to, did not provide opt-outs for students/parents who did not want to be educated in single-sex classrooms.
The program began because of alleged hormone-induced behaviors that required disciplining.

Single-Sex Education Cancelled in Tacoma, Challenged in Missouri

A school district in Tacoma, Washington recently rescinded a single-sex education program that had segregated sixth grade students by sex for classes in all core subjects at Jason Lee Middle School. This change in course occurred after the state of Washington's Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction informed the district that state education law actually prohibits single-sex education outside the context of health, physical education, and choir. The district reportedly believed that its program complied with federal Title IX regulations that broadened single-sex education, and did not realize that state law was more restrictive in this regard. However, I'm not sure this program would have survived a challenge even under Title IX, given the regulation's requirement that districts make coed alternatives available, provides students and parents with a choice, and limit single-sex education to those that are "substantially related" to an "important objective." Such a broad scope encompassing all the core subjects in an entire middle school grade definitely raises questions about its compliance with both of those requirements.

Speaking of challenges to single-sex education programs under Title IX, the ACLU has requested that the Adrian School District, outside Kansas City, Missouri, curtail its single-sex education program that offers segregated math and "communication arts" classes in the 6th, 7th, and 8th grade. The ACLU cited growing evidence challenging the efficacy of single-sex education, which calls into question the ability of single-sex education to truly promote an important education objective as required by Title IX regulations or the Equal Protection Clause.

Pittsburgh School District Ends Single-Sex Classes

The superintendent of the Pittsburgh Public Schools announced her recommendation to end single-sex classes at George Westinghouse Academy, after becoming "uncomfortable" with how staff where being trained to rely on gender stereotypes.

The ACLU and Women's Law Project had reportedly threatened to sue the district over its plans to convert George Westinghouse, which educates grades 6-12, into an entirely sex-segregated institution, a move that exceeds the scope of single-sex education allowed under Title IX regulations and that was justified by an erroneous conclusion that “research solidly indicates that boys and girls learn differently.” ACLU's press release on the matter also sheds some light on what might have been making the superintendent uncomfortable: teachers were apparently being trained to teach boys in ways that emphasize “characteristics of warrior, protector, and provider” and to provide “space/time to explore things that young women like [including] writing, applying and doing make-up & hair, art.”

Feminists Address Feminists on the Other Side of the Single-Sex Education Debate

Rebecca Bigler and Lise Eliot are right when they point out that "feminists tend to be of two minds about single-sex schooling." In my experience, such discussions between these groups of feminists -- whether personal or playing out in the New York Times -- reflect an uneasy awareness of this divide, with both sides often choosing to address the common "enemy" in programs that take single-sex education too far, rather than address the conflicting positions between them. Of all the discourse over single-sex education that has spewed forth these last few months, Bigler and Eliot's piece in Slate notable for actually taking issue with the feminist variety of single-sex education -- the pro-woman Smith and Wellesley type. This respectful, measured, and evidence-based column makes the case that sex-segregated classrooms promote sex stereotypes that are the basis for bias and privilege. It delivers a persuasive argument that feminists would do more to promote gender equality by working together to end sex-segregated schools and enhancing co-education. It's worth a read.

"Room for Debate" over Single Sex Education

Single-sex education remains in the public discourse, in the wake of the much-discussed article in Science that calls into question the presumed benefit of single-sex classrooms, and the news of Vermilion Parish's decision to curtail through 2016 single-sex classes at its middle school in settlement of its litigation with the ACLU. The New York Times "Room for Debate" series addresses single-sex education today by including columns from all angles on the debate -- from those most critical of single-sex education as a misguided placebo for the performance gap in public education, like Galen Sherwin (ACLU attorney),Verna Williams (University of Cincinnati law professor) and Richard Fabes (child development professor at Arizona State), to the more moderate positions like Rosemary Salomone (St. John's law professor) who supports more limited use of single sex education, to the stronger proponents of single-sex education like Jane Dammen McAuliffe (President of Bryn Mawr), Leonard Sax (author) and Christine Hoff Summers (author).

Study Suggests Single-Sex Education Does More Harm than Good

Even as Kris pointed out that single-sex education is on the rise, a review article in the journal Science that was reported widely on yesterday (see, e.g., here, here, and here) casts doubt on claims that separating students by sex makes them better learners. But evidence does suggest that the practice promotes gender stereotyping and sexism. For instance, the review cites a recent comparative study of two preschool classrooms, which found that the classroom where the teacher used gender-specific language to address the children quickly produced greater tendency among the students, when compared to a classroom where no gender-specific language was used, to exclude children of the opposite sex and to rely on gender stereotypes. The study also references a Department of Education report found little overall difference in academic outcomes between children in single-sex schools versus those in coed schools. Factors other than sex, such as economic factors and parent involvement, are more likely to influence academic success.

The study's authors, who include psychologists, education specialists, and a neuroscientist who studies gender, have created a American Council for Coeducation Schooling, and are using their findings as the basis of a political movement to urge the Department of Education to rescind the regulations that allow for single-sex education, which were promulgated after the 2002 No Child Left Behind law authorize single-sex education in elementary and secondary schools as an exception to Title IX's general prohibition on sex discrimination. As we have pointed out on this blog in the past, many school districts (see, e.g.) appear to be implementing single-sex education in a broad, coercive, and groundless manner that is not authorized by the regulations.

Given the Secretary of Education's record support of single-sex classrooms such as those in his home city of Chicago, it will be interesting to see whether he is open-minded to reform and keeps in mind President Obama's professed commitment to evidence-based policymaking.

Single-sex classes growing at MN middle school

Must be the new school year, because we seem to be reading more and more stories about public schools experimenting with single-sex classrooms.
In Minnesota, Battle Creek Middle School experiments with single-sex classrooms began over five years ago with the number of single-sex options growing to the point where, this year, most of students' classroom time is segregated by gender. Previous incarnations of single-sex classrooms had students segregated for half the day and mixed the other half; but teachers reported an increase in disciplinary issues and lack of attention due to the desire of the students to socialize and have "party time" when they were reintegrated.
This situation--as well as the one in Indianapolis that I wrote about the other day is curious--is there much less socializing among just girls or just boys? Why is it only "party time" when boys and girls are present?
The article is fairly responsible in its coverage noting that no research to date has confirmed the value of single-sex education. It also notes the problem of perpetuating stereotypes, but then, unfortunately, includes line like this based on information from sources:
Teachers said they notice gender differences and tweak lessons accordingly. For example, boys tend to be more competitive and crave physical activity, they said, while girls are more organized.
Makes one worry about what teachers have learned about the research and what exactly they are doing with these so-called well-organized girls and competitive and physically active boys.
Also, no information on whether there are mixed gender options. Lack of such options could be a problem.

Indianapolis high school imposes strict segregation

Since the case in Vermillion Parish (LA) was settled last year (disallowing single-sex classrooms), there has been a spot open for the public school that could execute the strictest form of sex-segregation.
Looks like Arlington Community High School in Indianapolis has taken that spot. And most people are happy about it. But that could also be an impression created by the story I read which took a generally positive tone. It also failed to note that this so-called nationwide research that shows single-sex education is better is somewhat specious.
But there certainly are students and administrators and teachers who like that there seems to be more participation and engagement in the classroom and less drama in the hallways. Yes--everything is segregated: hallways, buses, the cafeteria. The move to such strict segregation came after the principal felt that, given the extreme underperformance of his school, he had nothing to lose by implementing the segregation. Spending less time disciplining students in and out of the classroom certainly would seem to free up some time and space for more learning. But is this the best way to do this? What are the consequences? And are we really assuming that all boys and all girls are going to get along thus freeing the school from conflict? And, of course, the underlying racial stereotypes (the majority of ACHS pupils are students of color) are problematic.
A short news piece from Ms. magazine about the school and the new policy does mention this aspect; which is good because few media outlets do when discussing any of the single-sex education cases.

Another interesting aspect: the school's lack of success actually means it will be one of four high schools in Indianapolis that the state will take over from the school district next year. That may put an end to the segregation--or not. Assuming no one(s) challenge it before then.

Title IX and Transgender Students at Single-Sex Colleges

Inside Higher Ed recently had an article about transgender students at single-sex colleges. Like this piece in the Boston Globe a few years ago, the article addresses the increasingly common practice of re-issuing diplomas to reflect the new names and gender identities of alums who transition after graduation. Deciding who to admit, however, is a more challenging issue for single-sex colleges. Most women's colleges consider any student who is female on their application to be eligible for admission, and have no policy of excluding anyone who transitions or declares a non-female gender identity once enrolled.

The article mentions the role of Title IX in this regard, stating that under the law, "men’s and women’s colleges may admit only students whose legal documentation shows they are of the gender that a particular institution serves." I think this representation of Title IX is questionable, however, as I'm not aware of any aspect of the law that invokes a "legal documentation" test for determining a person's sex. Such a standard would not exactly provide workable clarity, either, because some states make it easier to change one's sex designation than others. Moreover, the decision to apply for new ID may come at different stages of transition for different folks. So, a "legal ID" test would require an all-women's school to consider for admission an individual who has surgically and hormonally transitioned from female-to-male, but who hasn't yet applied for, or received, a re-issued birth certificate (or drivers license, or some other legal ID). And that school would have to exclude someone who has changed his sex designation, but not his body, in accordance with a male gender identity, as well as someone who has physically transitioned from male-to-female but still does not have a female gender marker on her ID.

No court or regulatory interpretation has endorsed such bright-line rules. And I think the law's indeterminacy around the concepts sex and gender allows all of these hypothetical students make a case for eligibility for admission. A court could interpret Title IX's prohibition on sex discrimination to forbid a school from discriminating against someone who is born female but presents as male, if it decides to interpret presenting/identifying as male as an example of gender nonconformity. A court could also interpret Title IX's prohibition on sex discrimination to require an all-women's school to consider a male-to-female transsexual, because she, like other people who identify as female, is a woman. If both were legally required, an all-women's college would be open to anyone who is now female or who has been female in the past.

Is that a position that all-women's college could defend? This depends on the reasons all-women's colleges provide for remaining single-sex in the first place. If the purpose of all-women's college is to compensate for the male privilege that exists in education and in the wider world, they could certainly accept male-to-female transsexual students on the grounds that they have reduced their access to male privilege by virtue of their transition, as well as female-to-male transsexual students, who have been excluded from male privilege in the past. (For example, a female-to-male engineering student does not by virtue of a college-age transition overcome gender stereotypes that may have obstructed his K-12 education in science in technology.)

The bottom line for now, however, is one the article gets right. College admissions policymakers, like Title IX policymakers will be increasingly confronted with questions about transgender students' eligibility for single-sex colleges and other single-sex spaces. In my view, they should and can legally strive to be as inclusive as possible.

Soon-to-Be-Coed College Plans to Retain Single Sex Classes

Peace College in Raleigh, North Carolina is making some changes. Not only is it changing its name to William Peace University, it has decided to admit male undergrads for the first time in its history. According to this article in Inside Higher Ed, however, some classes will remain single-sex, though the President assures that no one will be denied access to a course, just sometimes a particular single-sex section. This raised some Title IX red flags to the reporter on this article, who contacted me and some other Title IX experts about whether this was legal. As I said to him, it seems to me like a difficult position to defend. By becoming coed, the college loses any claim to an exemption from Title IX on the basis of its single-sex tradition. Accordingly, it must comply with the law's prohibition against discrimination in all of its programs, and this includes classes, with limited exception for things like physical education, human sexuality, and choruses.

It is true that the Department of Education has in recent years promulgated regulations that permit additional exceptions by allowing single-sex education in core courses. But by their terms, these regulations only apply to K-12 education. Moreover, the exception they create is narrow -- the single-sex nature of the course be tailored to an important educational objective, which must be based on evidence and not assumptions and stereotypes about the way men and women learn. For both reasons, Peace College cannot rely on the single-sex education regulations to justify their position.

I could imagine that the Department of Education might allow Peace College some leeway and look the other way during a limited period of transition, such as the length of time it takes already-enrolled students to graduate. But I don't think this model can be permanently sustained without running afoul of Title IX.

Vermilion Parish Ends Single-Sex Education

The school board in Vermilion Parish, Louisiana, voted earlier this month to end its single-sex education program at Rene Rost Middle School, which began in 2009. You may recall that in April, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision in the litigation over this program, which clarified that the courts would require the school board to have "exceedingly persuasive justifications," consistent with the Equal Protection Clause, if it continued to assign its students to certain classes or deny them from others on the basis of sex. We predicted that such a standard would be difficult for the board to meet, especially in light of the fact that the Rost principal's claims that such classes produced better outcomes were later revealed to be rooted in his own falsified data. However, the reported reason for the school board's decision was a low level of parental support for single-sex classrooms. The school board's decision ends the litigation against Vermilion Parish.

5th Circuit Issues Decision in Single-Sex Education Case

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision today in the case challenging the Vermilion (Louisiana) School Board's decision to institute single-sex classes at Rene A. Rost Middle School. The parent of female students who had been placed in all-girls classes in core subjects sued the school district, challenging the constitutionality of the single-sex classes under the Equal Protection Clause. The plaintiff also challenged the classes' validity under Title IX, which generally prohibits schools excluding students from any class or activity based on sex, but provides a narrow exception for single-sex classes that promote an identified educational objective, are based on genuine justifications, not generalizations and stereotypes, and which provide students the option to select co-ed alternative instead.

The district court had earlier denied the plaintiff's request for a preliminary injunction and allowed the single- sex classes at Rost to continue. Though the district court acknowledged that Vermilion's single-sex classes were justified by experimental data that had been falsified by the principal (an issue that was the subject of this prior post), the court reasoned that because Vermilion's discrimination was not intentional, it did not violate the Equal Protection Clause. It did not consider the plaintiff's alternative argument under Title IX.

Today's decision affirms the lower court's denial of the injunction, reasoning that it is too late in the school year to order an immediate change. Significantly, however, the appellate court corrects the lower court's misapplication of the Equal Protection standard. Rather than intentional discrimination, the appropriate standard is intermediate scrutiny -- when state actors classify based on sex, they must have an "exceedingly persuasive justification" for the classification. Because it's hard to imagine a court concluding that the principal's falsified justification was a "persuasive" one, I think this aspect of the decision makes it much more likely that the plaintiff will prevail on the merits when the question of the constitutionality of Vermilion's single-sex classes returns to the district court. Moreover, the appellate court faulted the lower court for failing to consider plaintiff's argument that the single-sex classes violate Title IX, so this too will provide alternate grounds for the plaintiff to prevail.

The appellate court today acknowledged that if Vermilion Parish curtails its single-sex classes, the litigation will be moot. If it continues, however, the case will proceed and the district court will analyze the constitutionality and statutory validity of its program under the correct standards of Equal Protection and Title IX.

WSJ Reports on Brain Similarities Between Adolescents of Different Sex

Yesterday's Wall Street Journal reported findings of government research that casts doubt on assumptions that male and female brains are significantly different during adolescence. As the article put it:

A common stereotype is that boys develop more slowly than girls, putting them at a disadvantage in school where pressure to perform is starting ever younger. Another notion is that puberty is a time when boys' and girls' brains grow more dissimilar, accounting for some of the perceived disparities between the sexes. Now, some scientists are debunking such thinking. Although boys' and girls' brains show differences around age 10, during puberty key parts of their brains become more similar, according to recent government research. And, rather than growing more slowly, boys' brains instead are simply developing differently.

The article also described research that puts those differences into context:

Dr. Eliot cites a neuro-imaging study from last year that showed the female brain has stronger neuronal connections than the male brain in certain areas, and vice versa. But in general, the study found that the male and female brains show more commonality than difference, Dr. Eliot says. The study, which looks at about 1,100 brain scans, was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Dr. Giedd of the NIMH says his research also showed there are exceptions. In about 10% of the young people studied, boys' and girls' brains were more similar to the brains of the opposite sex than to others' of the same sex. Dr. Giedd says many factors can affect the rate of brain development, including the strength or weakness of testosterone receptors. Testosterone, a hormone usually associated with male traits, is present in both sexes and can help determine how quickly parts of the brain develop that account for typical male-dominated functions.

Because advocates of single-sex education point to such differences to defend the practice of separating boys and girls in the classroom, these findings could be relevant to the legal question of whether such efforts are based on generalizations about sex differences, and therefore impermissible under Equal Protection standards. They could also be relevant to the policy question of whether it makes sense to segregate on the basis of sex, rather than other indicators of learning styles and intellectual development.

Pilot mentoring program ended in PA

From Ms magazine, news that a mentoring program in Pennsylvania has been revamped due to the controversy over its practice of segregation. Homerooms at McCaskey East High School in Lancaster were divided based on race and gender. Though this article says that the mentoring program itself was segregated and only available to some students who met, as part of the program, once a day for a short time as well as twice a month. Rather than abandon the program, however, the school is opening it up to all students.

Another book for consideration

It must be book recommendation week here at the Title IX Blog. I think these are supposed to come at the beginning of the summer and not the beginning of fall when many of us are a little bit buried with back-to-school stuff and all those things we didn't get accomplished over the summer.
But this book is definitely at the top of my must-read list (note to Norton: I would be happy to review it here if I can get a copy!!). Delusions of Gender: How our Minds, Society and Neurosexism Create Difference by Dr. Cordelia Fine is her recently published manuscript about the construction of gender differences. Fine, a cognitive neuroscientist, takes aim at the many scientific studies that have continued to attribute gender differences to innate characteristics. Why do we--as in the Title IX Blog, not the general populace which should care a lot--care about this work?
Well for one, according to the review in the New York Times, it's a very well-written and accessible work. And secondly, Fine discusses the research done by doctoral student Jennifer Connellan that has been used to justify sex-segregated classrooms. And finally, I think it's time to add neurosexism into the gender equity lexicon.

Falsified Data Justified Sex-Segregated Middle School

The ACLU continues to challenge the sex-segregated middle school in Vermilion Parish, Louisiana, having recently filed an appeal of the district court's refusal to issue a preliminary injunction against continuing to separate boys and girls in core curriculum and other classes. (See also our prior post here).

The ACLU's appellate brief is a fascinating read. The brief argues that the district court should have found a high likelihood of success on the merits (a key consideration in preliminary injunction analysis) because the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX require schools to have an "extremely persuasive" justification or "important objective" for treating boys and girls differently in the education context. Yet the only justification for the segregation at Rene Rost Middle School were results from a small-scale study conducted by Principal David Dupuis during the 2008-2009 school year, which we now understand to have been falsified and erroneous. Since touting that the segregated classes in the study produced higher graders and fewer disciplinary problems, Dupuis, who conducted the experiment as part of his doctoral dissertation, has admitted to including grades of students who were not part of the experiment in his findings in order to make the case that segregated had better report cards than co-educated students. It is also clear that he omitted the grades of students who were part of the experiment but who did not earn higher grades in the segregated classes. In fact, when these grades are factored in, Dupuis's experiment shows that grades decreased in segregated classes, despite his claims to the contrary. Dupuis also admitted to errors that belied his findings that disciplinary infractions decreased in sex-segregated classes.

Not only is this outrageous behavior on the part of the principal (I hope Nova Southeastern University, who awarded him an Ed.D., is paying attention to the academic fraud issue!), it clearly does not satisfy the legal requirements for different treatment on the basis of sex. When bogus claims of "findings" are stripped away, the only justifications for segregated classes that seem to remain are the tired old stereotypes and folk-beliefs about the differences between boys and girls.

Litigation Updates

Here is a roundup of recent developments in ongoing Title IX cases that we've blogged about before.

• Potential settlement in J.L. v. Mohawk Central School District. This is the gay bullying case in upstate New York, that was filed by the ACLU last summer and in which the Department of Justice recently intervened on the side of the plaintiff. News reports suggest that the parties recently considered a settlement agreement that would have provided $50,000 to the plaintiff, $25,000 to the ACLU, district-wide training on appropriate responses to anti-gay harassment, and payment to cover the plaintiff's continued therapy. However, this agreement was never signed off upon and the parties have "moved beyond" this particular draft, according to school district's attorney quoted in the article. The article suggests that the draft settlement is evidence that the parties are at least considering settlement, as well as the general topics on the negotiation table.

• Hearing in Doe v. Vermilion Parish School Board. Last fall we blogged about the ACLU's challenge to the sex-segregated classes in Rene Rost Middle School under the Constitution and Title IX. On Thursday, the federal district court in Louisiana heard arguments in support of the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, which would halt single sex education while the judge considered the merits of the case. An ACLU attorney recently posted this summary and analysis of the case at the Huffington Post blog.
  

• Denial of defendant's motion to dismiss Mary V. v. Pittsburgh Public Schools. This is the case that made news last summer because the plaintiff alleged that the school failed to protect her daughter from bullying that was so severe, it contributed to psychological harm, including anorexia. Judge Ambrose (who Title IX fans may remember from the Slippery Rock litigation) determined that the plaintiff's case could go forward because she had adequately plead all of the elements of a Title IX peer harassment case. In particular, that the harassment was motivated by the victim's sex (in particular, her "developing adult female figure"), that plaintiff and her daughter had met with school officials about the harassment, thus providing actual notice, that the school district's response was inadequate to amount to deliberate indifference, and that the harassment occurred on a daily basis and throughout the day, and thus was severe and pervasive. This decision paves the way for litigation to continue. Next steps may include discovery, additional dispositive motions, trial, or in the alternative, settlement. The decision on the motion can be found at 2010 W.L. 562909 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 17, 2010).
  

ACLU Challenges Sex Segregation in Louisiana School

On behalf of parents of students at Rene A. Rost Middle School in Kaplan, Louisiana, the ACLU has sued the Vermilion Parish School District to challenge the sex-segregated classes there. According to the complaint, the district announced to parents over the summer that their children would be enrolled in sex-segregated classes. When parents who objected pointed out that that mandatory segregation was in violation of law, the district responded that it would replace it with a voluntary plan. However, under the voluntary plan, parents' only option for a coeducational environment was special needs classes (which were, apparently, full). The parents and the ACLU argue that this is still in effect mandatory segregation, as the coed option is not comparable to the single sex classes. They also argue that the single sex classes are not equal to each other, as the plan requires teachers to use different methods for boys and girls such as selecting books that "appeal to boys" for their classes and books that "appeal to girls" for their classes. The complaint maintains that the separate tracks "represent exactly the sort of sex stereotyping and discrimination that Title IX and the Fourteenth Amendment seek to prevent."

The ACLU challenged a similar comprehensive sex segregation at an Alabama middle school last year. The school district ended up agreeing to re-integrate its classrooms and to give the ACLU advance notice of future plans to experiment with single-sex education.