Same, Different, Equal: Rethinking Single-Sex Schooling.

AuthorHeise, Michael
PositionBook Review

SAME, DIFFERENT, EQUAL: RETHINKING SINGLE-SEX SCHOOLING. By Rosemary C. Salomone. New Haven: Yale University Press. 2003. Pp. xv, 287. $29.95.

INTRODUCTION

In chess, a "fork" occurs when a player, in a single move, attacks two or more of an opponent's pieces simultaneously, forcing a necessary choice between unappealing outcomes. Similar to the potentially devastating chess move, single-sex public schooling forks many constitutionalists and feminists. Constitutionalists are forced to reexamine the "separate-but-equal" doctrine's efficacy, this time through the prism of gender. Although the doctrine--forged in the crucible of race and overcome in the monumental triumph we know as Brown v. Board of Education (1)--rested dormant for generations, persistent (and increasing) single-sex education options are forcing scholars to rethink long-held assumptions about how to breathe new life into the equal educational opportunity doctrine. To some constitutionalists "separate" schools threaten to march girls back to the pre-Brown era and a gendered version of an educational Jim Crow. To others single-sex schools paradoxically enhance educational opportunity by affording more girls (or boys) (2) the chance to achieve their full academic potential.

The prospect of single-sex public schooling also forces many feminists to confront a similarly stark and uncomfortable choice between theoretical purity and intellectual honesty on the one hand and the more pragmatic educational needs of young girls--particularly low-income and minority girls--on the other. The mere idea of publicly supported single-sex schools strikes some feminists as anathema, which reflects an appalling retreat and the gender wars' unfinished business. Single-sex schools are especially painful for those women who still carry scars from the days when girls' educational interests were reflexively subordinated to boys' educational interests. After protracted and difficult battles and having finally established in 1979 a statutory foothold in Title IX, (3) the prospect of "going back" to state-sponsored de jure "girls-only" schools represents for many feminists an unfathomable retreat. Consequently, some feminists do not even blink at the necessity--however regrettable--of sacrificing the present educational needs of some girls--even girls from low-income households ill-served by failing traditional coeducational public schools--on the altar of coeducation's theoretical purity. For these feminists, acknowledging possible differences between girls and boys and entertaining the prospect of single-sex public schools tailored to such differences would produce unacceptable political costs. For those reflexively opposed to single-sex schooling, emerging education data--however uncomfortable--are simply insufficient to trump ideological purity and consistency. For other feminists, however, coeducation's ideological purity and consistency gave way to a pragmatic assessment of girls' educational needs. These feminists have concluded that separatism is a small (indeed, perhaps, sometimes welcome) price for a focused educational program and that single-sex education can be structured in a manner that neither risks gender subordination nor perpetuates the "legal, social, or economic inferiority of women." (4)

For constitutionalists and feminists the stakes posed by single-sex schools are high, the implications indelicate and uncomfortable. Opponents of single-sex schooling "remain transfixed in equality as sameness" (p. 63). In contrast, proponents "weave through the maze of sex differences, women's historical subordination, and inequalities based on race and class while struggling to avoid the deep and dangerous pitfalls of deficiency, essentialism, and categorical stereotypes" (p. 63). For those "forked" by the single-sex schooling issue none of the options looks especially appealing. Professor Rosemary C. Salomone's book, Same, Different, Equal: Rethinking Single-Sex Schooling, (5) stands unblinking at the intersection where these two competing visions collide. Salomone's analyses skillfully sketch the contours of options that flow from seemingly irreconcilable visions of gender and education that continue to define public and scholarly debates about single-sex schooling.

Professor Salomone deserves praise for even approaching such contentious terrain. That she does so with intellectual rigor, honesty, and a healthy dose of scholarly discipline and distance warrants even more praise. What is clear from the book's opening paragraph is that Professor Salomone possesses a clear understanding of the larger social context that frequently frames complex legal and policy questions, such as the one posed by single-sex schooling. Salomone structures her treatment of single-sex schooling by juxtaposing two distinct--though, as Salomone notes, related--events that took place in the summer of 1996. First, the Supreme Court invalidated Virginia Military Institute's ("VMI") all-male admissions policy; (6) weeks later the New York City School Board announced plans to open the Young Women's Leadership School, a public all-girls middle school for low-income families in East Harlem (p. 1). Both events aptly reflect competing visions of single-sex education. But the Supreme Court's conclusion that the all-male "Rat Line" (7) at VMI ran afoul of the Fourteenth Amendment casts a constitutional shadow over the effort to create an academic safe haven in East Harlem designed to provide an educational lifeline to low-income (and overwhelmingly minority) girls. Salomone's suggestion that these two events may be inextricably intertwined helps to uncover unsettling and shifting assumptions about gender, sex, race, education, and ideology.

Two questions--one legal, the other policy--moor Professor Salomone's treatment of single-sex schooling. First, are public single-sex schools constitutional? Second, what educational benefits (for girls or boys), if any, are attributable to single-sex schooling (pp. 5-6)? After surveying the relevant theoretical literatures, working through Title IX and the Fourteenth Amendment, and exploring the available social-science evidence, Professor Salomone's analyses and arguments support the weight of her unambiguous conclusion: "[I]t defies reason for government to mandate coeducation for all students enrolled in public schools" (p. 243).

Regardless of whether one agrees with Professor Salomone's conclusion, Same, Different, Equal succeeds on many levels. At a general level, Salomone's treatment of single-sex schooling successfully straddles law and policy. This is a considerable accomplishment as such undertakings traditionally emphasize either law or policy or unfold in a schizophrenic manner. At a more specific level, her comprehensive treatment of single-sex schooling advances our understanding of the increasingly congested intersection of law and education policy. In so doing, the book achieves the more modest goals of tracking the equal educational opportunity doctrine's development and enhancing our understanding of the courts' role in promoting it. On the fiftieth anniversary of the Brown decision, calls for greater scholarly and public attention to equal educational opportunity--such as Salomone's--are particularly apt. In addition, those seeking to help schoolchildren obtain a better education will benefit greatly from an increased understanding of how law and policy interact in this important context. Given the recent increased interest in single-sex education, (8) it is unlikely that those committed to greater educational equity will be able to ignore how education and gender intersect. Scholars and policymakers who engage with the single-sex-schooling issue need to take account of Salomone's analyses.

Within the single-sex education literature, Same, Different, Equal should serve as the reference point for the foreseeable future. This book is important not only for what it says, but for how it says it. As to the former, Part I of this Review explores how single-sex schooling forces constitutionalists and feminists to confront the complicated and dynamic equal educational opportunity doctrine. How Professor Salomone develops and structures her thesis is equally important, and Part II focuses on Salomone's use of social-science evidence to inform her legal analyses and drive her policy analyses. Perhaps unsettling to some, Salomone's use of social-scientific evidence--necessary for her policy arguments--arcs back to the Brown (9) opinion and enhances our evolving understanding about what equal education means. (10) Finally, Part III considers the possible future of single-sex schooling within the larger context of the evolving educational reform setting.

  1. UNCOMFORTABLE FORKS

    1. Constitutionalists

      The Brown decision and its proclamation that "separate is inherently unequal" rightly animate constitutionalists. Brown also fuels opposition to single-sex schooling, shapes its legal analysis, and profoundly informs educational policy across the country. Although Brown has not been interpreted to preclude single-sex schooling options, the decision contributes to "a roller-coaster ride of aborted starts and veiled attempts" (p. 117). Single-sex schooling directly confronts Brown's core tenant. The long shadow cast by Brown makes many recoil from contemplating anything remotely resembling separate but equal. Insofar as Brown is one of the most important legal decisions of the twentieth century, (11) inevitable discomfort flows from reopening discussions of whether "separate" can indeed be "equal" in a manner that comports with Brown's dictates. (12)

      Although the application of Brown's logic to single-sex schooling--the potential constitutional transitivity of race and gender--possesses obvious and intuitive appeal, Salomone devotes considerable effort to illustrating how the analogy itself is limited (p. 119). Antidiscrimination and antisubordination...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT