Adapted from an article that originally appeared in the Fordham Urban Law Journal, December 2001, Vol. XXIX

A Historical Perspective

The past fifteen years have witnessed a remarkable resurgence of interest in all-girls' education. Since the early 1990s, student enrollments at schools belonging to the National Coalition of Girls' Schools (NCGS) have risen 29 percent, applications 40 percent, and more than 30 new girls' schools have opened. These recent developments represent a significant reversal of fortune from the 1980s. Spurred on by the passage of Title IX in 1972, which prohibits gender discrimination for education programs that receive financial aid, the 1980s were characterized by a broad-based commitment to educational equity. The fervor of that era led many to question the relevance and efficacy of girls' schools. Single-sex schools were losing ground to coeducational institutions, which were considered by the vast majority to be the norm.

After Title IX, former all-male schools and colleges were quick to admit girls -- a move prompted as much by economic and demographic realities as pedagogical commitment to equal access. Accompanying these newly coeducational institutions, however, was a change in assumptions about girls' schools. Girls' schools historically existed to provide quality education for young women who had been denied schooling alongside men; however, as the opportunities for coeducation grew, this goal seemed less necessary. In fact, single sex education became characterized as anachronistic, out of touch with the "real world," and irrelevant.

What, then, explains the remarkable renaissance that has occurred in during the past 15 years? What has led to the renewal of interest in girls' schools? How does an all-girls education differ from a coeducational education? The answers to these questions can be found in a series of interrelated developments in educational theory, gender research, and the link between brain function and the learning process.

These developments, however, were not solely responsible for the resurgence of girls’ schools. In the late 1980s, educators well versed in the value and benefit of single-sex education, set out to systematically document those benefits and share that information on the national level.

New Perspectives: Emerging Theories about Gender Inequalities

As research findings supporting single-sex education were disseminated through publications and media coverage, a slow shift in public attitude began to take place. These new attitudes were fueled by the appearance of several educational studies on different gender-based learning styles; the lower numbers of girls and women in non-traditional career pursuits; and evidence of variations in both the development and function of male and female brains.

During the feminist revolution of the 1970s, talk of innate differences in the behavior of men and women was considered politically incorrect. Social and cultural differences, rather than genetic origins, were held to explain gender disparities in professions like engineering and architecture. These differences were also used to explain the tendency of boys to be more quantitative and spatially adept. Yet studies of the brain revealed that gender differences are rooted as much in the chemistry and structure of the brain as the manner in which girls and boys are raised. The tendencies of girls to be more contemplative, collaborative, intuitive, and verbal, and boys to be more physically active , aggressive, and independent in their learning style seemed to stem from brain function and development.

With the release of these scientific findings, the educational debate on gender equity began to subtly change. The driving question was no longer whether girls and women had equal access and equal opportunity. Instead the focus was on how equal their educational experiences and outcomes are. The ways that girls experience school, look at the world, and deal with math, science, and technology do not always parallel those of boys.

This simple shift in vocabulary had profound implications. The operative question was no longer, What is wrong with girls? Why aren't they more interested in non-traditional subjects? Rather, the question became, What is wrong with the way we are teaching and interacting with girls? Why are girls not achieving at levels commensurate with their abilities?

Girls’ School Graduates Speak Out

While the national spotlight focused on how schools were shortchanging girls and what was not working for them, NCGS member schools began to question some of the assumptions put forth by the growing list of reports. There were vitally important lessons learned in girls' schools of value to a much broader audience. Girls' school campuses and classrooms represented exciting laboratories for discovery and could serve as an invaluable asset to educators everywhere. As more and more families and policy makers sought educational options, a prime topic of consideration pitted coed schools against single-sex ones. A great deal of opinion had been offered on the subject.

Unfortunately, much was theoretically driven and prone to misinterpretation. Largely absent from the coed versus single sex debate was quantitative data assessing the defining characteristics of girls' schools: their affirmation of females' abilities in sex-typed subject areas such as math, science, and technology; their encouragement of female career aspirations; and their ability to foster self-esteem.

The voices of girls' school graduates themselves had also been missing. To provide such data, NCGS conducted a large-scale survey of girls' school alumnae. The survey gathered information about graduates' girls' school experiences, their home lives, and related issues.

Over 4,000 alumnae from sixty-four different girls' schools provided data quantifying their experiences. The findings were unambiguously positive. Alumnae placed an enormous value on their education at girls' schools. They remained confident in their abilities. They identified themselves as academic achievers. They credited their girls' schools as the places where they learned to recognize and harness their talents and potentials. In fact,

• 85% assigned one of the top two ratings of very good or excellent to their girls school overall, and to fourteen of sixteen specific aspects about their girls' school.
• Top-rated were preparation for college academics and providing academic challenge; nearly all the respondents (91%) rated their schools as very good or excellent in these areas.
• 85% believed girls' schools provide young women with more encouragement in science, math, and technology than coed schools and 63% felt strongly that they were better prepared for the "real world" than their cohorts at coed schools.
• 88% of alumnae said they would repeat their girls' school experience again and 84% would encourage their daughters to attend.

Nearly all respondents either believed somewhat or strongly agreed that girls' schools provide more leadership opportunities than those available at coed schools.

Girls' Schools in 2005: The Changing Landscape

Following the enactment of Title IX in 1972, the number of single-sex schools declined. By the mid 1990s, only two public girls' schools remained: the Philadelphia High School for Girls and Western High School in Baltimore. What the Title IX prohibition of publicly funded single sex-schools could not anticipate, however, was the informed analysis of the positive role of girls' schools and the surge in private girls' school enrollments.

Growing appreciation of girls' schools eventually spilled into the public sector. Since 1995, all-girls public schools have been established in California ( Jefferson Academy), New York (Young Women's Leadership School of Harlem), and Illinois (Young Women's Leadership Charter School of Chicago). Moreover, dozens of other school districts have experimented with single-sex classes. In June 2001, the United States Senate passed an education bill with a provision proposed by Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison making single-sex education more available in public schools. Under the provisions of the amendment, barriers are removed for local school districts that wish to offer the option of single sex schools if comparable educational opportunities are offered for students of both sexes.

What do girls' schools do differently than coeducational institutions?

• They create a risk-taking environment designed for teaching that, in the words of James Joyce, "mistakes are the portals of discovery."
• They counter mass-media influences on female students by giving girls strengthening havens where they can effectively navigate the troubling image of girls in today's media with balance and self-assurance.
• They support a can-do philosophy. All leaders, movers, and doers at the schools are female. Girls' schools show their students that any girl can be president, any girl can play the drums, and any girl can take apart and reassemble a bike.
• They ensure that learning takes center stage without social distractions. Without the presence of boys, girls tend to display their intelligence and curiosity regardless of powerful age-determined notions of popularity, attractiveness, or negative peer pressure.
• They incorporate research indicating that team problem-solving works well for girls by providing extensive opportunities for collaborative learning .
• They guarantee that math, science, and technology education are integral curricular components. Girls are expected to participate fully in these areas and they do.
• They focus on real life issues like career, work, and money. In the fall of 2000 NCGS sponsored a national conference on "Girls, Women, and Money." As a result of this conference, a large number of member schools are highlighting the importance of financial literacy for girls, dispelling the Prince Charming myth that they will be cared for by someone other than themselves. Most women will be in the workforce by choice and necessity and all women must carry from school the economic tools to be self-sustaining.
• They promote athletic participation as a natural way to develop team play, leadership, individual talent, physical conditioning, competence, and knowing how to win and lose.
• They sustain a predominately female culture whose hallmarks are caring, challenge, collaboration, competition, connection in the interest of developing each girl to her fullest potential and to develop a moral context that will serve them all their lives. In so doing, girls' schools honor women's voices, their female perspective, their female way of doing things.

Today's youth culture advocates short-term gratification, premature sexual experimentation, self-centeredness, anti-intellectualism, and a focus on appearance over substance. Girls' schools instruct and inspire girls to focus on their long-term educational, personal, and professional goals by providing rigorous standards, high expectations, accountability and positive role modeling. The girls' school environment affirms and encourages young women in their capacities as confident individuals, leaders, and agents of social change.

Girls' schools are creating a new paradigm for society. As institutions where girls are accustomed to being heard, and where women lead in every aspect of life, girls' schools are a model for the world girls want and deserve. They promise a place where men and women work side-by-side, respectful of each other's voices, skills, and talents, thereby leveling life's playing fields.

Whitney Ransome and Meg Milne Moulton are the Executive Directors of the National Coalition of Girls’ Schools.

To read this article in its entirety or to learn more about the National Coalition of Girls’ Schools, visit their Web site at www.ncgs.org.

Modifications to this article include the removal of footnotes that were included in the original format.

October 2005