Title Ix
Essay Preview: Title Ix
Report this essay
Title IX
Single-sex education in American public schools has been essentially outlawed since the 1972 passage of Title IX, the federal statute that prohibits publicly funded single-sex education. At the time Title IX was passed, most “experts” thought that there were no educationally meaningful differences between the sexes, and therefore no justification for educating boys and girls in separate environments.
Guess what. The experts were wrong. In the 29 years that have passed since Title IX became law, brain scientists as well as educational psychologists have learned just how wrong they were. Recent studies using MRI scans show clearly that the average boys brain develops much more slowly than the average girls. Some studies show that the brain of a 17-year-old boy looks like the brain of a 13-year-old girl. The men dont catch up with the women until about age 30.
Given that the girls brain develops more rapidly than the boys, it should come as no surprise that girls, on average, acquire language skills more rapidly and proficiently than boys do. As soon as children begin to speak, girls articulate better than boys do. Girls sentences are also longer and more complex. Girls superior verbal abilities appear to be independent of culture and race. One South African study found that girls outperformed boys in all verbal tasks studied, and that the size of the sex difference was roughly the same in blacks, whites and Indians (Stellmach, 2003).
Another study compared Japanese high schoolers with Americans in Miami. Once again, the girls outperformed the boys by a large margin: and the margin in Japan was nearly identical to that in Miami. Girls get better grades than boys do, on average, in every subject in school, including math and science. Last year, the U.S. Department of Education reported that 11th-grade boys write, on average, at the same level as 8th-grade girls.
Additionally, the learning styles of boys and girls differ in ways that are now fairly well understood (and which were not as well recognized in 1972). Girls thrive in noncompetitive, collaborative learning situations; boys are motivated more effectively by competitive environments with clearly defined winners and losers. Girls are more likely to keep records, set goals and consult adults for help in schoolwork; boys are less likely to employ any of these strategies. Girls prefer short stories and novels; boys are more likely to choose illustrated descriptions of the way things work (snakes, spaceships, volcanoes).
There is good reason to believe that these differences in educational style are biologically programmed, reflecting innate neuroanatomical differences between the sexes.
Suppose that the principal of an elementary school wanted to capitalize on these differences. Suppose the principal wanted to take boys who are having problems learning to read, and put them in an all-boys class with books on snakes, spaceships and volcanoes. Such an approach might be successful for boys for whom other approaches have failed. But in this country, it would be illegal to create such a class in a public school. The implementing regulation for Title IX (34 CFR (4)106.34) states that no school receiving any federal funds shall “provide any course or otherwise carry out any of its education program or activity separately on the basis of sex.” (Womens Sports Foundation)
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, now known as the Patsy T. Mink Equal Opportunity in Education Act in honor of its principal author, but more commonly known simply as Title IX, is a 37-word United States law enacted on June 23, 1972 that states: “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of gender, 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.” Although the most prominent “public face” of Title IX is its impact on high school and collegiate athletics, the original statute made no reference to athletics. The legislation covers all educational activities, and complaints under Title IX alleging discrimination in fields such as science or math education, or in other aspects of academic life such as access to health care and dormitory facilities, are not unheard of. It also applies to non-sport activities such as school bands and cheerleaders, as well as non-social fraternities/sororities, clubs and organizations (Stellmach, 2003).
A Brief Background on Title IX and Athletics
In 1975, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare – the predecessor to todays Department of Education (DOE) – issued regulations making clear that Title IX requires covered educational institutions to provide “equal athletic opportunity for members of both sexes.”
A few years later, a Policy Guidance further interpreted that general requirement. It said that an institution has satisfied Title IXs requirements when it comes to athletics if it can make any one of three showings:
First, the school can show that it provides athletic opportunities to men and women substantially proportionate to their overall enrollment. Second, it can show either that it is engaged in a continuing practice of program expansion with respect to the underrepresented sex. Or, third, it can show that it has fully and effectively accommodated the interests and abilities of the members of the underrepresented sex (Olson, 40-43).
A 1995 clarification made clear that one way schools can comply is to eliminate teams, or cap their size. In other words, if a school has a history of having a mens lacrosse team and no womens team, then, rather than adding a womens team, it can instead decide simply to eliminate lacrosse. Similarly, if a school has a mens football team, a mens lacrosse team, and a womens lacrosse team, then rather than adding an additional womens team, it may choose to eliminate the mens lacrosse team.
Certain schools ostensibly responded to these statements by eliminating mens teams in certain sports – typically, wrestling, gymnastics, diving, and other mens “minor” sports. And subsequently, the National Wrestling Coaches Association (NWCA) sued DOE, alleging that the Policy Guidance and 1995 clarification are unlawful. The NWCA argued that they authorize intentional discrimination against male athletes.
The suit appears to have been what convinced the Secretary