Accountability and single-sex schooling: A collision of reform agendas

American Educational Research Journal

Volumn 41, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 527-555

  Herr, Kathryn ^a   Arms, Emily ^b  

^a MONTCLAIR STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b LOYOLA MARYMOUNT UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Accountability; Gender; Single sex schooling; Standards

Indexed keywords

EID: 11244315424     PISSN: 00028312     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3102/00028312041003527     Document Type: Review

References (58)

1. American Association of University Women. (1992). How schools shortchange girls: The AAUW report. Washington, DC: American Association of University Women Educational Foundation.
2. American Association of University Women. (1998). Separated by sex: A critical look at single sex education for girls. Washington, DC: American Association of University Women Educational Foundation.
3. American Association of University Women. (2003). Huge victory on Title IX. Washington, DC: American Association of University Women Educational Foundation. Retrieved on July 12, 2003, from http://www.aauw.org
4. American Civil Liberties Union. (2002). ACLU Single-Sex Notice of Intent: Comments to the Department of Education. Available from ACLU Online Archives at http://www.aclu.org
5. Anderson, G. L. (2001). Promoting educational equity in a period of growing social inequity: The silent contradictions of Texas reform discourse. Education and Urban Society, 33(3), 320-332.
6. Brown, L. M., & Gilligan, C. (1992). Meeting at the crossroads: Women's psychology and girls' development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
7. Campbell, P. B., & Sanders, J. (2002). Challenging the system: Assumptions and data behind the push for single-sex schooling. In A. Datnow & L. Hubbard (Eds.), Gender in policy and practice: Perspectives on single-sex and coeducational schooling (pp. 31-46). New York: Routledge Falmer.
8. Canedy, D. (2001, March 25). Often conflicted, Hispanic girls are dropping out at high rate. New York Times, sec. 1, p. 1.
9. Cimbricz, S. (2002). State-mandated testing and teachers' beliefs and practices. Education and Policy Analysis Archives, 10(1). Available at http://epaa.asu.edu/ epaa/v10n2.html
10. Connell, R. W. (1996). Teaching the boys: New research on masculinity and gender strategies for schools. Teachers College Record, 98(2), 206-235.
11. Datnow, A., Hubbard, L., & Conchas, G. (2001). How context mediates policy: The implementation of single-gender public schooling in California. Teachers College Record, 103(2), 184-206.
12. Davis, M. (2002). Department aims to promote single-sex schools. Education Weekly, 21(36), 24-25.
13. Dillon, S. (2004, March 14). U.S. set to ease some provisions of school law. New York Times, sec. 1, pp. 1, 21.
14. ED to seek allowances for single-sex class schools. (2002). What Works in Teaching and Learning, 34(10), 2. Retrieved 5/25/02 from http://proquest.umi. com/ pqdweb
15. National Association for Single Sex Public Education (2003). Federal notice regarding single sex education in public schools. Poolesville, MD: Author. Retrieved on March 7, 2003, from http://www.singlesexschools.org/legal. html
16. Ferguson, A. A. (2001). Bad boys: Public schools in the making of Black masculinity. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
17. Fine, G. (1988). Knowing children. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
18. Fuller, E. J., & Johnson, J. F., Jr. (2001). Can state accountability systems drive improvements in school performance for children of color and children from low-income homes? Education and Urban Society, 33(3), 260-283.
19. Ginorio, A., & Huston, M. (2001). Si, se puede! Yes, we can: Latinas in school. Washington, DC: American Association of University Women Educational Foundation.
20. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.
21. Gollnick, D. M., & Chin, P. C. (1994). Multicultural education in a pluralistic society. New York: Merrill.
22. Gunzenhauser, M. G., & Gerstl-Pepin, C. (2002). Guest editors' introduction: The shifting context of accountability in North Carolina and the implications for arts-based reform. Educational Foundations, 16(2), 3-14.
23. Habermas, J. (1987). The theory of communicative action: Vol. 2. Lifeworld and system: A critique of functionalist reason. Boston: Beacon Press.
24. Haynes, V. D. (1999, September 30). Boys and girls in a class apart. Chicago Tribune Internet Edition. Retrieved on September 30, 1999, at http://www.chicago tribune.com
25. Heubert, J. P., & Hauser, R. M. (Eds.). (1999). High stakes: Testing for tracking, promotion, and graduation. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
26. Hopkins, R. (1997). Educating Black males: Critical lessons in schooling, community, and power. Albany: State University of New York Press.
27. Knight, H. (2004, March 4). Plan to let schools divide sexes: Bush proposal to pay for all-girl or all-boy class. San Francisco Chronicle. Available at www.sfgate.com
28. Kohn, A. (2000). The case against standardized testing: Raising the scores, ruining the schools. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
29. Koschoreck, J. W. (2001). Accountability and educational equity in the transformation of an urban district. Education and Urban Society, 33(3), 284-304.
30. Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
31. Mael, F. (1998). Single-sex and coeducational schooling: Relationships to socioemotional and academic development. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 101-129.
32. Malen, B., Croninger, R., Muncey, D, & Redmond-Jones, D. (2002). Reconstituting schools: "Testing" the "theory of action." Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(2), 113-132.
33. Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (1989). Designing qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
34. McNeil, L. M. (1986). Contradictions of control: School structure and school knowledge. New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
35. McNeil, L. M. (2000). Contradictions of school reform: Educational costs of standardized testing. New York: Routledge.
36. McNeil, L. M., & Valenzuela, A. (2000). The harmful impact of the TAAS system of testing in Texas: Beneath the accountability rhetoric. In G. Orfield & M. Kornhaber (Eds.), Raising standards or raising barriers? Inequality and high stakes testing in public education. New York: Century Foundation.
37. National Coalition for Women and Girls in Education. (2003). Women and girls to President Bush: "Hands off Title IX!" Retrieved on January 29, 2003, from http://www.ncwge.org
38. Oakes, J., Quartz, K. H., Ryan, S., & Lipton, M. (2000). Becoming good American schools: The struggle for civic virtue in educational reform. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
39. O'Keefe, M. (2002, December 8). Bush initiative rekindles debate over gender-specific education. The Seattle Times. Retrieved on March 16, 2003, from http:// seattletimes.nwsource.com
40. Parker, L. (2001). Statewide assessment triggers urban school reform: But how high the stakes for urban minorities? Education and Urban Society, 33(3), 313-319.
41. Pollack, W. (1998). Rescuing our sons from the myths of boyhood. New York: Random House.
42. Riordan, C. (1990). Boys and girls in school: Together or separate? New York: Teachers College Press.
43. Riordan, C. (2002). What do we now know about the effects of single-sex schools in the private sector? Implications for public schools. In A. Datnow & L. Hubbard (Eds.), Gender in public policy and practice: Perspectives on single-sex and coeducational schooling (pp. 10-30). New York: Routledge Falmer.
44. Sadker, D., & Sadker, M. P. (1994) Failing at fairness: How our schools cheat girls. New York: Simon and Schuster.
45. Sadker, M. P., & Sadker, D. (1986). Sexism in the classroom: From grade school to graduate school. Phi Delta Kappan, 67, 512-515.
46. Salomone, R. (2002). The legality of single-sex education in the United States: Sometimes "equal" means "different." In A. Datnow & L. Hubbard (Eds.), Gender in public policy and practice: Perspectives on single-sex and coeducational schooling (pp. 47-72). New York: Routledge Falmer.
47. Sax, L. (2003). What is the legal status of single-sex public education in the United States? Poolesville, MD: National Association for Single Sex Public Education. Retrieved on May 29, 2003, http://www.singlesexschools.org/ legal.html
48. Schemo, D. J. (2002, May 9). White House proposed new view of education law to encourage single-sex schools. New York Times. Retrieved May 26, 2002, from http://www.nytimes.com
49. Sclafani, S. (2001). Using an aligned system to make real progress for Texas students. Education and Urban Society, 33(3), 305-312.
50. Siddle Walker, V. (2000). Valued segregated schools for African American children in the South, 1935-1969: A review of common themes and characteristics. Review of Educational Research, 70(3), 253-285.
51. Singh, K., Vaught, C., & Mitchell, E. (1998). Single-sex classes and academic achievement for all children. Journal of Negro Education, 67(2), 101-129.
52. Skrla, L., & Scheurich, J. J. (2001). Displacing deficit thinking in school district leadership. Education and Urban Society, 33(3), 235-259.
53. Skrla, L., Scheurich, J. J., & Johnson, J. F. (2001). Toward a new consensus on high academic achievement for all children. Education and Urban Society, 33(3), 227-234.
54. Streitmatter, J. L. (1999). For girls only: Making a case for single-sex schooling. Albany: State University of New York Press.
55. Taylor, J. M., Gilligan, C., & Sullivan, A. M. (1995). Between voice and silence: Women and girls, race and relationship. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
56. Tyack, D., & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering toward Utopia: A century of public school reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
57. Welch, M., Price, E. A., & Yankey, N. (2002). Moral panic over youth violence: Wilding and the manufacture of menace in the media. Youth and Society, 34(1), 3-30.
58. Zwerling, E. (2001, June 3). California study: Single sex schools no cure-all, Women's eNews. Available at www.womensenews.org