Microsoft Word - v2n78_fnl EPAA revised.doc


Journal website: http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/   Manuscript received: 07/24/2012 
Facebook: /EPAAA  Revisions received: 01/14/2013 
Twitter: @epaa_aape  Accepted: 01/24/2013 

 

education policy analysis 
archives 
A peer-reviewed, independent,  
open access, multilingual journal  
 
 
 
 
 
  

 Arizona State University 
 

Volume 21  Number 78  December 2nd, 2013 ISSN 1068-2341 
 

 
The Growth of Single-Sex Schools: 

Federal Policy Meets Local Needs and Interests 
Katherine Cumings Mansfield 

Virginia Commonwealth University 
United States of America 

 
Citation: Mansfield, K. C. (2013). The growth of single-sex schools: Federal policy meets local 
needs and interests. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 21 (78). Retrieved [date], from 
http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/1181 
 
Abstract: Changes to Title IX allowing the growth of single-sex schools have garnered 
media attention promoting the benefits of separating boys and girls. Alternately, civil 
rights groups such as the ACLU continue to oppose any type of school segregation. 
Within this context, a private philanthropy, the Foundation for the Education of Young 
Women (FEYW) has established public-private partnerships with six Texas school districts 
to open all-girls’ public college prep magnet schools with plans to expand. This multi-year 
ethno-historical case study explores the meaning making of one community in the FEYW 
network as it attempts to make sense of federal policy at the local level. The topic is 
important to the field of education because it is timely: changes to Title IX and the growth 
in single-sex arrangements pose interesting legal and sociological questions about equity 
and justice since it links Title IX (an equity-driven policy) with the choice provisions in 
NCLB (a market-driven policy). The significance of this study lies in the unique use of 
ethnography as interpretive policy analysis to show how local communities (re)interpret 
federal policy to better align with their personal values and more adequately address 
contextual complexities in their attempts to do what they believe is best for students.  
Keywords: Title IX; NCLB; single-sex schools; gender equity; school choice; ethnography; 
interpretive policy analysis; public-private partnerships 
 

epaa aape



E ducation Policy A nalysis A rchives  V ol. 21 N o. 78 2 
 
El crecimiento de las escuelas separadas por sexo: El encuentro de las políticas federales 
con las necesidades e intereses locales 
Resumen: Los cambios en el programa federal Título IX que permite el crecimiento de las escuelas 
para estudiantes de un solo sexo han llamado la atención los medios de comunicación que están 
promoviendo los beneficios de la separación de niños y niñas. Alternativamente, los grupos de 
derechos civiles como la ACLU siguen oponiéndose a cualquier tipo de segregación escolar. Dentro 
de este contexto, la filantropía privada, la Fundación para la Educación de las Mujeres Jóvenes 
(FEYW) ha establecido alianzas público-privadas con seis distritos escolares de Texas para abrir 
escuelas magnet para niñas orientadas a la preparación para la universidad pública con planes de 
expansión. Este estudio de caso etno-histórico explora el significado de lo que una comunidad de la 
red FEYW generó en su intento de dar sentido a la política federal. El tema es importante para el 
campo de la educación, ya que los cambios en el programa federal Título IX y el crecimiento de las 
escuelas para estudiantes de un solo sexo plantean interesantes cuestiones jurídicas y sociológicas 
acerca de la equidad y la justicia , ya que vincula Título IX (una política de equidad) con provisiones 
de la opción de la ley NCLB (una política impulsada por el mercado). La importancia de este estudio 
radica en el uso exclusivo de la etnografía para mostrar cómo las comunidades locales (re)interpretan 
políticas a nivel federal para alinearse mejor con sus valores personales y abordar de manera más 
adecuada las complejidades contextuales en sus intentos de hacer lo que creen que es mejor para los 
estudiantes.  
Palabras claves: Título IX; NCLB, escuelas para estudiantes de un solo sexo; equidad de género; 
elección escolar; etnografía; análisis de políticas; asociaciones público –privadas.  
 
O crescimento das escolas divididas por sexo: A reunião de política federal com as 
necessidades e interesses locais 
Resumo: As mudanças no programa federal Título IX , que permite o crescimento das escolas para 
alunos do mesmo sexo têm atraído a atenção da mídia que estão promovendo os benefícios da 
separação de meninos e meninas. Alternativamente, grupos de direitos civis, como a ACLU 
permanecem em oposição a qualquer tipo de segregação escolar . Dentro deste contexto, a 
Fundação para a Educação de Mulheres Jovens ( FEYW ) filantrópica privada, estabeleceu parcerias 
público-privadas, com seis distritos escolares no Texas para abrir escolas para meninas orientada a 
preparação para ingresso a universidade com planos de expansão. Este estudo de caso etno-histórico 
explora o significado gerado numa comunidade de rede FEYW em uma tentativa de dar sentido a 
política federal. O estudo é importante para o campo da educação , uma vez que as mudanças no 
Título IX e crescimento das escolas divididas por sexo representam questões jurídicas e sociológicas 
interessantes sobre a equidade e a justiça , uma vez que vincula Título IX (uma política de equidade) 
com as disposições em NCLB (uma política orientada pelo mercado). A importância deste estudo 
está no uso exclusivo da etnografia para mostrar como as comunidades locais (re)interpretam a 
política federal para um melhor alinhamento com seus valores pessoais e mais tratar adequadamente 
as complexidades contextuais em suas tentativas de fazer o que acha que é melhor para os alunos.  
Palavras-chave: Título IX; NCLB; escolas para alunos de um determinado sexo; igualdade de 
gênero; escolha da escola; etnografia; análise de políticas; parcerias público-privadas.  
 



T he growth of single-sex schools: F ederal policy m eets local needs and interests 3 
 

Introduction 

Single-sex schooling garnered attention in the policy environment with changes to Title IX 
as coupled with amendments to The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB).  Before the 2006 policy 
changes, separate sex public schools did indeed exist, but they experienced noteworthy growth after 
Republican Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson of Texas introduced the amendment to NCLB.  
According to Dee (2006) schools offering gender-separate classrooms increased from four in 1998 
to 228 in 2006; with 44 of those schools entirely single-sex. By fall 2007, the number of entirely 
single-sex public schools had increased to 60 (USDOE, 2008). According to the National 
Association for Single Sex Public Education (NASSPE), by the 2011-2012 academic year, 506 public 
schools offered some type of single-sex schooling arrangement with 390 of those schools remaining 
coed with single-sex classroom options and 116 schools qualifying solely as single-sex schools. There 
is a dearth of reporting distinguishing schools that are all male from all female or whether such 
schools primarily serve racial/ethnic minority students.  

Meanwhile, in Texas, a private philanthropy, the Foundation for the Education of Young 
Women (FEYW) continues public-private partnerships with six urban school districts to open all-
girls’ public college prep academies with plans to expand. One of the school districts included in the 
FEYW network, Centro Urbano Independent School District (CUISD)1, continuously navigates 
enormous difficulties. Among the various local challenges it faces, CUISD, similar to districts in 
other major cities, experiences enrollment decline and severe racial and economic isolation of urban 
students while suburban districts grow and diversify (Hanus, 1999; Students, n.d.; Treviño, 2003; 
Ustinova, 2007). Other issues include: a high incidence of teen pregnancy (Ayala, 2008); a troubling 
drop-out rate (Alaya, 2008; Scharrer & LaCoste Caputo, 2007); a leaky college pipeline (Alaya, 2008; 
Foundation for the Education of Young Women (FEYW), n.d.; Young Women’s Leadership School 
(YWLS), n.d.), and minimal participation in gifted programs and advanced placement coursework 
(Student Demographics, n.d.). Additionally, lingering fiscal difficulties hamper efforts to improve 
schools (Budget and Taxes, n.d.; Proposed tax rate requires voter approval, 2007).  

The purpose of this study is to show how one local community is using single sex public 
education to solve local problems beyond legislative intent. The topic is important to the field of 
education because it is timely: changes to Title IX and the growth in single-sex arrangements pose 
interesting legal and sociological questions about equity and justice since they link Title IX (an 
equity-driven policy) with the choice provisions in NCLB (a market-driven policy). In addition, this 
study adds to the literature by building on prior research that expands upon theoretical and 
methodological conceptions of how to approach policy studies. I agree with Spillane, Reiser, & 
Reimer (2002): “Under rubrics that include ‘interpretation,’ ‘cognition,’ ‘learning,’ ‘sense-making,’ 
and ‘reading’…the ideas that implementing agents come to understand or interpret from policy are 
an integral, and largely unexplored, component of the implementation process” (p. 392). 

A brief literature review on single-sex schooling precedes a description of the theoretical 
underpinnings and research methods. Thereafter, findings are presented in major and minor themes 
followed by an interpretive discussion. Finally, the study offers implications for future research. 

 

                                                
1 Except for “Foundation for the Education of Young Women,” all names of places and people are 
pseudonyms. 



E ducation Policy A nalysis A rchives  V ol. 21 N o. 78 4 
 

Single-sex Schooling 

Single sex schools have been utilized throughout history for very different purposes. For 
example, so-called “first-generation” single-sex schools came into existence as male-only institutions 
expressly because males were thought to be the sex that was capable and deserving of education 
(Blount, 2005; Lee, 2002; Meyer, 2008; Riordan, 2002; Salomone, 2003; Tyack & Hansot, 1992). 
Eventually, all-female academies were born to prove that women, too, were capable of learning and 
also deserved a share of societal attention in the education sphere (Blount, 2005; Tyack & Hansot, 
1992). Regardless of gender, however, most schooling was reserved for the “financially and the 
intellectually well endowed” (Meyer, 2008, p. 12). It was not until the advent of the Common School 
Movement that students of the working class and poor were deemed fit for education (Salomone, 
2003; Walker, J., 2006). During this era, public schools became co-educational – not for any 
philosophical reason, but due to efficiency and budgetary concerns stemming from the numerical 
growth of willing students (Blount, 2005; Lee, 2002; Salomone, 2003; Tyack, 1974; Tyack & Hansot, 
1992). 

Single-sex schools continued, of course, mostly in the form of private institutions that were 
characteristically bastions for the rich. Single-female private schools were especially important to 
keep wealthy, white girls in “pristine condition,” so to speak, unexposed to working class boys of 
various ethnicities (Salomone, 2003). In addition to the continuation of private single-sex academies, 
there was a major growth in parochial schools corresponding with the growth of the Common 
School Movement (Blount, 2005; Tyack, 1974). Catholics in particular opposed the Common School 
Movement due to the anti-Catholic messages and overall disdain for immigrant cultures forwarded 
in media generally and public schools in particular (Tyack, 1974).  

Second Generation Single-sex Schools 

So-called “second generation” single-sex schools have reinvented themselves to combat the 
impact of societal prejudices on male and female students alike, not “as a reactive counterweight to 
exclusion but as an affirmative vehicle for inclusion and an antidote to social disadvantage” 
(Salomone, 2003, p. 9).  For example, Detroit and Milwaukee school districts attempted to establish 
single-sex academies for boys of African heritage yet met with rigorous resistance. Proponents of the 
Afrocentric academies cited the “failure of the civil rights agenda to improve the lives of poor inner-
city residents” to legitimize the establishment of the all-boys schools (Riordan, 2002, p. 52). Parents 
of female students rejected the schools due to the legacy of male privilege associated with all-male 
academies while overall some members of the Black community were alarmed by what they 
considered a resurgence of racially-segregated schools into the policy debate (Riordan, 2002; 
Salomone, 2003). The establishment in 1990 of The African American Immersion Schools of 
Milwaukee was controversial, as well. However, unlike the Detroit schools, the Milwaukee programs 
continue to be reviewed and renewed regularly.  
 Later, during the 1990s, attempts to establish single-sex schools for girls also met threats of 
litigation from civil rights groups. The most famous case was the Young Women’s Leadership 
School in New York City. Besides offering a rigorous academic program, proponents of the New 
York all-girls school claim to offer a unique atmosphere – impossible to capture in a coeducational 
setting – that is essential to its success with inner-city girls (Jost, 2002; Meyer, 2008; Salomone, 
2003).  

 

 



T he growth of single-sex schools: F ederal policy m eets local needs and interests 5 
 
The Debate Continues 

While current political will reflects support for expanding parental school choice, current 
policy discourse often assumes balkanized positions between those believing single-sex schools are a 
violation of civil rights (Department of Education’s Single-sex Regulations, 2006; Title IX at 35, 2008) and 
those purporting that such schools represent the healing balm to a host of societal ills (Weil, 2008). 
Regardless of philosophical stance, researchers agree that the evidence concerning the positive 
benefits of single-sex schools is mixed with limited support (for additional details, please consult: 
Bigler & Signorella, 2011; Campbell & Sanders, 2002; Campbell & Wahl, 2002; Cherney & 
Campbell, 2011; Calce, 2009; Gilson, 2002; Hayes, Pahlke, & Bigler, 2011; Jost, 2002; Mael, Alonso, 
Gibson, Rogers, & Smith, 2005; Mansfield, 2011, 2013; Patterson & Pahlke, 2011; Riordan, 2002; 
Salomone, 2003; Sullivan, Joshi, & Leonard, 2010).  

Haag (2002) argued that since single-sex schools have been inspired by many different social, 
historical, and political contexts, taking a reactionary pro or con stance is disingenuous from a 
research point of view. One cannot be sure either way that single-sex schools are inherently wrong 
or right. Rather, the context of the origin of single-sex schools, along with the structure of particular 
schools and their consequent cultures should be investigated more fully to inform decision-making. 
Moreover, Haag contended research assessments on a specific single-sex school cannot be 
determined a success or failure unless the researcher is cognizant of specific stakeholder intentions. 
Similarly, there is a lack of research reporting what actually goes on inside these schools. Thus, in 
addition to comparing student achievement data, future research should include long-term 
qualitative studies that examine not only stakeholder intentions, but also how these intentions play 
out in terms of elements such as curriculum, pedagogy, and social interactions. Some argue that past 
attempts to compare achievement scores across disparate contexts, without attention to local 
stakeholder intentions, were inadequate to properly inform this contested terrain (Campbell & Wahl, 
2002; Hubbard & Datnow, 2002; Jost, 2002; Salomone, 2003). 
 Whether one views single-sex schooling in positive or negative light, the issue is fraught with 
challenges as the educational and law communities must now “weave together into a seamless web” 
many apparently discordant threads of Title IX requirements and court decisions (Salomone, 2003, 
p. 151). Tested norms include allowing sex classifications if they advance full development of the 
capacity and competence of students, which entails a deliberate rejection of supposed innate 
differences between females and males that would otherwise restrict the opportunities of either sex. 
In other words, single-sex schools that are based on a mission to moderate, rather than protract, 
traditional gender classifications are allowable (Salomone, 2003; VMI, 1996). In addition to these 
legal constraints, additional socio-historical considerations and limitations have been forwarded by 
those in the research community that might be applied to the issue of single-sex schools. For 
example, Nancy López (2002) urged that the “academic ghettoization” for female racial/ethnic 
minorities must be addressed using whatever forms available to us, while Pedro Noguera (1996) 
argued that if race and gender are to be used as variables in the development of programs, 
safeguards must be in place to ensure that “the young people targeted for such services are actually 
being helped and not marginalized and isolated by providers who claim to want to help” (p. 224). 

Theoretical Approach 

Like others (Crotty, 1998; Fischer, 2003; Yanow, 2000), I came to the research setting with 
the presupposition that complete neutrality and objectivity are not possible when doing policy 
research. Rather, human beings live in a social world that involves sensemaking; which, in turn 



E ducation Policy A nalysis A rchives  V ol. 21 N o. 78 6 
 
necessitates interpretation. My epistemological assumptions are embedded in constructionism, the 
belief that humans create meaning as they interact with objects and the world. Thus, subject and 
object are “partners in the generation of meaning” (Crotty, 1998, p. 9). My belief that human beings 
co-construct meaning led me to take an interpretive theoretical perspective in approaching this 
study. Thereafter, interpretivism interacted with my desire to study the meaning making of local 
stakeholders, which pointed to using qualitative methods to enable the collection of richer, highly 
contextual data. Not only did this allow the inclusion of multiple voices in the data collection 
methods, but it fit with the belief that knowledge comes from a variety of sources and that data 
collection, analysis, and interpretation are not value-free (Crotty, 1998; Fischer, 2003; Yanow, 2000).  

Like Spillane, et al. (2002), I also assume that the policy implementation process is closely 
tied with policy receivers’ “prior knowledge, expertise, values, beliefs, and experiences (p. 391) and 
that stakeholder meaning-making is central to policy appropriation and implementation. Kingdon 
(2003) described how historical, political, and social events occur independently but then converge 
at a time when adopting a certain policy just “makes sense” to a stakeholder group. The policy 
seems to be the “answer” to a variety of complex questions with which a certain constituency has 
been wrestling. As such, no one current event or historically constituted relationship is singularly 
decisive to the overall policy process. It is when different streams collide or merge and a compelling 
problem is linked to a plausible solution that converging streams result in new policy 
implementation. Kingdon also pointed out that “policy entrepreneurs” play an important role in 
connecting independent streams. An individual or group may have developed what they deem a 
solution to an important problem and wait for the political stream to be ready to see their solution 
as a viable one.  

However, it is important to note that, like Kingdon (2003) and Spillane et al. (2002), I do not 
wish to forward a framework that implies a strict linear process by which stakeholder sensemaking 
takes place preceding policy adoption and implementation. Rather, sensemaking is a complex and 
iterative process between prior experiences, policy adoption, and local practice. In other words, it is 
not the intent to surmise that the start-up of the school I am about to recount could have been 
predicted or can now be explained in terms of direct cause-effect relationships. Rather, revealing the 
contextual streams and the meaning making of state and local stakeholders informs our 
understanding of how policy changes at the federal level were viewed as a viable solution to local 
problems. 

Research Methods 

Ethnography was a suitable choice for my study because it enabled me to discover policy 
development and implementation processes and show how policy is interpreted and enacted by local 
practitioners (LeCompte & Schensul, 1999; Troman, 2006a; 2006b) and addresses the call in the 
research literature for studies that take a long-term, qualitative approach. The flexible and 
collaborative process that ethnography enables was also an important consideration for me (Lassiter, 
2005; LeCompte & Schensul, 1999) since I was committed to making my investigation as 
“responsive and relevant” to research participants as possible (Lassiter, 2005, p. 6). 

Site Selection 

I selected Centro Urbano’s Young Women’s Leadership School (YWLS) because it was one 
of six new single-sex public schools in Texas where I resided the past nine years. Regional news 
articles reporting the schools’ major mission as serving mostly Hispanic and African American 
female students living in poverty immediately caught my attention. The site was further narrowed to 



T he growth of single-sex schools: F ederal policy m eets local needs and interests 7 
 
two cities because they share many of the same characteristics as other large urban centers in the US. 
I made the final selection after contacting Ms. Santiago, the director of YWLS, who expressed 
immediate interest in developing a research collaboration.  

I did not go into the field with particular hypotheses or research questions. I felt it was 
important to appreciate the embedded contexts of YWLS and become familiar with the families, 
students, faculty, staff, neighborhood, and administration; which facilitated an emergent recognition 
of what various participants deemed important and significant. For the purpose of this article, I 
focus on just one aspect of this multi-year, multi-layered study and one set of the co-constructed 
research questions: What contextual (historical, socio-cultural, political) factors led to the founding 
of an all-girls’ public school at this particular time in this particular place? How did state and local 
stakeholders make sense of these contextual factors and how did their meaning-making, as policy 
“recipients,” help them see and take advantage of new opportunities to act? 

Participant Selection 

 The selection of participants for this study was a combination of purposeful sampling 
(Patton, 1990) and convenience sampling (Henry, 1990) because research conducted in a naturalistic 
setting is limited to willing and able participants. Since this is a qualitative study, people coming 
forward to be interviewed or displaying an openness to participate upon invitation, are considered 
legitimate actors in the research process (Henry, 1990). During informal conversations throughout 
pilot field work the first year, I mentioned to participants my desire to interview them at a later time. 
All participants reflected a positive attitude and willingness to help with the study in whatever way 
possible.  

Data Collection 

Shortly before the school opened, I commenced what Wolcott (2008) referred to as 
ethnographic reconnaissance. Goals during the first year were to: get to know the community; build 
trusting relationships with community members, and; volunteer/be useful to the community in 
whatever capacity the participants deemed suitable. The pilot period was useful for gaining an 
overall awareness of the setting and characters and generating a feeling of breadth to the project.  
 During the second year of ethnographic field work, I continued my volunteer work and also 
conducted regular observations. I spoke with teachers, support staff, and parents daily. My 
questioning became more “probing” as time went on. Concurrently, participants became more 
verbose in their sharing. I “lost track” of the time I spent at the school. I was there so often that I 
repeatedly forgot to “sign in” and eventually stopped wearing a visitor’s badge.  

Participant Observation. In addition to observing teachers and students in classrooms, 
I also observed interactions that included the central office administration, building level 
administrators, and teachers via staff meetings, curriculum development workshops, data-based 
decision-making seminars, personnel hiring interviews, PTA meetings, and board meetings. In 
addition, I conversed regularly with parents during day-to-day operations, special events, and/or 
parent education classes over the two-year period.  

Archives and Artifacts. Interpretive methods of policy research call for “identifying policy 
artifacts” (Yanow, 2000), which consist of the language, objects, and acts that are significant carriers 
of meaning for a given policy issue, as perceived by policy-relevant actors and interpretive 
communities (p. 22). Thus, to “accesses local knowledge” I examined agency, legislative, and policy 
documents in addition to observing and speaking with policy communities. I collected over 1,000 
artifacts including newsletters, PowerPoint presentations, parent letters, policy documents, letters 
written by politicians, and photographs. 



E ducation Policy A nalysis A rchives  V ol. 21 N o. 78 8 
 

In addition to collecting cultural artifacts produced at the local and district levels, I explored 
city and state archives that helped explain the historical, political, and socio-cultural influences that 
made the geographical area what it is today. In addition, on-site archives housed at CUISD offices 
were extremely beneficial. Physical policy artifacts also include notes taken during observations as 
well as transcripts of recorded interviews and public meetings. I kept an observation log and a 
separate journal for personal meaning making as recommended by methodologists (Lawrence-
Lightfoot & Davis, 1997; Yanow, 2000). At the federal level, policy documents and letters written by 
agency directors and staff were available on line at the US Department of Education (USDOE).  

Interviews. Oral history interviews were important for a number of important reasons. 
First, this particular all-female public school was new from the “ground up” and had never been 
studied before. Thus, I was in a unique position to document the emerging culture or community 
history (Alexander, 2006; Ritchie, 2003). In addition, oral history “helps to interpret and define 
written records and make sense out of the most obscure decisions and events” (Ritchie, 2003, p. 
118). Utilizing archives as a collection tool was important to this project as well since oral history 
should not stand alone as a single source. While oral history helped fill the gaps of material evidence, 
the material record was an important source of evidence and essential to achieving the emic-etic 
tension of this ethno-historic research endeavor (Alexander, 2006; Ritchie, 2003).  
 
Table 1 
Adult Participants 
n Pseudonym Role Race/Ethnic Background 
1 Ms. Alvarez Support Staff Latina 
2 Ms. Barnes Teacher White 
3 Mrs. Bennett Foundation Director White 
4 Ms. Fakhoury Teacher Arab-American 
5 Mrs. Flores Teacher Multi-ethnic 
6 Mr. Guzman School Board Latino 
7 Mrs. Hughes Central Office Administration White 
8 Mrs. Kelly Teacher Bi-racial 
9 Mrs. Mendoza Teacher Latina 
10 Mr. Ortega Parent Latino 
11 Mrs. Ortega Parent Latina 
12 Mr. Peña Parent Latino 
13 Mr. Rios Parent Latino 
14 Mrs. Rios Parent Latina 
15 Dr. Salazar Former Superintendent Latino 
16 Ms. Santiago Building Principal Multi-ethnic 
17 Ms. Soto Central Office Administration Latina 
 
  I asked adult participants (see Table 1 above) to partake in an informal interview lasting up 
to one hour. The date, time, and place were their choice. Approximating Weiss (1995), I refrained 
from using a fixed set of questions for the conversational interviews, as the process was iterative. 
Throughout the interviews, I worked to recognize that people’s personal knowledge and ways of 
knowing are critical to social interaction and hence social analysis (Campbell, 2004). Following the 
advice of Merton, Fiske, and Kendall (1990), I tried to facilitate interviews that reflected an open, yet 
focused structure that elicited the personal experiences of people known to have been involved with 



T he growth of single-sex schools: F ederal policy m eets local needs and interests 9 
 
the situation. Eliciting subjective experiences was a goal – not a problem to be resolved (Merton, et 
a., 1990).  

Data Analysis and Interpretation  

A firm understanding of the historical, geographic, and physical context of the research 
setting was crucial to this interpretive study. According to Lawrence-Lightfoot and Davis (2002), 
context and culture are intrinsically linked. 

Context [is] the framework, the reference point, the map, the ecological sphere; it is 
used to place people and action in time and space and as a resource for 
understanding what they say and do. The context is rich in clues for interpreting the 
experience of the actors in the setting. We have no idea how to decipher or decode 
an action, a gesture, a conversation, or an exclamation unless we see it embedded in 
context…a rich resource for examining and interpreting behavior, thought, and 
feeling…” (p.41)  

In similar vein, Bate (1997) referred to a “certain frame of mind” or “ethnography as thinking” by 
which researchers must learn to “think culturally” about a group they are studying: “The core notion 
is one of culture-as-text, in which the primary tool of understanding is an interpretive reading of that 
text” (p. 1152, emphasis in original). Thus, I would move between macro and micro foci; sometimes 
focusing on wider social structures, while other times looking at the minute details of people’s daily 
lives (Jeffrey, 2008; Walford, 2008).  
 It is important to note that description, analysis, and interpretation were not mutually 
exclusive nor did they necessarily follow this particular order. Similar to Wolcott (1994), I engaged a 
fluid process of analysis and interpretation, whereby I constantly collected data, made sense of them, 
and then revisited analysis of data in light of new experiences. This non-linear, circular process 
proceeded akin to a dialogue between the researcher and the data.  

Following a process outlined by Emerson, Fretz, and Shaw (1995), I conducted “open 
coding,” which entailed reading field notes, interview transcripts, copies of documents, and 
diaries/journals line-by-line to note consistent themes or story lines. I then enlarged the account 
beyond description by identifying key concepts and their interrelationships focusing on both culture 
and context. I then implemented “focused coding” that consisted of additional readings of the data 
to carefully filter initial impressions. I strived to achieve what Lawrence-Lightfoot and Davis (2002) 
called “a balanced tension” between having the confidence to observe, name, and verify patterns in 
the data while remaining grounded in the lived experiences of the participants. Eventually, key ideas 
were grouped into broader topics, referred to by Yanow (2000) as “policy frames” and Lawrence-
Lightfoot and Davis (1997) as “repetitive refrains.” These themes were the strands communities of 
meaning wrote about, talked about, and acted out. 

The Confluence of Forces for a Girls-only School in Centro Urbano, Texas 

I narrate the findings of the study in three steps. First, I develop the historical context in 
which actors related to the new federal policy. Thereafter, I describe the policy environment 
characterized by recent changes to Title IX and the concurrent development of single-sex public 
options at the state and local level.  After thoroughly contextualizing beliefs and actions of local 
stakeholders, I delve into the local meaning-making, exploring the rationales and purposes 
stakeholders had in mind when developing the new single-sex public school in their community.  

 



E ducation Policy A nalysis A rchives  V ol. 21 N o. 78 10 
 
Historical Context: Economic and Racial Isolation and the Quest for Equal Opportunity 

Centro Urbano Independent School District (CUISD) is located in one of the nation’s ten 
largest communities with a 2006 U.S. Census estimate of 1.3 million people. Eight school districts 
serve city residents, with a total of sixteen independent school districts serving the entire metro area. 
Currently, CUISD has the capacity to educate 80,000 students though the current enrollment is 
about 55,000 with an ethnic composition2 of approximately 90-percent Hispanic, seven-percent 
African American, almost three-percent White, and less than one-percent Asian, Pacific Islander, 
and Native American. Young Women’s Leadership School (YWLS) student demographics are listed 
as 78-percent Hispanic, 16-percent African-American, and 5-percent White with 81-percent of all 
students labeled as, “economically disadvantaged” (TEA, 2010). According to a report in Centro 
Urbano’s major newspaper, five high schools in CUISD are considered “dropout factories” 
(Scharrer and LaCoste Caputo, 2007). CUISD was reported in the news as the only district in the 
Centro Urbano metroplex with an “Unacceptable” rating after mandatory state test scores were 
reported for 2010.  

According to CUISD archives, the largest enrollment ever experienced was 76,702 students 
during the 1968-1969 school years. While the Hispanic population hovered around 45,000 students 
between the years 1969 and 1984, the number of Whites attending CUISD schools during that time 
strongly indicated the “white flight” phenomenon experienced by most urban centers in the United 
States during the 1960s through the1980s. For example, in 1969, whites comprised 25-percent of the 
student population in CUISD. By 1974, that number dropped to just under 17-percent. In 1979, the 
figures for whites dropped to 12-percent, and by 1984, whites contributed merely eight-percent of 
the student body. Interestingly, this urban district also experienced what some referred to as “black 
flight” during the same 15-year period with proportions of Blacks constituting 25% in 1969 and only 
8.5% in 1984. Raw numbers relatively constant, the Hispanic population grew proportionately from 
60- to almost 78-percent during this time of demographic change.  

The 2006 Census data indicated the predominant Hispanic population remained near the 
city’s core and along the Southern and Western borders. As one moves outward from the city 
center, poverty and population diversity decreases; which positions school districts within either a 
tax-poor or tax-wealthy geographical area. Since the robustness of the local tax base determines the 
rate of local taxes, and population decline parallels increases in per-person costs for providing city 
services, the core areas of Centro Urbano struggle to maintain fiscal capacity, while the exploding 
northern suburbs and exurbs generate higher wealth. Ironically, the housing boom of the first 
decade of the 21st century in Centro Urbano coincided with the growing population of working poor 
families and the subsequent acute shortage of low-income housing that is diminishing at the 
seventh-fastest rate in the country (Wilson, 2007). A growing number of Centro Urbano residents 
are suffering “critical housing needs,” living in severely distressed housing or spending more than 50 
percent of their income on a place to live. Positioned within a property poor area of the metroplex, 
CUISD has proposed to raise their taxes via several failed bond issues during the first decade of the 
21st century (LaCoste-Caputo & De La Rosa, 2007). According to officials at CUISD, the failed 
bond initiatives caused serious budget shortfalls that required “aggressive staff cuts” and 
withdrawals from savings accounts to meet financial challenges (Election Day, 2007).  

                                                
2 While I recognize the fluidity of racial and ethnic constructs I have chosen to utilize terms that are currently 
used by USA/Texas government entities. 



T he growth of single-sex schools: F ederal policy m eets local needs and interests 11 
 
 According to Valencia (2002), one can trace modern problems with inequitable school 
financing in Texas to the rise of segregation and the “inferior nature” of schooling students of color3 
in Texas between 1930 and 1960 (Valencia, p. 19). Valencia, Menchaca, and Donato (2002) claim, 
“racism was a driving force in the segregation of schools and subsequent Chicano school failure” (p. 
89). While US schools remained segregated (de jure) until the US Supreme Court decision on the 
case Brown v. Board in 1954, most children of Mexican heritage in the Southwest region continued to 
be subject to de facto segregation, and in Texas, were usually separated according to “Latin 
surname” under the assumption that the students could not or would not speak English or 
assimilate with Anglo populations (Sánchez, G. I., 1948, 1954).  

Post-Brown, school choice immediately opened to students of African descent in CUISD. 
On the Eastside, most of the segregated schools attended by Blacks were in close proximity to the 
white schools denied them. However, during this time, most students of Mexican descent were still 
relegated to de facto segregated schools of extremely poor quality. Thus, Chicana/os challenged the 
de facto segregation and unequal treatment of students of Mexican descent based on the recently 
affirmed “inherently unequal” status of schools that served black students. However, in 1957, Texas 
determined that “Mexican-American, Chicano, Latino, and/or Hispanic peoples” were not a 
“brown” race, but rather, an “other white” race (Villarreal et al. v. Mathis Independent School District, 
1957). Thus, it became nearly impossible to challenge the prevailing segregation of Hispanic children 
based on the Brown decision alone. Nevertheless, “Chicano communities were resolute in their 
struggle for educational equality…desegregation lawsuits are testimony to the Chicano’s campaign 
for desegregated schools and equal educational opportunity” (Valencia, Menchaca, and Donato, 
2002, p. 89). 

Policy Context: Federal Policy Changes, the Development of a Non-profit Philanthropy, and 
the Expansion of Private-Public Partnerships in Texas 

On May 30, 2002, then US Secretary of Education (Secretary) Ron Paige, with Senator 
Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas), toured one of the few single-sex public schools in the US: 
Young Women’s Leadership School in New York City (USDOE, May 30, 2002). The press 
release quoted Secretary Paige: 

‘The Harlem Young Women's Leadership School…embodies the principles of No 
Child Left Behind…Everyone in the school's first senior class graduated. The 
majority of students are reading above grade level, and their pass rates on local 
exams are higher than city averages.’  

That same month, Secretary Paige issued a Notice of Intent to Regulate (NOIR) and urged public 
comment on his intention to more easily establish single-sex classes and schools (USDOE, May 30, 
2002). Earlier, in 2001, Senator Hutchison had sponsored a provision, backed by Senator Hillary 
Clinton, in the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) that authorized local education agencies (LEAs) 
to use “innovative education funds” provided as part of NCLB to establish same-sex educational 
opportunities. In addition, Hutchison’s amendment included language encouraging the USDOE to 
publish guidelines for LEAs on how to do so without infringing on existing civil rights laws 
(USDOE, May 30, 2002). Secretary Paige’s latest NOIR statement revealed his intent to amend 

                                                
3 In the case of Texas, so-called racial minorities make up half of all students in the state. When one examines 
Centro Urbano ISD, Blacks and Latinos presently comprise over 95-percent of the student body. Thus, 
referring to the segregation and inferior schooling of “students of color,” rather than, “minorities,” seems 
more appropriate. 
 



E ducation Policy A nalysis A rchives  V ol. 21 N o. 78 12 
 
long-established Title IX regulations “to support efforts of school districts to improve education 
outcomes for children” (USDOE, May 30, 2002; USDOE, June 2002).  Secretary Paige believed 
amendments could both preserve “appropriate safeguards against discrimination” as well as provide 
public school parents with more choice (USDOE, May 30, 2002; USDOE, June 2002). 
 Two years later, in March, 2004 Secretary Paige announced newly proposed regulations to 
provide additional flexibility to school districts offering single-sex schools by “allowing the school 
district to decide whether the equal education opportunity offered for the excluded sex should be 
single-sex or co-ed-as long as the opportunities for both sexes are substantially equal” (USDOE, 
March 3, 2004). Finally, in October, 2006, then Secretary Spellings announced the establishment of 
the new changes to Title IX that former Secretary Paige had previously proposed. An important 
change in this 2006 statement is the relaxation of the “substantially equal” standard. Prior 
amendments required school districts to provide a “comparable singlesex [sic] public school to 
students of the other sex.” However, the new 2006 regulations permitted school districts to offer a 
coeducational setting rather than a replicable single-sex option.  
 In January, 2007 Stephanie Monroe, Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights (OCR) addressed a 
letter to all LEAs to further clarify how the new regulations relate to the general prohibition against 
single-sex classes and extracurricular activities under Title IX: 

The new regulations establish two important objectives upon which a recipient may 
base a single-sex class or extracurricular activity. The first important objective is to 
improve educational achievement of its students…The second important objective is 
to meet the particular, identified educational needs of a recipient’s students…the 
regulations require that the single-sex nature of the class or extracurricular activity be 
substantially related to achieving the recipient’s important objective. (USDOE, 
January 31, 2007) 

Assistant Secretary Monroe went on to emphasize that the new regulations still required that student 
enrollment be completely voluntary and that districts continue to provide “a substantially equal 
coeducational class or extracurricular activity in the same subject or activity… [and] to comply with 
the requirement to implement its objective in an evenhanded manner” (USDOE, January 31, 2007). 
In addition, LEAs that provide single-sex options were now required to “conduct periodic self-
evaluations of their single-sex classes or extracurricular activities at least every two years” to check 
whether a “substantial relationship between the single-sex nature of the class or activity and 
achievement of the important objective” exists and to ensure that their single-sex classes or 
extracurricular activities are based on genuine justifications and do not rely on overly broad 
generalizations about the different talents, capacities, or preferences of either sex” (USDOE, January 
31, 2007).   

Meanwhile, in 2001, prominent Texas businessman, Lee Posey read about a new single-sex 
public school in New York City, The Young Women's Leadership School of East Harlem. Founded 
in 1996 by a private-public partnership, the school had achieved remarkable success, with 100 
percent of its graduating classes accepted to four-year colleges and universities. After visiting the 
school, Lee Posey and his wife, Sally, came back to Texas, inspired to create similar schools in urban 
centers across the state.  

In 2002, Lee and Sally Posey established a non-profit philanthropy, the Foundation for the 
Education of Young Women (FEYW), and began inviting senior school administrators and 
community leaders to visit the New York City school to drum up interest in growing similar single-
sex public magnet schools in Texas. In 2004, FEYW established its first private-public partnership 
with a major Texas school district and as of 2012 had begun six all-girls public secondary academies. 
FEYW Executive Director, Mrs. Bennett explained: 



T he growth of single-sex schools: F ederal policy m eets local needs and interests 13 
 

The foundation started really many, many years ago as a vision of Lee and Sally 
Posey…It is a foundation that has been in existence just about a decade now. The 
vision or the mission of the foundation is to establish partnerships with urban school 
districts in order to establish all girls’ public schools, grades 6-12, where a majority of 
the students come from economically disadvantaged backgrounds. The schools in 
the state have three values that we propose. That is, college preparation, which is a 
rigorous curriculum focusing on math, science, and technology. Service leadership, 
allowing the girls to experience leadership opportunities, study successful leaders. 
Comprehensive wellness is the third value.  

I asked Mrs. Bennett if she attended single-sex schools as a youngster or during her high school 
and/or college years, she replied: 

I didn't. I am a product of the public school systems here in Texas. But…I have 
lived through the very inception of this model. Have really seen the value and the 
results that it can yield. It is a proven model. So, studying it someplace else in the 
United States and then bringing it back to Texas and implementing it within the 
Texas public schools system with all the rules and regs and accountability that is 
associated with Texas [has made me a believer]… 

According to Mrs. Bennett, FEYW experienced resistance during early conversations with CUISD 
representatives. Apparently, the former superintendent and some school board members were 
doubtful about adding a single-sex option to their current magnet school offerings because they did 
not have the means to provide a similar school for boys. In 2006, CUISD experienced significant 
leadership turnover on the school board and central office administration, including the 
appointment of new superintendent, Dr. Delgado. According to Mrs. Hughes, associate 
superintendent, her first major responsibility as a new member of the superintendent’s cabinet was 
to contact FEYW director, Mrs. Bennett: 

 
HUGHES: When the first day that I actually reported to duty on March 1st [Dr. 
Delgado] called me and said, “Do you know [Mrs. Bennett]? She’s head of the 
Foundation of Education for Young Women in Dallas.” [I answer him], “Well yes, I 
mean I know of her and I’ve met her. I’ve always admired her.” He said, “Well you 
need to call her.” Something about, “She wants a girls’ school.” 
 
AUTHOR: So she had called him first. 
 
HUGHES: Yes, she had called and [Dr. Delgado] said, “You know, we’d love to do 
it. But I just don’t have anybody to lead that.” So that was one of my first tasks. He 
said, “We need to make this happen.” So that’s how it all came about…I think 
they’ve had their eye on [Centro Urbano], and then when [Dr. Delgado] came in, 
then they were ready to kind of move forward, and the board at the time was very 
poised to embrace this concept. 
 

On July 31, 2007, the final Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the [Centro Urbano] 
Independent School District (CUISD) and the Foundation for the Education of Young Women 
(FEYW) was approved. The MOU states that the school will open with 75 sixth-graders and 75 
seventh-graders and will add one additional secondary grade level per year until the school serves 75 
students in each level, grades 6-12, with the first graduating class in 2014. In addition, the MOU 
outlines the entrance guidelines that are similar to other specialized schools in the district: 1) The 



E ducation Policy A nalysis A rchives  V ol. 21 N o. 78 14 
 
student must have at least a “C” average; 2) The student must have a desire to go to college, and; 3) 
The student must not have chronic attendance or discipline problems upon admission. In addition, 
the application process includes an interview with a parent or caregiver to establish adult 
commitment to supporting the student in her academic efforts. Students are also be given writing 
and math assessments to determine course placement.  
 The MOU also articulates the intended nature of the curriculum and pedagogy of the school. 
For example, the school will “nurture the intellectual curiosity and creativity of young women” as 
well as “address their developmental needs.” In addition, the school will strive to “cultivate dynamic 
participatory learning, enabling students to experience great academic success at many levels, 
especially in the fields of math, science and technology.” While the school will utilize and implement 
existing Texas curriculum, the emphases will include: 1) High expectations for responsible decision 
making; 2) Preparation for high school graduation and college matriculation and graduation; 3) 
Leadership and wellness skills; and, 4) A particular focus on “results” or “achievement and 
outcomes.”  
 As a private-public partnership, FEYW agreed to financially support the school with up to 
$250,000 per year over a four-year period for a total of $1 million. The district might utilize some of 
the funds for enhancing faculty development or funding a teacher-in-residence program or specific 
technology training. The MOU encourages supporting summer programs for entering 6th grade 
students in order to “build good study habits” as well as providing summer STEM camps for grades 
7-12 on college campuses. The district might also utilize foundation funds for developing 
partnerships with cultural institutions and to invite speakers to interact with students “on a monthly 
basis” to provide “role model leadership.” Finally, the MOU outlines terms for termination of the 
agreement as well as steps for amending the agreement “from time to time as the needs of the 
School develop and evolve.” 

State and Local Meaning-making: Equity, Choice, and Accountability 

 Conversations with state and local stakeholders illumined the various ways the principal, 
teachers, central office administrators, and school board viewed the challenges of educating students 
in Centro Urbano as well as the best ways to meet the needs of students. Participants also spoke 
about how the new policy options enabled them to focus on what they defined as important, such as 
providing alternative learning environments for students struggling to meet state standards. Others 
mentioned the need to provide choice to parents as well as using this new school as a means to 
compete with private schools in the area. Many saw the school as a viable social justice tool to 
reverse past experiences with discrimination and lack of opportunity.  

A Social Justice Tool. Most stakeholders emphasized the complex needs of Centro Urbano 
students and the implementation of YWLS as a means to address these needs that dovetail with the 
socio-historical complexities of the region. For example, former school board member, Mr. Guzman 
discussed his experiences dealing with prejudice growing up in Centro Urbano and how the white 
population fled the city during the 1960s and 1970s. Mr. Guzman lived in the same region of Centro 
Urbano his entire life. He graduated high school in 1968 and had a 34-year career as an educator 
before serving on the Centro Urbano school board. He shared that when he graduated, his high 
school was "about 75-percent White…and most of the school organizations and the cheerleaders 
were all White.”  

It started to change when I was there. My senior year, the first Hispanic President of 
the student council was elected. You should've seen the people crying and so upset 
because of this Hispanic winning the election…but it was a different culture back 
then. It was very prejudiced…When they passed the Civil Rights Act of '64 and they 



T he growth of single-sex schools: F ederal policy m eets local needs and interests 15 
 

opened housing for everybody – that's when the ‘white flight’ started up…it was 
pretty dramatic between '68 and '72 because in '75 when I moved into my house, 
that's only 8 years after I graduated, it had already completely changed...That's why it 
was 'white flight' because it was like, ‘wham!’ 

While former superintendent, Dr. Salazar, also acknowledged prejudice and subsequent “white 
flight” as a cause for declining enrollment in the past, he was also quick to point out that the 
“gentrification” process in the inner city over the past decade was pushing families desperate to find 
affordable housing out of the district: 

The District at one time had upwards of 70,000 students…then as a result of deseg, 
court ordered busing and so forth, there were the major white flights... [but] I will tell 
you right off the bat that the reason that there has been a declining enrollment is 
because of housing— affordable housing in the inner city…they knocked down all 
of these housing projects that they had and then they replaced them with fewer 
occupancies, you know, bi-families and so on and so forth. So what happened is that 
these folks from the inner city…floated out to [inner suburb] or where there were 
affordable apartment buildings…  

Within this context of declining enrollment due to white flight and gentrification are embedded 
other social justice issues such as a high drop-out rate. A brochure produced by FEYW highlighted 
some of the contextual complexities with which Texas students struggled, especially for poor, 
racial/ethnic minority females: 

When it comes to educating our young people, the state of Texas faces a daunting 
task. Students in low-income families are six times more likely than their higher 
income peers to drop out of school AND only fifty percent of minority women can 
be expected to finish high school. There IS hope! Girls are more likely to take 
courses such as computer science and physics in girls-only schools than in co-ed 
schools…Since all-girls schools provide a strong focus on academics, teen pregnancy 
is not a significant issue or challenge… This model has shown that inner-city girls 
can benefit from an all-girls public school and one hundred percent will go to college 
if given the opportunity. 

The above narrative forwards the equity frame as their central mission while also legitimizing the 
single-sex option as a proven model of success. Moreover, Mrs. Bennett explained that the purpose 
of the partnerships was not just to provide “choice” for all parents, but also to more adequately 
serve students from “economically disadvantaged backgrounds.” Mrs. Bennett also spoke about the 
importance of having the core belief that any child can learn and go on to college and career: 

It is truly a belief system. If you believe that these young women have the capacity to 
do well in science and technology, engineering, [and] mathematical field[s]…if you 
really believe that, then you do things...whether it is writing a curriculum, or 
providing materials, or training staff, or constructing educational experiences for the 
young women. You know, you kind of live out that belief. We do believe that. As a 
foundation, non-profit entity, when we partner with the school districts, we share 
those beliefs. We would never go into a district that did not join hands with us and 
embrace those beliefs. 

Representatives of CUISD also embraced the belief that all students are capable of learning in a 
rigorous environment, regardless of which “side of the tracks” they lived on. This seemed especially 
true of the principal, Ms. Santiago, a “local girl” who graduated from an Ivy League School about 
ten years prior. During one of my first interviews with Ms. Santiago, she stated, “I love these girls. I 
was these girls.” Ms. Santiago grew up in an infamous part of town well-known for its poverty, 



E ducation Policy A nalysis A rchives  V ol. 21 N o. 78 16 
 
violence, and substandard housing and schooling. She chose to return to the community after 
earning her educator credentials expressly to “pay it forward.” She said, 

I think I related to the girls because I grew up in a very similar circumstance. I grew 
up in poverty and had very little opportunity in terms of school…I saw so many of 
my friends end up pregnant or just didn’t get through school…there were so many 
people that I saw not progress that were close friends of mine, it was saddening to 
me to see that…And I think that when I looked at the girls, when I saw what their 
challenges were, and things that they were facing and also the opportunity to make a 
difference in that and to change it…it was something that was very personal to me.  

Parents expressed appreciation for Ms. Santiago’s background and echoed her story about growing 
up in a city where they faced discrimination and lack of opportunity and they feared this same 
outcome for their children. Mrs. Ortega believed sending her daughter, Angie, to the all-female 
public academy would enable Angie to live with less financial stresses than she and other family 
members have endured for generations. Mrs. Ortega said,  

I just want her to be able to succeed and gain whatever goals she’s aiming for…every 
now and then she’ll get kind of down: ‘I have so much work and my friends are 
going to the movies!’ And I say, ‘you have a choice my love. You tell me what it is 
you want to do. You want to have a good time right now? And if that’s what you 
want I’ll put you in the regular school. And then, you’re going to work where I am. 
Doing what I do. Payday to payday. Or, you sacrifice right now and do what it is you 
need to do so when you get older you make your money. And you’re set. You can 
actually take real vacations.’ I said, ‘It’s your choice. I can’t live your life for you. I’m 
not the one that’s going to struggle.’ And she’s like, ‘No. I’ll just stick this out.’” 

During an interview, Principal Santiago said, “Let me tell you Natalia’s story. It really captures what 
we’re all about.” Ms. Santiago described how she received a phone call over the summer from 
Natalia indicating that she needed some help. Apparently, Natalia had completed all her summer 
homework, but did not have some of the necessary art materials to complete a few projects. Ms. 
Santiago offered to bring Natalia the needed materials. It was then that Natalia had to admit that she 
was homeless. According to Ms. Santiago, Natalia had been living at the bus stop and then riding the 
bus during the day to stay cool and spending time in the public library to do her summer school 
work. Ms. Santiago arranged a meeting place to share the necessary materials and facilitated a 
meeting between Natalia’s mother and a social worker in order to get them into a shelter. Ms. 
Santiago continues:  

Natalia didn’t want to stop coming to school with us because, of course, the shelter’s 
not near the campus. But under McKinney-Vento with the “Homeless Act” we can 
provide a bus. So she gets on the bus at 5:00 every morning to come two districts 
over to keep coming to school… And I think about her story…that’s what it’s 
about…that’s the motivation for providing something different… 
Parental Choice and Meeting the Competition. Related to social justice concerns, such 

as white flight and the gentrification process, was the concern – especially voiced by local executive 
leadership – to use this specialized school as one way to shore up declining enrollment and provide 
parental choice and competition for student enrollment amongst parochial schools in the area. 
Parental choice was also mentioned on occasion to stress that the school was optional and not 
forced upon students and families; thus, fulfilling Title IX provisions that new single-sex public 
options could never be compulsory. For example, one executive administrator noted,  



T he growth of single-sex schools: F ederal policy m eets local needs and interests 17 
 

It is a model of choice. We have never said that it is for every family in each of the 
school districts where we have our presence...we believe that it should be an option 
for families if they so desire for their daughters to go to this type of school… 

CUISD central office administrator, Ms. Soto and Mr. Guzman, former CUISD school board 
member, shared similar understandings of the need to offer parents expanded choice in their 
attempts to provide “the best” available options to their children. Ms. Soto remarked,  

We have to recognize that we have parents that we lost to private schools…what 
other options are available out there?  I think we have to begin to evolve out of our 
traditional models that we offer in school because people do like choice…Part of my 
work in the past couple of years has been really helping to redesign schools and 
create choices in schools and market those in the public too. And my face is a face 
historically of [Centro Urbano], at the district, and in the community. So I am that 
marketable face…my dad is from Mexico. And we’re from a very affluent family. It 
is part of that culture in Mexico, too. Most families with money go to private 
schools. They don’t go to public schools. So it’s that perception that you give your child 
the best. 

Recall that former school board member, Mr. Guzman, and former superintendent, Dr. Salazar both 
acknowledged “white flight” as a major cause for the hemorrhaging of student enrollment. 
Additionally, although less significantly, both viewed the strong presence of parochial schools in the 
region as an additional cause for declining enrollment, albeit on a lesser scale. Dr. Salazar 
understood the presence of parochial schools as another form of competition for student 
enrollment: 

The other thing is that there’s always been a close relationship between inner city 
school districts and Catholic schools in general and private  schools that are non-
Catholic or religiously-based in particular. And [Centro Urbano] has always had--it’s 
loaded. It’s loaded with Catholic schools…so those were the things that I had to deal 
with in terms of responding to [declining enrollment]. 

Mr. Guzman understood implementing the new magnet school as a means to provide choice to 
parents who could not afford to send their children to private schools:  

And so, one of the big concerns of the district at that time was the drop in 
enrollment. How do you keep kids in the district? One of the ways we were losing 
kids was that girls were going to private schools like [St. Mary’s]…So, this was one 
way we could keep some of the girls that were going to go to parochial schools…if 
their parents could afford it, they would send them to a school like [St. Mary’s]. But 
they don't have money so they don't have choices. So, this gives them an option…this is like 
having a [St. Mary’s] for our girls; a free [St. Mary’s] in our own neighborhood. 

When probed further on whether the implementation of YWLS was having a significant impact on 
declining enrollment, Dr. Salazar answered, “When you look at the number of students in that 
school – compared to the school district – it may be a drop in the bucket, you know.”  Dr. Salazar 
went on to say that he felt the argument that this magnet school was needed to compete with the 
Catholic school system drew attention from a major advantage: The infusion of $1million of much-
needed revenue into a system desperate for both enrollment and funding. While other interviews 
neither support nor deny Dr. Salazar’s contentions, since CUISD does not keep track of students 
who leave the district for parochial schools, there is no evidence that YWLS has true competitive 
advantage in this regard. However, other participants did confirm that the $250K per year 
endowment from FEYW certainly did give the school a competitive edge when communicating to 



E ducation Policy A nalysis A rchives  V ol. 21 N o. 78 18 
 
the public the extra offerings that could be provided students in this particular school in comparison 
to other magnets and specialized public schools in the region.  

Accountability for Student Achievement. Related to social justice concerns such as equal 
opportunity and access, was discourse surrounding student achievement. Some participants 
recognized the importance of meeting state accountability standards for student achievement as a 
reason to consider alternative approaches to traditional educational environments. Beginning with 
the Foundation for the Educational of Young Women (FEYW), printed promotional materials make 
the claim that, “Research shows that an all-girls education has a significant effect on the academic 
achievements of young women.” Moreover, the Executive Director of FEYW, Mrs. Bennett, stated 
in an interview, “All of our schools are rated exemplary with the Texas Education Agency's 
accountability system. It is kind of hard to argue with results. We feel very positive about it.” 

Raising student achievement was also a concern of central office administrator, Ms. Soto, 
who viewed implementing single-sex schools as an important way to “think outside the box” and 
make a difference in student success. She said, “It’s really all delivered by student performance. Do 
boys do better writing by not being around girls? Do girls do science and math better than when not 
around boys?” She acknowledged that the research on single-sex schools was mixed, but that 
CUISD could not afford to wait any longer to try something different.  
 The principal and teachers also took data very seriously. They were exceptionally 
conscientious of their accountability responsibilities and highly aware of the bottom line in terms of 
test scores. So, while their commitment to families and students emanated from a philosophy 
steeped in equity concerns, they viewed meeting accountability measures as evidence to the outside 
world that they were doing the right thing. One teacher, Mrs. Flores, said: 

I hate to say it, but the scores are a big thing. That's a driving force because that's 
what you're held accountable to at the end of the day...Even though I don't feel that 
TAKS4 is the whole indicator of student success...That's the only thing that on the 
outside people see for the school. That's the only legit thing that they look at...At the 
end of the day, that’s a non-negotiable... 

An important celebratory event during my second year at the school was the announcement of the 
Texas Education Agency testing results. Every student passed all state mandated tests. And the 
school was honored with the coveted, “Exemplary” rating. A banner was immediately hung in the 
main entrance.  I was at the campus when the Principal, Ms. Santiago received the exceptional news 
that 100 percent of her students passed 100 percent of TAKS.5 Many parents were in the halls for 
end-of-the-year festivities. Students and teachers were milling about to-and-fro in the hallways for 
choir rehearsals and other logistics involved with the passing of another school year. Without 
exception, teachers, support staff, parents, students, and other visitors, showed their pleasure with 
cheers and hugs upon hearing the news. I saw Mrs. Flores later in the day and said, “I bet you feel 
really good now that the test scores have come back.” She answered, “I do. More than that – it's just 
validation that I was doing the right thing.” 
                                                
4 TAKS stands for, “Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills,” the Texas Education Agency accountability 
system. 
5 Only three CUISD campuses were rated “Exemplary” without any exceptions or predictive measures of 
possible passing scores in future retakes. CUISD was the only district in the metro area that was rated, 
“Academically Unacceptable.” The 100% passing rate for YWLS students is true for all subjects: Reading, 
Writing, Mathematics, Science, and Social Studies as well as all aggregated groups: African American, 
Hispanic, White, and Economically Disadvantaged. Further, the scores, which earned each student a passing 
rate, were well above the state average with many students earning individual “commendable” scores (TEA, 
2010).  



T he growth of single-sex schools: F ederal policy m eets local needs and interests 19 
 

Discussion 

 By coupling changes to Title IX (equity issues) with NCLB (market issues of parent choice 
and high stakes testing), the US legislature communicated their intent to use single-sex schooling as a 
way to shore up failing schools. The USDOE decision to provide an alternative to districts makes 
sense in light of the political environment of the last two decades, together with the sometimes-
negative local press reporting the federal government’s (NCLB) lack of responsiveness to 
community needs. The positive press the Young Women’s Leadership School in New York City was 
getting, coupled with the support of Senators Hutchison and Clinton, paved the way for the 
legitimization of single-sex public options via NCLB.  

Lee and Sally Posey, as policy entrepreneurs (see Kingdon, 2003), had visited the YWLS in 
New York City, returned to Texas, and immediately established their non-profit philanthropy for the 
purpose of establishing and supporting single-sex public schools in the state. I infer that the Posey’s 
were able to soften up the policy environment for their proposed private-public partnership in 
Centro Urbano when the time was right. A newly-elected school board, coupled with a newly-
appointed superintendent, was faced with surmounting budget and student achievement deficits. In 
line with Kingdon’s theory, the 2006 policy changes assuaged local questions concerning the earlier 
policy requirement for a parallel all-boys school. CUISD administration were poised to welcome the 
Posey proposals.  

It appears that local actors, from school board members to central office administration to 
teachers to principal, interpreted “the problem” differently, but all used a national reform agenda to 
solve what they interpreted as problems. For some, like Ms. Soto, it was to market the magnet 
school as a competitor to Catholic schools and as a way to “provide the best” for local students. For 
Ms. Santiago, it was a way for her to fulfill her mission as an educator hoping to make a difference in 
students’ lives in terms of equal opportunity. Parents viewed the school as a means for their children 
to climb up and out of poverty. Teachers regarded the school as a safe space for girls to be exposed 
to a rigorous curriculum that they would otherwise have been denied. Additionally, some 
administrators viewed the new magnet school as a promising means to combat declining enrollment 
and repurpose empty school buildings. 
 On the one hand, there appears to be a disconnect between the ways different actors 
legitimized the implementation of the school in terms of reconciling issues related to equity, choice, 
and accountability. But, on the other hand, one can see that these issues are not necessarily in 
contradiction, but are closely linked. For example, the principal and teachers spoke about their work 
in principled terms such as “paying it forward” and providing educational opportunities to students 
regardless of their zip codes. When asked how they reconciled what they saw as their “mission” with 
that for which they were politically held accountable, teachers spoke about the importance of 
meeting their personal and professional values within their political realities. They were very much 
aware that the “bottom line” and “non-negotiables” involved test scores. But they also expressed 
confidence that their moral mission for “doing the right thing” would automatically support the 
political mandate of their district to produce results in terms of student achievement and graduation 
rates. Working within their political constraints was viewed as “just the way it is” and something to 
work with, rather than against, in their quest for social justice for students. Rather than viewing 
accountability as a contradiction to social justice concerns, the principal and teachers viewed 
reaching accountability standards as one way to show they were meeting one of many of their social 
justice goals. Further, the principal admitted to sharing her own personal story of growing up a poor, 
underprepared minority female, along with Natalia’s “Homeless to Harvard Story” regularly because 



E ducation Policy A nalysis A rchives  V ol. 21 N o. 78 20 
 
she felt these narratives captured not only her personal calling, but also the raison d’être of the 
school.    
 Interestingly, the principal and teachers were not the only players who viewed their mission 
in ethical terms. Members of the non-profit philanthropy also spoke in terms of doing the “right 
thing by all” students. There was a sense of “paying it forward” amongst members of the FEYW: 
To those whom have been given much, much is expected. Executive Director, Mrs. Bennett, along 
with other members of the Board, had led “blessed” lives, while also recognizing that some young 
women, to no fault of their own, were not afforded opportunities to reach their full potential. But, 
while they approached their mission with a sense of noblesse oblige, they also purposely coupled 
their partnership discourse in terms of student achievement and the single-sex option as a “proven 
model” to attract the attention of school district executives.  
 Not surprisingly, the discourse of the superintendent’s cabinet and central office 
administration focused more on the school being used as a means to bolster enrollment and student 
achievement. Since local school districts rely on average daily attendance (ADA) in Texas school 
finance, any means to shore up declining enrollment and curtail school closures is welcome indeed. 
While executive administrators seemed to wince when I asked them to comment on the additional 
$1Million funding provided by the private philanthropy, the common attitude was that the extra 
funding “sure helped” and was “not going to be turned away.” At this level, there also seemed to be 
a general recognition of the contested nature of single-sex schooling, along with more discussion 
that highlighted how this school fit within what the law allowed. For example, Mrs. Hughes and Ms. 
Soto were quick to point out that, unlike districts in Louisiana and Kentucky where lawsuits had 
been brought forth, they were offering YWLS as an option, not has a mandatory assignment. Also, 
they were sure their particular school was not being used to resurrect outdated stereotypes, but 
rather, was working against cultural assumptions concerning ethnic minority females’ ability to 
compete and thrive in academe and STEM fields. There was no mention of anyone seeing a 
contradiction between the uniformity of testing and the gender specific focus of the curriculum. 
Rather, the gender focus was seen as a hopeful tool to better meet testing and accountability 
standards.  

Conclusion 

While there were some differences between the way actors spoke about the contextual 
factors that led to the founding of an all-girls’ public school and how they made sense of these 
factors to help them take advantage of new opportunities to act, there were also congruencies that 
contributed to an overall, integrated weaving of ideas related to choice, equity, civil rights, and 
accountability. The voices, taken together, paint a picture of a community working in concert to best 
meet both their political and moral obligations at this particular time, in this specific space. It is 
important to point out that none of the policy implementers at any level in this particular case seem 
to take a deficit view of students. The intentions of all stakeholders, whether they emanate from 
social justice, choice, or accountability purposes, translated into providing a robust, non-sexist 
learning environment to girls presently living at the intersection of race/ethnicity, gender, and class 
complexities.  

Additional research is needed; especially in communities where single-sex options are being 
created based on the faulty thinking that girls and boys differ so much biologically that they need 
drastically different classroom practices. Since the USDOE is currently not obliged to approve 
single-sex public options before implementation, it behooves the research community to investigate 
and report to the public possibly divergent philosophies and practices and how that translates into 



T he growth of single-sex schools: F ederal policy m eets local needs and interests 21 
 
practices that may or may not be in the best interests of individual students and the public at large. 
These studies could be coupled with those that investigate parental choice issues more fully, such as 
why parents choose single-sex public options and how their meaning making might differ across 
contexts in important ways.  

There is also a need to continue the current case study to further probe how local 
implementers are juggling conflicting values. For example, stakeholder discourse at all levels is quick 
to point out the “success” of this particular school; especially in terms of reaching above and beyond 
accountability expectations. While attaining “commendable” ratings is nothing to snub, there is also 
the selectivity issue to tease out more fully. While it is true that the school serves mostly ethnic 
minority girls living in poverty, the fact remains that the students self-select in to the school and the 
school personnel further define their student body in the interview process. It would be interesting 
and helpful to probe further how social-justice minded educators reconcile this version of academic 
tracking. 

Taken together, we should have a more detailed portrait of the legitimacy and efficacy of 
single-sex public options as well as a greater understanding of the importance of the dialectic that 
occurs between legislative intent and stakeholder decision-making. This study represents one step 
toward that goal.  

References 

Alaya, E. (2008, September 14). Long climb to the top: More Hispanic women in powerful posts but 
many still face hurdles to prosperity. [Centro Urbano] Express News, pp.  B1, B3. Masked 
citation. Copies in author’s possession. 

Alexander, B. (2006). Excluding archival silences: Oral history and historical absence. Archival Science, 
6, 1-11. 

Bate, S. P. (1997). What happened to organizational anthropology? A review of the field of 
organizational ethnography and anthropology studies. Human Relations, 50(9), 1147-1175. 

Bigler, R. S. & Signorella, M. L. (2011). Single-sex education: new perspectives and evidence on a 
continuing controversy. Sex Roles, 65, 659-669. 

Blount, J. (2005). Fit to teach: Same-sex desire, gender, and school work in the twentieth century. Albany, NY: 
SUNY Press.  

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). 
Budget and Taxes. (n.d.). Retrieved October 31, 2007 from 
 http://www.[CUISD].net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=16&Itemid=31 
 Masked citation. Copies in author’s possession. 
Calce, C. M. (2009). Single-sex education. The Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law,  Tenth Annual 

Review of Gender and Sexuality Law, Education Law Chapter, 1-34. 
Campbell, M. L. (2004). Mapping social relations: A primer in doing institutional ethnography. AltaMira Press. 
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). NY, NY: Routledge. 

Campbell, P. B., & Wahl, E. (2002). “What’s sex got to do with it? Simplistic questions, complex 
answers.” In: The Jossey-Bass reader on gender in education (pp. 722-733). San Francisco, CA: John 
Wiley & Sons, Inc.  

Cherney, I. D. & Campbell, K. L. (2011). A league of their own: Do single-sex schools increase 
 girls’ participation in the physical sciences? Sex Roles, 65, 712-724. 



E ducation Policy A nalysis A rchives  V ol. 21 N o. 78 22 
 
Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. Thousand 

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.  
Dee, T. S. (2006). The why chromosome: How a teacher’s gender affects boys and girls. Available at 

www.educationnext.org 
Department of Education’s Single-sex Regulations will Result in Unequal Educational Opportunities. (2006). 

Produced by National Coalition for Women and Girls in Education (NCWGE). Available at: 
www.ncwge.org 

Edgewood Independent School District et al. v. Kirby et al. (1984). 
Election day is fast-approaching: [CUISD]’s proposed tax rate on the ballot. (2007). [CUISD] 
 Insider, (9), 2, p. 1. Document available from [Centro Urbano] Independent School District 
 Archives. Masked citation. Copies in author’s possession. 
Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (1995). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. Chicago, IL: 

University of Chicago Press.  
Fischer, F. (2003). Reframing public policy: Discursive politics and deliberative practices. Oxford University 

Press.  
Foundation for the Education of Young Women (FEYW): Our Vision. Retrieved August 3,  2008 

from http://www.feyw.org/feyw/  
Gilson, J. (2002). “Single-gender or coeducation for middle-school girls: Does it make a difference in 

math? In: A. Datnow & L. Hubbard (Eds.), Gender in policy and practice: Perspectives on single-sex 
and coeducational schooling  (pp. 227-242). NY, NY: Routledge. 

Goldstein, L. S. (2008). Kindergarten teachers making “street-level” education policy in the wake of 
No Child Left Behind. Early Education and Development, 19(3), 448–478. 

Haag, P. (2002). “Single-sex education in grades K-12: What does the research tell us?” In: The Jossey-
Bass reader on gender in education (pp. 647-676). San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 

Hanus, C. (1999). Personal communication via e-mail to Bobby Zamora on August 24, 1999. 
 Document available from [Centro Urbano] Independent School District Archives. Masked 
 citation. Copies in author’s possession. 
Hayes, A. R., Pahlke, E. E., & Bigler, R. S. (2011). The efficacy of single-sex education: Testing 
 for selection and peer quality effects. Sex Roles, 65, 693-703. 
Henry, G. T. (1990). Practical sampling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.  
Hubbard, L., & Datnow, A. (2002). “Are single-sex schools sustainable in the public sector?” In: A. 

Datnow & L. Hubbard (Eds.), Gender in policy and practice: Perspectives on single-sex and 
coeducational schooling (pp. 109-133). NY, NY: Routledge. 

Jeffrey, B.  (2008). “Characterising social settings as the basis for qualitative research in 
ethnography.” In: G. Walford (Ed.), How to do educational ethnography (pp. 141-164). London, 
UK: The Tufnell Press. 

Jost, K. (2002). Single-sex education: Do all-boy and all-girl schools enhance learning? CQ 
 Researcher, 12(25), 569-592. Published by Congressional Quarterly, Inc. 
Kingdon, J. W. (2003). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies, 2nd edition. NY, NY: Longman.   
LaCoste-Caputo, J. & De La Rosa, M. (2007). Four area districts reject tax boost.  [Centro Urbano] 

Express News Online. Masked citation. Copies in author’s possession. 
Lassiter, L. E. (2005). The Chicago guide to collaborative ethnography. Chicago, IL: The University of 

Chicago Press. 
Lawrence-Lightfoot, S., Davis, J. H. (2002). The art and science of portraiture. Jossey-Bass. 
LeCompte, M. D., & Schensul, J. J. (1999). Designing and conducting ethnographic research. London: 

AltaMira Press.  



T he growth of single-sex schools: F ederal policy m eets local needs and interests 23 
 
Lee, V. (2002). “Single-sex vs. Coeducational schools.” In: The Jossey-Bass reader on gender in 
 education (pp. 677-699). San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 
López, N. (2002). Race-gender experiences and schooling: Second-generation Dominican, West 
 Indian, and Haitian youth in New York City. Race Ethnicity and Education, 5(1), 67-89. 
Mael, F. Alonso, A., Gibson, D., Rogers, K., & Smith, M. (2005). Single-sex versus coeducational 

schooling: A systematic review (Report no. 2005-01). Washington, DC: US Department of 
Education Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development. Available at: 
http://www2d.gov/rschstat/eval/other/single-sex/single-sex.pdf 

Mansfield, K. C. (2013). “I love these girls--I was these girls”: Women leading for social justice in a 
single-sex public school. Journal of School Leadership, 23(4), 633-656. 

Mansfield, K. C. (2011). Troubling Social Justice in a Single-sex Public School: An Ethnography of an Emerging 
School Culture. Unpublished dissertation. The University of Texas at Austin.  

Merton, R. K., Fiske, J., & Kendall, P. L. (1990). The focused interview: A manual of problems and 
procedures, 2nd edition. NY, NY: The Free Press.  

Meyer, P. (2008). Learning separately: The case for single-sex schools. Available  
 at: www.educationnext.org 
Monroe, S. (January 31, 2007). Dear Colleague Letter signed by Stephanie Monroe, Assistant 
 Secretary for Civil Rights, US Department of Education. Available at: 
 http://www2.ed.gov/print/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/single-sex-20070131.html 
National Association for Single Sex Public Education (NASSPE). (n.d.) “Single-sex 
 Schools/Schools with single-sex classrooms/what’s the difference?” Statistics updated 
 regularly and available at: http://www.singlesexschools.org/schools-schools.htm (Last 
 visited July 17, 2012). 
Noguera, P. A. (1996). Responding to the crisis confronting California’s black male youth: Providing 

support without furthering marginalization. The Journal of Negro Education, 65(2), 219-236. 
Neely v. West Orange-Cove Consolidated Independent School District, 176 S.S. 3d (Tex. 2005). 
Patterson, M. M. & Pahlke, E. (2011). Student characteristics associated with girls’ success in a 
 single-sex school. Sex Roles, 65, 737-750. 
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (3rd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage 

Publications. 
Proposed tax rate requires voter approval. (2007). [CUISD] Insider, (9), 1, p. 2. Document 
 available from [Centro Urbano] Independent School District Archives. Masked citation. 
 Copies in author’s possession. 
Riordan, C. (2002). “What do we know about the effects of single-sex schools in the private sector?” 

In: A. Datnow & L. Hubbard (Eds.), Gender in policy and practice: Perspectives on single-sex and 
coeducational schooling (pp. 10-30). NY, NY: Routledge. 

Ritchie, D. A. (2003). Doing oral history: A practical guide, 2nd edition. NY, NY: Oxford University Press.  
Rodriguez v. San Antonio Independent School District, 337 F. Supp. 280 (W.D. Tex. 1971). 
Salomone, R. C. (2003). Same, different, equal: Rethinking single-sex schooling. New Haven,  CT: Yale 

University Press.  
San Antonio v. Rodríguez, 411 U.X. 1, 93 S. Ct. 1278 (1973). 
Sánchez, G. I. (1948). A Study of the Educational Opportunities Provided Spanish-Name Children in Ten 

Texas School Systems. George I. Sánchez Papers, Benson Latin American Collection, General 
Libraries, The University of Texas at Austin. 

Sánchez, G. I. (1954). Research Project on the Education of Minority Children, 1952-1953. George I. 
Sánchez Papers, Benson Latin American Collection, General Libraries, The University of 
Texas at Austin. 



E ducation Policy A nalysis A rchives  V ol. 21 N o. 78 24 
 
Scharrer, G. & LaCoste Caputo, J. (2007, October 31). 15 schools in [Centro Urbano] are ‘dropout 
 factories.’ [Centro Urbano] Express News, pp. A1, A6. Masked citation. Copies in author’s 
 possession. 
Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing 

and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research 72(3), 387-431. 
South Carolina Department of Education (SCDOE) (n.d.). “Single Gender Initiatives.” Available 
 at: http://ed.sc.gov/agency/se/School-Transformation/SingleGenderInitiatives.cfm 
Student  Demographics. (n.d.). Retrieved December 2, 2009 from 

http://www.[CUISD].net/main/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=629&c
atid=8&Itemid=104. Masked citation. Copies in author’s possession. 

Students. (n.d.). Retrieved October 13, 2007 from 
 http://www.[CUISD].net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=17&Itemid=32 
 Masked citation. Copies in author’s possession. 
Sullivan, A., Joshi, H., & Leonard, D. (2010). Single-sex schooling and academic attainment at 
 school and through the lifecourse. American Educational Research Journal, 47(1), 6-36. 
Texas Education Agency (TEA). (2010). Academic Excellence Indicator System. Data available at: 

http://www.tea.state.tx.us/ 
Title IX at 35: Beyond the Headlines. (2008). Produced by National Coalition for  Women and Girls in 

Education (NCWGE). Available at: www.ncwge.org 
Treviño, R. (2003). Facing Jim Crow: Catholic sisters and the Mexican problem in Texas. The 
 Western Historical Quarterly (34) 2. Retrieved October 9, 2007 from: 
 http://www.historycooperative.org 
Troman, G. (2006a). “Researching primary teachers’ work: Examining policy and practice through 

interactionist ethnography.” In: G. Troman, B. Jeffrey, & D. Beach (Eds.), Researching 
education policy: Ethnographic experiences (pp. 37-57). London, UK: The Tufnell Press. 

Troman, G. (2006b). “Tales from the interface: Disseminating ethnography for policy making.” In: 
G. Troman, B. Jeffrey, & D. Beach (Eds.), Researching education policy: Ethnographic experiences 
(pp.109-131). London, UK: The Tufnell Press. 

Tyack, D. (1974). The one best system: A history of American urban education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard 
University Press.  

Tyack, D., & Hansot, E. (1992). Learning together: A history of coeducation in American public schools. NY, 
NY: Russell Sage Foundation.  

(VMI) United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996). 
US Department of Education (USDOE). (May 30, 2002). Secretary Paige Visits Harlem Young 
 Women's Leadership School. Press Release available at: 
 http://www2.ed.gov/print/news/pressreleases/2002/05/05302002a.html 
US Department of Education (USDOE). (June 2002) OCR: Notice of Intent to Regulate regarding Single 

Sex Classes and Schools and Request for Public Comment by July 8, 2002. Press Release Available at:  
 http://www2.ed.gov/print/policy/rights/reg/ocr/t9-noi-ss.html 
US Department of Education (USDOE). (March 3, 2004). Department to Provide More Educational 

Options for Parents. Press Release available at:  
 http://www2.ed.gov/print/news/pressreleases/2004/03/03032004.html 
US Department of Education (USDOE). (October 24, 2006). Secretary Spellings Announces More Choices 

in Single Sex Education. Press Release available at: 
http://www2.ed.gov/print/news/pressreleases/2006/10/10242006.html 

US Department of Education (USDOE). (2008). Early implementation of public single-sex 
 schools: Perceptions and characteristics. Available at: 



T he growth of single-sex schools: F ederal policy m eets local needs and interests 25 
 
 http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/other/single-sex/characteristics/index.html 
Ustinova, A. (2007, October 8). Protesters rip [CUISD]’s tax proposal. [Centro Urbano]Express News, 
 pp. B1, B5. Masked citation. Copies in author’s possession. 
Valencia, R. R. (2002). “The plight of Chicano students: An overview of schooling conditions and 

outcomes.” In: R. R.Valencia (Ed.), Chicano school failure and success: Past, present and future, 2nd 
edition (pp. 3-51). NY, NY: Routledge. 

Valencia, R. R., Menchaca, M., & Donato, R. (2002). “Segregation, desegregation, and 
 integration of Chicano students: Old and new realities.” In: R. R. Valencia (Ed.), Chicano 
 school failure and success: Past, present and future, 2nd edition (pp. 70-113). NY, NY: 
 Routledge. 
Villarreal et al. v. Mathis Independent School District. (San Patricio County) Civil Action No. 1385 (S.D. 

Tex. May 2, 1957). 
Walford, G. (2008). “The nature of educational ethnography.” In: G. Walford (Ed.), How to do 

educational ethnography (pp. 1-15). London, UK: The Tufnell Press. 
Weil, E. (2008). Teaching boys and girls separately. The New York Times. March 2, 2008. Available 

at: 
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/magazine/02sex3t.html?_r=2&ex=1362027600&en
=2c738e6056cb2eeb&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin&oref=slogin 

Weiss, R. S. (1995). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview studies. Free Press. 
Wilson, R. (2007, September 3). Area’s poor face housing woes. [Centro Urbano]Express News, pp. B1, 

B5. Masked citation. Copies in author’s possession. 
Wolcott, H. F. (1994). Transforming qualitative data: Description, analysis, and interpretation. Thousand 

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 
Yanow, D. (2000). Conducting interpretive policy analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. 
 Qualitative Research Methods Series. 
(YWLS) [Centro Urbano Young Women’s Leadership School]. Retrieved August 3, 2008 from 
 http://www.[CUISD].net/schools/ywla/. Masked citation. Copies in author’s possession 



E ducation Policy A nalysis A rchives  V ol. 21 N o. 78 26 
 

About the Author 

Katherine Cumings Mansfield 
Virginia Commonwealth University 
kicmansfield@gmail.com 
Katherine Cumings Mansfield (PhD, The University of Texas at Austin) is an assistant professor 
of Educational Leadership and Policy at Virginia Commonwealth University. Mansfield’s 
interdisciplinary scholarship focuses on the social, historical, and political contexts of education 
and the relationship of class, gender, race/ethnicity, and religion on educational and vocational 
access and achievement. Mansfield has presented at American Educational Research 
Association, National Summit on Interdistrict Desegregation at Harvard Law School, Legal and 
Policy Options for Racially Integrated Education in the South and the Nation at University of 
North Carolina-Chapel Hill School of Law, and University Council for Educational 
Administration. Mansfield has published in Educational Administration Quarterly, Journal of 
Educational Administration, Journal of Research on Leadership Education, and Journal of School Leadership. 
In 2012, Mansfield was awarded the "Leadership for Social Justice Dissertation Award," 
sponsored by AERA's Leadership for Social Justice Special Interest Group and the "Selma 
Greenberg Outstanding Dissertation Award," sponsored by AERA's Research on Women and 
Education Special Interest Group for her dissertation entitled, "Troubling Social Justice in a 
Single-sex Public School: An Ethnography of an Emerging School Culture." Mansfield is a first-
generation college graduate with 20 years experience teaching and leading throughout the P-20 
pipeline.  
 
Author’s Recommended Readings 
Datnow & L. Hubbard (Eds.). (2002). Gender in policy and practice: Perspectives on single-sex and 

coeducational schooling. NY, NY: Routledge. 
Fine, C. (2010). Delusions of gender: How our minds, society, and neurosexism create difference. NY, NY:     

WW Norton and Co. 
Mael, F. Alonso, A., Gibson, D., Rogers, K., & Smith, M. (2005). Single-sex versus coeducational 

schooling: A systematic review (Report no. 2005-01). Washington, DC: US Department of 
Education Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development. Available at: 
http://www2d.gov/rschstat/eval/other/single-sex/single-sex.pdf 

Mansfield, K. C. (2011). Troubling Social Justice in a Single-sex Public School: An Ethnography of an Emerging 
School Culture. Unpublished dissertation. The University of Texas at Austin.  

Salomone, R. C. (2003). Same, different, equal: Rethinking single-sex schooling. New Haven,  CT: Yale 
University Press.  

Sex Roles, Volume 65, Issue 9-10. (November, 2011). Link to special issue on single-sex schools, Part 1: 
http://link.springer.com/journal/11199/65/9/page/1 

The Jossey-Bass reader on gender in education (2002). San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.  
US Department of Education (USDOE). (2008). Early implementation of public single-sex 
 schools: Perceptions and characteristics. Available at: 
 http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/other/single-sex/characteristics/index.html 



T he growth of single-sex schools: F ederal policy m eets local needs and interests 27 
 
 
 

 

education policy analysis archives 
Volume 21  Number 78  December 2nd, 2013     ISSN 1068-2341 

 

 Readers are free to copy, display, and distribute this article, as long as the work is 
attributed to the author(s) and Education Policy Analysis Archives, it is distributed for non-
commercial purposes only, and no alteration or transformation is made in the work. More 
details of this Creative Commons license are available at 
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/. All other uses must be approved by the 
author(s) or EPAA. EPAA is published by the Mary Lou Fulton Institute and Graduate School 
of Education at Arizona State University Articles are indexed in CIRC (Clasificación Integrada de 
Revistas Científicas, Spain), DIALNET (Spain), Directory of Open Access Journals, EBSCO 
Education Research Complete, ERIC, Education Full Text (H.W. Wilson), QUALIS A2 (Brazil), 
SCImago Journal Rank; SCOPUS, SOCOLAR (China). 

Please contribute commentaries at http://epaa.info/wordpress/ and send errata notes to 
Gustavo E. Fischman fischman@asu.edu  
 
Join EPAA’s Facebook community at https://www.facebook.com/EPAAAAPE and Twitter 
feed @epaa_aape. 

 



E ducation Policy A nalysis A rchives  V ol. 21 N o. 78 28 
 

education policy analysis archives 
editorial board  

Editor Gustavo E. Fischman (Arizona State University) 
Associate Editors: Audrey Amrein-Beardsley (Arizona State University), Rick Mintrop, (University of California, Berkeley) 

Jeanne M. Powers (Arizona State University) 
 
Jessica Allen University of Colorado, Boulder Christopher Lubienski University of Illinois, Urbana-

Champaign 
Gary Anderson New York University  Sarah Lubienski University of Illinois, Urbana-

Champaign 
Michael W. Apple University of Wisconsin, Madison  Samuel R. Lucas  University of California, Berkeley  
Angela Arzubiaga Arizona State University Maria Martinez-Coslo University of Texas, Arlington  
David C. Berliner  Arizona State University  William Mathis University of Colorado, Boulder 
Robert Bickel  Marshall University  Tristan McCowan  Institute of Education, London  
Henry Braun Boston College  Heinrich Mintrop University of California, Berkeley  
Eric Camburn  University of Wisconsin, Madison  Michele S. Moses University of Colorado, Boulder 
Wendy C. Chi* University of Colorado, Boulder Julianne Moss  University of Melbourne  
Casey Cobb  University of Connecticut  Sharon Nichols  University of Texas, San Antonio  
Arnold Danzig  Arizona State University  Noga O'Connor University of Iowa  
Antonia Darder  University of Illinois, Urbana-

Champaign 
João Paraskveva  University of Massachusetts, 

Dartmouth  
Linda Darling-Hammond Stanford University  Laurence Parker University of Illinois, Urbana-

Champaign 
Chad d'Entremont Strategies for Children Susan L. Robertson Bristol University 
John Diamond Harvard University  John Rogers University of California, Los Angeles 
Tara Donahue Learning Point Associates  A. G. Rud Purdue University 
Sherman Dorn University of South Florida  Felicia C. Sanders The Pennsylvania State University 
Christopher Joseph Frey Bowling Green State 

University  
Janelle Scott University of California, Berkeley  

Melissa Lynn Freeman* Adams State College Kimberly Scott Arizona State University  
Amy Garrett Dikkers University of Minnesota  Dorothy Shipps  Baruch College/CUNY  
Gene V Glass  Arizona State University  Maria Teresa Tatto Michigan State University  
Ronald Glass University of California, Santa Cruz  Larisa Warhol University of Connecticut  
Harvey Goldstein Bristol University  Cally Waite  Social Science Research Council  
Jacob P. K. Gross  Indiana University  John Weathers University of Colorado, Colorado 

Springs  
Eric M. Haas  WestEd  Kevin Welner University of Colorado, Boulder 
Kimberly Joy Howard* University of Southern 

California 
Ed Wiley  University of Colorado, Boulder 

Aimee Howley  Ohio University  Terrence G. Wiley Arizona State University  
Craig Howley  Ohio University  John Willinsky  Stanford University  
Steve Klees  University of Maryland  Kyo Yamashiro  University of California, Los Angeles 
Jaekyung Lee  SUNY Buffalo  * Members of the New Scholars Board 

 
 

 



T he growth of single-sex schools: F ederal policy m eets local needs and interests 29 
 

archivos analíticos de políticas educativas 
consejo editorial 

Editor:  Gustavo E. Fischman (Arizona State University) 
Editores. Asociados Alejandro Canales (UNAM) y Jesús Romero Morante  (Universidad de Cantabria) 

 
Armando Alcántara Santuario Instituto de 

Investigaciones sobre la Universidad y la Educación, 
UNAM  México 

Fanni Muñoz  Pontificia Universidad Católica de Perú 

Claudio Almonacid  Universidad Metropolitana de 
Ciencias de la Educación, Chile 

Imanol Ordorika   Instituto de Investigaciones 
Economicas – UNAM, México 

Pilar Arnaiz Sánchez Universidad de Murcia, España Maria Cristina Parra Sandoval Universidad de Zulia, 
Venezuela 

Xavier Besalú  Costa Universitat de Girona, España Miguel A. Pereyra Universidad de Granada, España   
Jose Joaquin Brunner  Universidad Diego Portales, 

Chile 
Monica Pini Universidad Nacional de San Martín, 

Argentina 
Damián Canales Sánchez  Instituto Nacional para la 

Evaluación de la Educación, México 
Paula Razquin UNESCO, Francia   

María Caridad García  Universidad Católica del Norte, 
Chile 

Ignacio Rivas Flores Universidad de Málaga, España      

Raimundo Cuesta Fernández  IES Fray Luis de León, 
España 

Daniel Schugurensky Universidad de Toronto-Ontario 
Institute of Studies in Education, Canadá   

Marco Antonio Delgado Fuentes Universidad 
Iberoamericana, México 

Orlando Pulido Chaves Universidad Pedagógica 
Nacional, Colombia 

Inés Dussel  FLACSO, Argentina José Gregorio Rodríguez Universidad Nacional de 
Colombia   

Rafael Feito Alonso Universidad Complutense de 
Madrid, España 

Miriam Rodríguez Vargas Universidad Autónoma de 
Tamaulipas, México 

Pedro Flores Crespo Universidad Iberoamericana, 
México 

Mario Rueda Beltrán Instituto de Investigaciones sobre 
la Universidad y la Educación, UNAM  México   

Verónica García Martínez Universidad Juárez 
Autónoma de Tabasco, México 

José Luis San Fabián Maroto Universidad de Oviedo, 
España 

Francisco F. García Pérez Universidad de Sevilla, 
España 

Yengny Marisol Silva Laya Universidad 
Iberoamericana, México 

Edna Luna Serrano  Universidad Autónoma de Baja 
California, México 

Aida Terrón Bañuelos Universidad de Oviedo, España 

Alma Maldonado  Departamento de Investigaciones 
Educativas, Centro de Investigación y de Estudios 
Avanzados, México 

Jurjo Torres Santomé Universidad de la Coruña, 
España   

Alejandro Márquez Jiménez Instituto de 
Investigaciones sobre la Universidad y la Educación, 
UNAM  México 

Antoni Verger Planells University of Amsterdam, 
Holanda   

José Felipe Martínez Fernández  University of 
California Los Angeles, USA 

Mario Yapu Universidad Para la Investigación 
Estratégica, Bolivia   

 
 



E ducation Policy A nalysis A rchives  V ol. 21 N o. 78 30 
 

arquivos analíticos de políticas educativas 
conselho editorial 

Editor:  Gustavo E. Fischman (Arizona State University) 
Editores Associados: Rosa Maria Bueno Fisher e Luis A. Gandin  

(Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul) 
 
Dalila Andrade de Oliveira Universidade Federal de 

Minas Gerais, Brasil 
Jefferson Mainardes Universidade Estadual de Ponta 

Grossa, Brasil 
Paulo Carrano Universidade Federal Fluminense, Brasil Luciano Mendes de Faria Filho Universidade Federal 

de Minas Gerais, Brasil 
Alicia Maria Catalano de Bonamino Pontificia 

Universidade Católica-Rio, Brasil 
Lia Raquel Moreira Oliveira Universidade do Minho, 

Portugal 
Fabiana de Amorim Marcello Universidade Luterana 

do Brasil, Canoas, Brasil 
Belmira Oliveira Bueno Universidade de São Paulo, 

Brasil 
Alexandre Fernandez Vaz Universidade Federal de 

Santa Catarina, Brasil 
António Teodoro Universidade Lusófona, Portugal 

Gaudêncio Frigotto Universidade do Estado do Rio de 
Janeiro, Brasil 

Pia L. Wong California State University Sacramento, 
U.S.A 

Alfredo M Gomes Universidade Federal de 
Pernambuco, Brasil 

Sandra Regina Sales Universidade Federal Rural do Rio 
de Janeiro, Brasil 

Petronilha Beatriz Gonçalves e Silva Universidade 
Federal de São Carlos, Brasil 

Elba Siqueira Sá Barreto Fundação Carlos Chagas, 
Brasil 

Nadja Herman Pontificia Universidade Católica –Rio 
Grande do Sul, Brasil 

Manuela Terrasêca Universidade do Porto, Portugal 

José Machado Pais Instituto de Ciências Sociais da 
Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal 

Robert Verhine Universidade Federal da Bahia, Brasil 

Wenceslao Machado de Oliveira Jr. Universidade 
Estadual de Campinas, Brasil 

Antônio A. S. Zuin Universidade Federal de São Carlos, 
Brasil