DC school leaders point to the large achievement gap in its schools between boys of color and other students, including females of color.
This post was published on the now-closed HuffPost Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work and posted freely to our site. If you need to flag this entry as abusive, send us an email.

All-Boys Public School
Recently, the Washington DC public school system announced its intent to open an all-male high school focusing on serving the needs of adolescent males of color. The DC public schools' leadership points to the success of similar schools operating within the Chicago public school system as partial justification. But mostly, DC school leaders point to the large achievement gap in its schools between boys of color and other students, including females of color.

Although, after changes to Title IX in 2006, single gender public education is allowed, the move has drawn -- and may draw more -- criticism and discussion, especially from those concerned with gender equality and potential loss of focus on female students' needs and women's issues.

Cautionary Voice
Notwithstanding this important gender equity debate, this article raises a cautionary voice on potentially mistaking beneficial programs as substitute for fundamental solutions. There may be a seductive attraction to focus on special programs and limited scope interventions -- because they may show immediate or easily measured outcomes -- but which may be diminishing a focus or commitment to addressing and solving the systemic reasons that give rise for the need for such interventions. Special programs for disadvantaged boys may be significantly beneficial and can play a role in assisting and informing a broader systemic solution, but they are not likely to be a substitute for a true systemic solution -- which admittedly may not be imminent, agreed upon, or currently clear.

Gender Segregation as Benefit
Many of those concerned with gender equity and feminist issues strongly reject the notion that gender segregation can positively add to gender equality; and many social justice advocates are highly skeptical of race segregated education approaches, which appear to be reversing the hard won gains of the Civil Rights Movement. As valid as these concerns may be, there does seem to be solid evidence that beneficial findings associated with gender segregation in certain situations and conditions are real. And males of color - especially poor, black males -- appear to benefit the most.

Why Special Attention for Boys of Color
A set of facts are quite disturbing and are essentially undisputed among most stakeholders: boys and men of color - particularly African American boys and men - have the highest dropout rates, lowest academic achievement, and the least education attainment among both sexes and all races and ethnicities. Even though no single special program or limited interventions may create the necessary systemic solution, the appalling plight of poor boys of color may be only adequately addressable or mitigated with some form of dedicated focus, a tailored approach, or special resources, especially in the short term. Moreover, placing attention in one area or for the benefit of a particular group does not necessarily take away focus from another area or group; giving boys of color special attention need not take away vital attention from girls of any color.

Limits of Programs
Although positive and potentially very beneficial and needed, special programs for boys of color are not likely a sufficient and fully effective strategy to address the complete range of problems and conditions that these boys face, especially those in the lowest socioeconomic segments (SES). The problems facing males of color and children from low SES conditions appear to be to a great extent systemic in nature, rather than situational, transactional, individual, and transitory. This implies that a special program is unlikely to fundamentally solve their problems. Plucking out a lucky few boys or providing a positive environment in one place for a short time does not and cannot address the systemic problems of poverty, failed family dynamics, destructive peer cultures, the lack of economic opportunity, and declining longitudinal, sustained, available resources throughout the educational trajectory.

History as Example
Special programs can and do have a role in any systemic solution. For example, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was a systemic solution to the problem of unequal access to the Constitutional right to vote. Special programs to register minority and low SES voters assisted this larger systemic solution. But such programs and interventions by themselves had been, and would have continued to be, ineffective in permanently solving voting disenfranchisement of minorities in the absence of the Voting Rights Act -- a systemic solution.

Persistent Disparity
When underlying conditions between groups are too disparate, there may not be an equality of opportunity across such extreme conditions. This may be the case with the disparities of condition for males of color. Therefore, education opportunity for them may not be adequately met by simply offering a one-size-fits-all free public education unless some of their underlying systemic conditions are addressed or mitigated.

Given the general realities of disparities which continue to persist across generations for segments of American society, special focus on the conditions and problems facing males of color may be very appropriate and justified, especially based the longitudinal sustained nature of the facts of high dropout rates and low education attainment among this social segment.

Need for Solutions Beyond Interventions
Programs and interventions, such as the all-male public high school about to open in Washington DC, may be justified, beneficial, and worthy of cautious applause. But we should use even greater caution in thinking that these programs are likely to meaningfully mitigate or permanently solve the appalling educational failings and outcomes among the majority of some males of color.

Since education must necessarily address the range of individual student needs, a focus on boys need not take away from any needed focus on girls, and most certainly, the needs of both must be incorporated into any viable systemic solution -- a solution worth striving for.

Like and share this article via Facebook, Twitter, or LinkedIn.

Joel L. A. Peterson is the national award-winning author of the novel, "Dreams of My Mothers" (Huff Publishing Associates, March, 2015).

Compelling, candid, exceptionally well written, 'Dreams of My Mothers' is a powerful read that will linger in the mind and memory long after it is finished. Very highly recommended. -- Midwest Book Review

For more articles by the author, become a fan by clicking the "fan" button at the top of the page.

Learn more about the author and his book at:
www.dreamsofmymothers.com
On Facebook

Popular in the Community

Close

What's Hot