“Insofar as students benefit from peer effects in classrooms, corridors, and clubs, and insofar as being surrounded by other smart kids challenges these students (and wards off allegations of "nerdiness"), schools with overall cultures of high academic attainment are apt to yield more such benefits.” (Finn and Hockett, p.16)

“Many have ties with outside organizations, including universities, labs, and businesses, which bring expertise and some resources into the school, afford it some political protection, and supply it with venues for student internships and independent projects. Some schools are also viewed as magnets for economic development and talent recruitment for their community or state. School-board members and district leaders believe that the presence of the school encourages middle and upper-middle-class families to stay in town and stick with public education.” (Finn, 14)

“Leaders of these schools felt doubly vulnerable as attention—and resources—were concentrated on low-performing schools and students. ("Smart kids will do fine, regardless, and in any case are not today's priority" was the undertone they picked up.) Many had become accustomed to having at least some extra resources, often for transportation or smaller classes.” (Finn, 13)

-” While some schools benefit from certain categorical funds (e.g., magnet dollars, STEM, or tech-voc dollars), many don't qualify for other state and federal programs, such as Title I, bilingual education, and special education. Most engage in supplementary private fundraising to sustain resources for transportation, smaller classes, or other school features to which they and their students, parents, and teachers are accustomed.” (Finn, 13)

Offers a lot of AP courses

Standardize

“Proponents of single-sex education generally (and the sex difference approach in particular) have benefited from the limited capacity of intermediate scrutiny analysis to challenge sex-role stereotypes.” (Williams, p.573)

“At the same time, the logic of intersectionality has been skillfully exploited to divide potential allies and to delegitimize critics of sex-role stereotyping by equating opposition to single sex public education with indifference to the critical lack of educational opportunities available to economically disadvantaged students.” (Williams, p.574)

“Since its emergence in the late 1980s, the movement for single-sex public education has placed the needs of disadvantaged children at its rhetorical center.”

“while single-sex programs in the past were based on old-fashioned stereotypes concerning the inherent aptitudes and capacities of boys and girls, current single-sex initiatives rest on valid observations about sex-based learning differences” (Williams, p.575)

"In Part II, I consider why existing constitutional and statutory prohibitions on sex-role stereotyping have not proven more effective in limiting public education programs that promote gender essentialism.” (Williams, p.564)

“the single-sex public education movement continues to be stymied by lingering ambiguity concerning the scope and reach of constitutional equal protection analysis as it applies to K-12 public schools.” (Williams, p.564)

• “The prevailing juridical conception of stereotyping centers upon the connection between generalizing and discrimination. The basic idea is that when overbroad generalizations are made, individuals who fall outside the classification are denied opportunities.” (Williams, p.567)

“To satisfy the demands of equal protection analysis, a sex-based classification must be "substantially related to achievement of [important governmental] objectives." The Court has consistently emphasized that "archaic and overbroad generalizations" about the inherent nature, talents, capacities, or appropriate social roles of the sexes will not be tolerated.” (Williams, p.567)

“This article has considered how proponents of the sex difference approach have negotiated anti-stereotyping norms, highlighting the use of scientific rhetoric to affirm the reality of sex differences. At the same time, discourses of racial and economic disadvantage have been mustered to undermine potential coalitions between anti-racist and feminist activists. In formulating a response, the anti-stereotyping principle cannot simply be reiterated, but it also must be reconceived to address the social construction of sex. Resistance to the biologization of masculinity must be formulated in the context of an awareness of the political mobilization of identities articulated through multiple modes of subordination” (Williams, p.579)