Advice for Next Year

• Find out about warrants and hmm . . . what was that other thing?? Something plus something equals . . . Who remembers?
• Wear a tie!
• More time working on final speeches
• Write up standard rebuttals for standard arguments
• Get started with class before Spring break (because of all the WASL interruptions)

Congratulations to Lincoln (okay, and Madison too)

First Place
Nick Catino and Eric Diaz (Madison Elementary)

Second Place
Roland Farrell and Peter Whidden (Lincoln)

Third Place
Mariah Zavala and Abigail Ferguson (Lincoln)

Debate this Thursday (we're getting closer)

Well, well, well . . . We have been working very hard on our debate and persuasive speeches and we are ready to rock and roll!!! So to speak.

Anyway, the debate is this Thursday. Here are some reminders:
- The debate goes from 3:00 to 8:30. I know, isn’t it hideous? The debate rounds begin at 3:30, registration from 3:00 to 3:30 and the awards assembly starting about 8 pm.
- Please bring $5 for our catered dinner and your permission slip
- Students should arrive at 3:00 (yep, right after school! If they walk over they should have time to make it).
- Each team participates in three debates

- Partners must arrive as well. NO CHILD MAY DEBATE ALONE. We know what a drag this is, because this makes each child totally dependant on their debate partner, but these are the rules. So . . . there it is.
- Please bring healthy snacks to share with the Lincoln team. We will have a Lincoln table where we set stuff out. The healthier, the better.
- Please feel free to attend as many of the debates as possible.
- Students will receive their debate evaluations the following day. These will include notes from the judges and score.

We have been working very hard!!! Thanks for all of your support.

If you have any questions concerning debate, feel free to call me at school 428-6135 ex. 2800 or call one of us at home (Vaughn) 540-0456.

Teresa Vaughn

Tips from last year's teams and judges

Address your problem and solution in your opening statement
Make sense
Make eye contact
Speak slowly and clearly
Be polite to others
Strong conclusion
Good note-taking
Nothing rude
Nothing inappropriate
Breathe
Powerful opening and closing
Shake hands with opposite team and judge, right hand
Rebut EVERYTHING
Stay calm
Stress larger arguments and get rid of smaller ones
Quote 3-4 sources at least
Be prepared and organized
Have an alternate plan for the problem
Don’t act nervous
Know court cases very well
Use statistics
Carry your main arguments
A little humor is ok
Start to rebut right away
Explain arguments
Go over arguments again at the end
Impact analysis (what is more important)
Address the arguments you are rebutting
Point be point argumentation
Don’t drop key issues
Analyze evidence

List of single sex schools and their successes

http://www.singlesexschools.org/schools-schools.htm

Thanks Roland!!

Sexual Harassment and Bullying actually increases

J. Jackson (2002) All boys schools create a "macho, male culture where boys are more distracted by each other than they are by girls"

S. Askew and C. Ross (1990) in the book Boys Don't cry: Boys and Sexism in Education says that there is increased harassment and bullying in all boys schools

Michele Paludi (1990) found that same-sex bullying and sexual harassment is just as prevalent in single gender schools as in mixed gender schools.

Summary of All the Evidence (helps both sides)

K-12 Single-Sex Education: What Does the Research Say?
Author: Pamela Haag Source: Educational Resource Information Center (U.S. Department of Education)
Interest in single-sex education has been reinvigorated by the educational reform movement and by skepticism about whether the coeducational environment fosters equitable treatment of boys and girls. However, the "for" or "against" stance that shapes popular literature on single-sex education is misleading because assessments of single-sex education's success or failure are contingent on (1) stakeholders' goals; (2) indicators of success used; (3) historical context; and (4) issues of selection bias, especially in the United States, where single-sex schools are overwhelmingly private. Although research on the effects of K-12 single-sex education is inconclusive in general, some common themes emerge in the research literature. This Digest reviews that research with particular attention to effects on girls' attitudes and achievement.
Attitudinal Variables Self-Esteem
Studies of the effect of school type on girls' self-esteem suggest that the sources of self-esteem for girls may differ in single-sex and coeducational schools. Studies that have found higher self-esteem for girls in the single-sex, as compared with the mixed-sex, environment have typically used multidimensional measures composed of subcategories such as academic, athletic, and social esteem. These studies' findings suggest that levels of girls' esteem in these individual subcategories-but not their general self-concept or global self- esteem-may differ between single-sex and mixed-sex environments.
For example, Cairns (1990) investigated self-esteem and locus of control (an individual's sense of how environment hinders or facilitates her or his goals) for students in secondary schools in Northern Ireland. He used a multidimensional measure of "self- esteem" made up of four subcategories--social, cognitive, athletic, and general--and concluded that single-sex schools are associated with benefits in self-esteem and locus of control, cautioning that his findings of higher esteem may be confined to cognitive self-concept. In another study from Northern Ireland, Granleese and Joseph (1993) deployed a domain-specific self- concept measure in their study of girls from one single-sex and one coed secondary school. Girls at the single-sex school were less critical of their own behavioral conduct than girls in the mixed school. This lack of criticism was the single best predictor of global self-worth in the all-girls' school. In the mixed-sex school, physical appearance was the single best predictor of degree of global self-worth.
On the other hand, Brutsaert and Bracke (1994) found little effect of school type in their study of sixth-grade girls and boys in Belgian elementary schools. While girls and boys seemed unaffected by the gender organization of the school, boys were negatively affected by a preponderance of female teachers on staff, which lowered boys' overall sense of well-being. Smith's (1996) 10-year study of students' attitudes and achievement in one all-boys' and one all-girls' high school in Australia that had made the transition to coeducation found that both girls' and boys' self-concept declined initially but after 5 years increased to a level above that which was measured when the students were in single-sex classrooms.
Attitudes Toward Academic Subjects
Several studies found that girls in single-sex schools may have stronger preferences for subjects such as math and physics than their coeducated peers. Mallam (1993) found that students in all-girls' Nigerian schools favored math more than girls in coed Nigerian public boarding schools, particularly when mathematics was taught by female teachers. Finally, Colley et al. (1994) surveyed British students (ages 11-12 and 15-16 years) from single-sex girls' and boys' schools and coeducational schools, asking them to rank their school subject preferences. In the younger age group, girls from single-sex schools showed stronger preferences than their coed peers for stereotypical "masculine" subjects such as mathematics and science, and boys from single-sex schools showed stronger preferences for stereotypical "feminine" subjects such as music and art.
Achievement Variables
Research findings are ambiguous concerning the effects of single-sex schools on girls' achievement. For many studies that did find gaps favoring girls in single-sex schools, once findings were adjusted for socioeconomic or ability variables, these differences diminished. For example, Harker and Nash (1997) used data gathered in a longitudinal study of more than 5,000 eighth- grade students in New Zealand and controlled for individual characteristics (such as socioeconomic status) and school type. As with other studies, the researchers confirmed statistically significant differences in favor of girls at single-sex schools. Yet after applying controls for ability levels and for social and ethnic backgrounds, differences disappeared. LePore and Warren (1997), using data from the National Educational Longitudinal Study of 1988, found that boys in single-sex schools did not increase their test scores more than boys in coeducational schools and that girls experienced no statistically significant positive effects of single-sex school enrollment.
Studies that have found positive achievement outcomes attributable to the single-sex environment have all dealt with single-sex schools rather than classes. A study by Riordan (1990) used longitudinal data to clarify the effects of single-sex education on different populations and curricular areas. Riordan conducted separate analyses for students by sex and race on academic and attitudinal outcomes. He discovered that among African American and Hispanic American students attending Catholic secondary schools, both males and females in single-sex schools scored higher on standardized cognitive tests than their peers in mixed-sex schools. To explain the differences, Riordan applied a set of school variables as controls. He argued that policies in single-sex schools that emphasize the academic side of these variables explained virtually all of the test score differences between the two types of schools. Both males and females in single-sex schools also gained on attitudinal variables such as leadership behavior, but much less of this difference was explained by school variables.
Lee and Marks (1990) investigated the "sustained effects" of single-sex schools on attitudes, behaviors, and values. They discovered that women who had attended single-sex schools had higher educational aspirations and were more likely than their coed counterparts to attend selective four-year colleges. However, after controls were applied for attendance at a selective college, effects on young women's aspirations disappeared, leading the researchers to conclude that single-sex education may be an indirect influence that facilitates entry into a select college in the first place. The study found that girls educated in single-sex schools continued to hold less stereotypic views of gender roles into college.
Lee and Lockheed's (1990) study of 1,012 students in ninth-grade Nigerian public schools measured mathematics achievement and stereotypic views of mathematics. Analyzing data drawn from the Second International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement, Lee and Lockheed found no significant gender gap between mathematics scores of Nigerian boys and girls, once other variables were taken into account. But girls in single-sex schools outperformed other girls in mathematics, while boys in single-sex schools did the reverse, after the study adjusted for substantial differences in student background, school resources, and teacher attitudes. As in other studies, girls in single-sex schools had a less stereotypical view of math, while boys in single-sex schools had magnified stereotypes of the subject.
Summary
Studies of attitudinal variables yielded some consistent findings, including differences in specific domains of self- concept between girls in single- and mixed-sex schools (but no overall differences), and findings that support the view that single-sex contexts foster less stereotypical views of subjects. Studies also concur that students perceive single-sex school environments to be more orderly.
Studies finding positive achievement effects attributable to school type tend to view their findings as specific to certain contexts and group characteristics (including socioeconomic status). Some studies recognize that some single-sex schools are "doing something different" that may be reproducible in the coeducational context. These studies view policy and training interventions as particularly valuable.
Other studies have not claimed positive achievement effects for single-sex programs. Although research finds that girls view the single-sex classroom as more conducive to learning, research fails to confirm significant gain in girls' math and science achievement in the single-sex classroom.
Finally, the research, while inconsistent in its assessments of whether single-sex education is "better" than coeducation for girls, does reveal areas of consensus on specific indicators, which may serve as starting points for further research into how single-sex schools affect educational outcomes.
This Digest was adapted from: Haag, Pamela. (1998). Single-sex education in grades K-12: What does the research tell us? In American Association of University Women Educational Foundation, Separated by sex: A critical look at single-sex education for girls. Washington, DC: Author.
For More Information
Brutsaert, H., & Bracke, P. (1994). Gender context of the elementary school: Sex differences in affecting outcomes. EDUCATIONAL STUDIES, 20(1), 3-11. EJ 492 031.
Cairns, E. (1990). The relationship between adolescent perceived self-competence and attendance at single-sex secondary school. BRITISH JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY, 60, 210.
Colley, A., Comber, C., & Hargreaves, D. J. (1994). School subject preferences of pupils in single-sex and co-educational secondary schools. EDUCATIONAL STUDIES, 20(3), 379-385. EJ 507 527.
Granleese, J., & Joseph, S. (1993). Self-perception profile of adolescent girls at a single-sex and a mixed-sex school. JOURNAL OF GENETIC PSYCHOLOGY, 60, 210.
Harker, R., & Nash, R. (1997, March). SCHOOL TYPE AND EDUCATION OF GIRLS: CO-ED OR GIRLS ONLY? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago. ED 410 633.
Leder, G. C., & Forgasz, H. J. (1994, April). SINGLE-SEX MATHEMATICS CLASSES IN A CO-EDUCATIONAL SETTING: A CASE STUDY. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans. ED 372 946.
Lee, V. E., & Lockheed, M. M. (1990). The effects of single-sex schooling on achievement and attitudes in Nigeria. COMPARATIVE EDUCATIONAL REVIEW, 34(2), 209-231. EJ 412 239.
Lee, V. E., & Marks, H. M. (1990). Sustained effects of the single-sex secondary school experience on attitudes, behaviors, and sex differences. JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY, 82(3), 588.
LePore, P. C., & Warren, J. R. (1997). A comparison of single-sex and coeducational Catholic secondary schooling: Evidence from the National Educational Longitudinal Study of 1988. AMERICAN EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH JOURNAL, 34(3), 485-511. EJ 551 431.
Mallam, W. A. (1993). Impact of school-type and sex of the teacher on female students' attitudes toward mathematics in Nigerian secondary schools. EDUCATIONAL STUDIES IN MATHEMATICS, 24(2), 223-229. EJ 476 667.
Riordan, C. (1990). Single gender schools: Outcomes for African and Hispanic Americans. In RESEARCH IN THE SOCIOLOGY OF EDUCATION AND SOCIALIZATION (Vol. 18, pp. 177-205). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Smith, I. D. (1996, August). THE IMPACT OF COEDUCATIONAL SCHOOLING ON STUDENT SELF-CONCEPT AND ACHIEVEMENT. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the International Society for the Study of Behavioral Development, Quebec. ED 400 090.

Ms. Vaughn's thoughts on the NY Times article

Well, hmmm. . . . The author of the article clearly doesn't like single gender schools or Dr. Sax, the main pro-single gender schools guy.

She brings up a few ways to rebut information that comes from Dr. Sax:

• Sax is a doctor, not a teacher. He has no training in education. He should stick to doing what he knows how to do
• Basing single gender schools on brain research is dangerous: There are just too many exceptions to the rules. If we say that boys and girls learn differently ON AVERAGE, that doesn't mean that ALL boys and ALL girls learn different. In fact, the research shows that many, many many boys and girls would be harmed by this approach. In case you aren't familiar, the Sax approach is that boys and girls have different brains and learn differently, so we need to teach them differently. For example, girls' classrooms should be set up in a circle so girls can relate to one another while boys should have more of an opportunity to move around. Well, lots of boys would learn well in circles and lots of girls would enjoy moving around more! There are TOO MANY EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE!!
• Title IX (nine) is federal law that says schools cannot discriminate on the basis of sex. It also says that single gender schools MUST BE VOLUNTARY. Forcing everyone is not voluntary and would clearly violate the law.

The article does a good job summarizing the two sides of the argument. Dr. Sax rebuts the article on his website if you're affirmative (www.singlesexschools.org)

Great rebutting evidence quote for the negative!! (also great for affirmative if you ignore the last sentence!)

(Again, New York Times, March 2, 2008)



Foley, population 11,300, is 10 miles from the Gulf Coast. Fifty-seven percent of Foley Intermediate’s students are white, 24 percent are black and 17 percent are Latino; 70 percent receive free or reduced-price lunches each day. In the first year of Foley’s single-sex program, a third of the kids enrolled. The next year, two-thirds signed up, and in its third year 87 percent of parents requested the program. Principal Mansell reports that her single-sex classes produce fewer discipline problems, more parental support and better scores in writing, reading and math. She does, however, acknowledge that her data are compromised, as her highest-performing teachers and her most-motivated students have chosen single-sex.

Main Arguments Against Single Sex Schools

(from the New York Times, March 2, 2008)

The two camps face a common enemy in the A.C.L.U., which opposes all single-sex public education. (When I asked a lawyer at the A.C.L.U.’s Women’s Rights Project why, she said, “Have you ever heard of Title IX?” referring to the 1972 Education Amendments that outlaw all discrimination in educational programs on the basis of sex.) But that hasn’t brought the two sides together. “What kind of message does it give when you tell a group of kids that boys and girls need to be separated because they don’t even see or hear alike?” asks Rosemary Salomone, a legal scholar at St. John’s University School of Law. Salomone is especially invested in the debate, as she provided support to T.Y.W.L.S. before it opened in 1996 and was subsequently tapped by the United States Department of Education to draft the revised regulations that made it easier for districts to separate boys from girls. Those regulations now require that a district “provide a rationale,” review its program every two years and ensure that enrollment in single-sex classrooms is voluntary. When Salomone revised the regulations, she thought they would usher in a flurry of schools of the T.Y.W.L.S. — not the Sax — variety. She was wrong. “As one of the people who let the horse out the barn, I’m now feeling like I really need to watch that horse,” Salomone told me over lunch near her home in Rye, N.Y., last month. “Every time I hear of school officials selling single-sex programs to parents based on brain research, my heart sinks.”

Two main camps of Pro Single Sex schoolers

Dr. Leonard Sax

(Source: New York Times, March 2, 2008)

Among advocates of single-sex public education, there are two camps: those who favor separating boys from girls because they are essentially different and those who favor separating boys from girls because they have different social experiences and social needs. Leonard Sax represents the essential-difference view, arguing that boys and girls should be educated separately for reasons of biology: for example, Sax asserts that boys don’t hear as well as girls, which means that an instructor needs to speak louder in order for the boys in the room to hear her; and that boys’ visual systems are better at seeing action, while girls are better at seeing the nuance of color and texture.

The social view is represented by teachers like Emily Wylie, who works at the Young Women’s Leadership School of East Harlem (T.Y.W.L.S.), an all-girls school for Grades 7-12. Wylie described her job to me by saying, “It’s my subversive mission to create all these strong girls who will then go out into the world and be astonished when people try to oppress them.” Sax calls schools like T.Y.W.L.S. “anachronisms” — because, he says, they’re stuck in 1970s-era feminist ideology and they don’t base their pedagogy on the latest research. Few on the other side want to disparage Sax publicly, though T.Y.W.L.S.’s founder, Ann Tisch, did tell me pointedly, “Nobody is planning the days of our girls around a photograph of a brain.”

Stats on number of single sex public schools

Source: New York Times, March 2, 2008 (Elizabeth Weil)

In 1995, there were two single-sex public schools operating in this country. Currently, there are 49, and 65 percent of those have opened in the last three years. Nobody is keeping exact count of the number of schools offering single-sex classrooms, but Sax estimates that in the fall of 2002, only about a dozen public schools in the United States offered any kind of single-sex educational options (excluding schools which offered single-sex classrooms only in health or physical education). By this past fall, Sax says, that number had soared to more than 360, with boys- and girls-only classrooms now established in Cleveland; Detroit; Albany; Gary, Ind.; Philadelphia; Dallas; and Nashville, among other places. A disproportionate number of the schools are in the South (where attitudes toward gender roles tend to be more conservative) or serve disadvantaged kids. Sax claims that “many more are in the pipeline for 2008-2009.”

Print this and make a sheet. Is it affirmative or negative?? Hmmm . . . I'd say it's mostly affirmative, showing that schools all through the country are becoming single gender schools.

Great Article for the Negative

Here's a link to the New York Times article that came out last week saying that single sex schools are a bad idea.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/magazine/02sex3-t.html?_r=1&ref=magazine&oref=slogin

(Thanks to Casey again!)

Argh!! Help!!! Anyone find research that shows the single sex schools don't work?

I know it bombed in California. Anyone find any other studies they want to share???

Single Sex Schools Improve Scores!!!!

Thanks to Casey for this one. http://www.singlesexschools.org/evidence.html
Casey says "Researchers at Stetson University have completed a three year study which proves that test scores in single sex schools go up by 50% for boys and 20% for girls. The study shows that the average person in a single sex school would pass their "WASL", while in the co-ed schools many do not even pass the standardized test."
And guess what? An update to the study was completed in 2008. How recent is that????

Single Gender Schools in California Failed!!

Here's the link:

http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/571/context/cover/

This article comes from Ian Laursen. It shows how the biggest experiment in single sex schools in the United States ended in failure 8 years ago. Not only did they not improve things, but there were actually more problems!!! Thanks Ian for sharing!!!

Okay, help for the negatives is here!!!

1NC (that's the first negative speaker's opening speech)

You have a few different ways to go here. You could say that the PROBLEM IS SMALL, there isn't really a problem (no achievement gap? no harassment problems? test scores are fine? OR you could say the SOLUTION WILL NOT WORK or even better THE SOLUTION WILL MAKE THE PROBLEM WORSE. Finally you should list ADDITIONAL PROBLEMS THAT WILL BE CREATED if we choose single sex schools.

I recommend you divide your ideas into different paragraphs.

For example:
Paragraph 1 (blue and green only)
Short, stating that we should not have single sex schools. Briefly summarizing why, summarizing your yellows, but with no evidence (reds).

Paragraph 2: First yellow with all the reds
The PROBLEM that people are trying to address is that girls don't achieve as well in schools, right? Well, the evidence shows that girls are actually achieving better than boys these days. So, you could write "insert evidence here that shows there is no reason to have a single sex school because girls are doing as well as or better than boys" Also, show that single sex schools will not solve the problem, even if there was one. Research! You must have research that shows that single sex schools don't in fact help scores or improve bullying or whatever. Don't worry if you don't have that evidence tonight. Just leave a space for where you will eventually insert the evidence.

Paragraph 3: Second yellow with all the reds
Could be that you think it is illegal. Provide all the evidence from the 14th amendment, Brown v Board of Education, and the Virginia Military Institute case. When you write it tonight just leave a section that says "insert more evidence about court cases here"

Paragraph 4:
In this paragraph, you're going to argue that not only will the single sex schools not solve the problem, they will make it worse. Find quotes that suggest this. Divisive?? Prove it. (AGain, remember you can leave out the reds if you can't find them tonight. Just leave a spot that says "insert evidence or examples here"

Paragraph 5:
Restate your original reasons. I have shown that not only will single sex schools not help, they will actually make it worse (not exactly that, but in your words and with a summary of the research)

Why can't I find the No Child Left Behind Act?

A lot of you are having trouble finding the text of the No Child Left Behind Act. Well, one possible reason is that while it is known as "No Child Left Behind" it is actually called the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA).

Here's the gist of what's important for our debate (notice the big purple bit later on):

Note: Don't get confused by the difference between single sex schools and single sex classes at co-ed schools. These are different! Make sure you understand the difference!

Resource: Education World, 2004
http://www.education-world.com/a_issues/NELB/NELB078.shtml


No Educator Left Behind:Single-Sex Education
No Educator Left Behind is a series providing answers from the U.S. Department of Education to questions about the federal No Child Left Behind Act and how it will affect educators. If you have a question about No Child Left Behind, send an e-mail to Ellen Delisio, and we will submit your question to the Department of Education.
Question:
Under NCLB, are schools allowed to have single-sex classrooms or schools?
U.S. Department of Education:
On March 3, 2004, the Department of Education proposed to clarify its regulations regarding when single-sex classes and schools are permitted at the elementary and secondary school levels.
In issuing this proposal, the department is, in large part, continuing the bipartisan language co-authored by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) in the No Child Left Behind Act that allows public school districts to use federal funds for single-sex schools and classes. The proposal gives more flexibility to educators to provide a wide range of educational programs and more options for parents, while neither encouraging nor favoring single-sex education.
The proposal addresses two specific areas -- single-sex classes and single-sex schools. With regard to classes, current regulations prohibit school districts (and private schools that receive federal assistance) from offering single-sex classes except in areas involving physical education, sex education, or chorus. The proposed changes would allow these schools and districts to offer single-sex classes when the single-sex nature of the class is substantially related (a) to providing a diversity of educational options or (b) to meeting the particular, identified needs of students.
Under the proposal, schools and districts must treat male and female students evenhandedly in providing single-sex classes. Student participation in single-sex classes would be on a voluntary basis. A substantially equal coeducational class in the same subject always would be required. Schools and districts would be required to evaluate single-sex classes periodically to ensure consistency with these nondiscrimination requirements.
While currently a school district may provide a single-sex public school when it offers comparable benefits and opportunities to students of the other sex in another school, the department has interpreted this provision to require two comparable single-sex schools, one for boys and one for girls. The proposed change would clarify that a district that provides a single-sex public school may offer the required substantially equal benefits and opportunities to students of the other sex in either a single-sex school or coeducational school. There would be an exemption to the requirement to provide either a single-sex school or coeducational school for students of the other sex for single-sex public charter schools that are single-school district.

A Local Girl's School

There is a local girl's school opening this fall in Bellingham. Researching the school and why it's opening might give some good insight into your arguments. The school's name is Fairhaven Girl's School and the website is http://fairhavengirlsschool.org/. Maybe some of you could contact the creators of the school and ask them about it.
Ms. McKell

Affirmative Article for those struggling with finding one

The case for single-sex schools
Rosemary Salomone says families of all incomes should at least have the option of one-sex schools
By Stacy A. Teicher Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
The 1990s was a crossroads decade for single-sex education. Female cadets marched their way into two previously all-male public colleges - the Virginia Military Institute and the Citadel in South Carolina. At the same time, urban school districts from Detroit to New York tried to provide the option of a single-sex environment.
Rosemary Salomone didn't know she was soon to become an expert on the subject. The professor at St. John's University School of Law in New York was called upon for legal advice by the founder of the Young Women's Leadership School in Harlem. The public school, which emphasizes math and science, opened in 1996 with 50 seventh-grade girls. Surviving the threat of lawsuits, it gradually expanded through 12th grade and inspired the founding of an all-girls charter school in Chicago.
“Sometimes to achieve equal educational opportunity, we have to provide different kinds of opportunity.” — Rosemary Salomone MELANIE STETSON FREEMAN - STAFF

Dr. Salomone's research took her far beyond Harlem - through Supreme Court cases, ideological debates, and the intricacies of Title IX, the law that bans sex discrimination in federally funded education. It took her to high schools in Philadelphia and Baltimore that had retained their long-standing all-girl status as the country went coed.
In her new book, "Same, Different, Equal: Rethinking Single-Sex Education" (Yale University Press), she argues that there is a place for single-sex education in the public realm. In 2002, Congress agreed, adding a provision to the No Child Left Behind law permitting single-sex programs. Clearer guidance on what districts need to do to make sure such programs comply with Title IX is due this summer.
As she awaited the guidelines, Salomone spoke with the Monitor over the phone from her home in Rye, N.Y. Excerpts follow.
How did your experience in a single-sex school influence your views?
Every teacher was a woman - many of them were nuns. There wasn't the traditional gender polarization that often happens in coed schools. Any girl could be president of the student government or editor in chief of the newspaper. We had a winning basketball team. And you went to school not worried about how you looked. It gave you the sense of limitless possibilities.
When I was visiting the all-girls schools, girls would say: "Yes, we believe that the single-sex aspect of this school is what's important. We're not distracted by boys. We can focus on the academics. We're all like family here; we feel like sisters."
What underlay the opposition to single-sex schools in the 1990s?
There [was] misunderstanding about single-sex schools, a lot of it being a holdover of the finishing-school [image].
Some of the negative feelings were coming from the historical exclusion of women from all-male schools. But with [the students at] these schools [I visited], it was a matter of trying to give them the skills and attitudes and knowledge [that would] lift them up - not just academically, but socially.
I found a very clear division within the ranks of women who would consider themselves feminists. Very often, women supporting these schools had attended a single-sex college or high school. [Opponents] had never stepped into a single-sex school. They seemed to be stymied in a certain vision of gender equality based purely on equal treatment and equal access and assimilation, which was very much a part of the women's movement in the 1970s.
Civil rights groups, particularly the ACLU and the National Organization for Women, have opposed single-sex schools. [Some opponents draw] on the Supreme Court decision in 1954 on Brown v. Board of Education. The court said separate is inherently unequal, that it really imposes a badge of inferiority on black children to be told that they cannot attend schools with white children. So the argument [by some] is, well, separate is inherently unequal not only with regard to race, but with any relevant criteria, including sex.
You can't compare these schools to what was going on in the South under forced segregation. Students are volunteering to attend single-sex schools.
How were historical single-sex schools different from the schools you visited recently?
Until the early 1970s in New York City, there was stunning sex segregation in vocational schools. The programs in the girls' schools were sewing and hairdressing, secretarial services, nursing - very traditional women's jobs. The boys' schools focused on automotive skills and aviation, jobs that were more lucrative. As a result of Title IX, those programs became illegal. The schools became coed or were redesigned.
The only single-sex schools that have continued are Philadelphia High School for Girls and Western High School in Baltimore. [These schools will permit boys, but none have asked to attend.]
Why are some educators so eager to set up single-sex options?
We're going on four decades of compensatory programs for at-risk students, particularly in the inner city. Even after allocating significant dollars into changing their academic and social circumstances, those programs have failed to stem this downward spiral.
We have scores of books and articles on how disadvantaged boys just don't identify with academic achievement. They gain their self-esteem from sports or from social popularity. And even disadvantaged minority girls too often seek validation in early motherhood.
The whole school-choice [movement] has created certain healthy expectations in poor parents, that they too have the right to choose the education for their children.
When you talk to the parents of children in these single-sex [public] schools, they feel certain that this is a right decision for their children.
Equal doesn't necessarily mean the same kinds of services have to be provided. Sometimes ... to achieve equal educational opportunity, we have to provide different kinds of opportunity to students.
What about the recent attention to boys falling behind girls academically?
[Some] see the issue as boys [being] disadvantaged or girls [being] disadvantaged. When you look at the data, you'll see that boys and girls are constrained in different ways. Perhaps many girls can benefit from an all-girls school in the middle years. Perhaps some boys can benefit in Kindergarten and grades 1 and 2.
I was so taken by a roomful of middle-school boys playing violin. You'd be hard pressed to see that in a coed school. Boys [in single-sex schools] have opportunities to take a leadership position in what would be considered female activities.

Does Plessy v. Ferguson help the affirmative?

NO. It might sound like it does at first, but it doesn't. Why??? Because Brown v. Board of Education overturned it. The courts ruled in Plessy that it was okay to have separate but equal places to sleep on a train (separated by race). This was in 1896, over 100 years ago. But in 1957 the Supreme Court ruled that "separate but equal is inherently unequal" That was Earl Warren writing the opinion for Brown v Board of Education.

BUT, NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND says that in the cases of gender it is okay to have single sex schools. And that was just 4 years ago!!!

1896
Plessy v. Ferguson was the infamous case that asserted that “equal but separate accommodations” for blacks on railroad cars did not violate the “equal protection under the laws” clause of the 14th Amendment. By defending the constitutionality of racial segregation, the Court paved the way for the repressive Jim Crow laws of the South. The lone dissenter on the Court, Justice John Marshall Harlan, protested, “The thin disguise of ‘equal’ accommodations…will not mislead anyone.”

Opening Paragraphs

Well, the time has come to get serious about our opening paragraphs. Here is the format sent to me by Charlie Potter, the high school debate coach.

1AC (that's the first affirmative speaker's opening speech)

Begin with THE PROBLEM (what is going on in the world that is both harmful and signifiantly important). Ask yourself why we need single sex schools? what problem in society will they solve? harassment? equal protection? raising test scores?? closing the achievement gap? increasing school safety? All of the above??

Next, discuss THE SOLUTION (that means Single Sex Schools!!) This is the sentence we are all debating.

Next, write a series of paragraphs that show that THE SOLUTION WILL WORK. Evidence that single sex schools will in fact work.

1NC (that's the first negative speaker's opening speech)

You have a few different ways to go here. You could say that the PROBLEM IS SMALL, there isn't really a problem (no achievement gap? no harassment problems? test scores are fine? OR you could say the SOLUTION WILL NOT WORK or even better THE SOLUTION WILL MAKE THE PROBLEM WORSE. Finally you should list ADDITIONAL PROBLEMS THAT WILL BE CREATED if we choose single sex schools.

See you all tomorrow! Excellent debating today!!!!

Ms. Vaughn

A Conversation with Alexandria about Private Schools

Alexandria and her Dad brought up a very good point. Let's say some kids in private schools do better in single sex schools. Does that mean kids in public schools will?? Maybe, maybe not. Maybe kids in private schools do better because their parents push them harder, because they are paying money for them to be in school. Mr. Renault (Stephen right??) brings up a point that someone who is rebutting this argument could use. Let's say I am affirmative and I show evidence that kids in single sex schools do better on tests, but those kids were in private schools, . If you are negative you could say that the reason they did better wasn't because they are in single sex schools but that they are in private schools.

This is going to be true in all the cases involving education research, because it is impossible to not have other variables when you are dealing with humans. So let's say I want the kids in my school to do better and I decide to give them a brand new books in math. And sure enough, my scores improve. But , what if in addition to the new books I also spent 20 more minutes a day during math and I gave different and more homework and I used more technology and I changed the way the kids were sitting. Well, now do we know if the new books were what made the difference?? Maybe it was the 20 more minutes?? But I just want the kids to do better I am not going to not make more changes so someone studying this new book can prove their book is good. No, I am going to do everything I can to help the kids. Well, this is exactly what happens in schools. People decide the kids need to do better and they make lots of changes to make the school better. And then no one knows what the one thing was that made the difference. This is an important issue that we will be debating and need to understand. Thanks Alexandria for bringing it up!!

Homework during the WASL

Remember, debaters need to continue researching during these two weeks when reading is canceled due to the WASL. You should have at least 10 sheets (pieces of evidence).

At least 5 of them should relate to the legal issues surrounding single sex schools. I recommend at least one on the fourteenth amendment, and several about court cases such as Brown v Board of Education and the Virginia Military Institute case.

At least 5 should be articles and studies about the effects on achievement. Try to find research, not just opinion. Although opinion articles can help you think of new ideas, you will need to get actual evidence. You want to know the important studies that have examined this question. Do boys and or girls have higher scores on assessments (or other ways to show achievement such as grades) when they are in single sex schools??

If you need help, email me at treevaughn@gmail.com. Also, if you find a site you want to share with the group, let me know and I will add it to the links on this blog. Thanks to Casey and Caytlyn for sending in some links to share!!!

What about bathrooms???

What does the fourteenth amendment say about bathrooms?? Why aren't they illegal???

Well, it's something called the "exceedingly persuasive" standard. That means if you want to segregate by gender, you have to prove that your reason is really good. The courts use an easier standard for race and religious segregation. There you only have to have what is called a "compelling state interest" (a compelling state interest is something that is good for everyone, like safe roads, better education for everyone, or religious freedom). But if you want to segregate by gender, you have to have a much stronger reason.

Good for all of us that personal privacy is considered exceedingly persuasive! We get to have separate bathrooms!!!!! Did anyone ever read "There's a Boy in the Girl's Bathroom?" It's not related, I just loved that book. One of the best in the genre I think. But I digress.

The affirmative is going to have to argue that their reasons to segregate are "exceedingly persuasive". The good news is that it is written in the No Child Left Behind act that single sex schools are okay if they are going to help have "no child left behind". So if you can argue that schools with both boys and girls leave girls behind, meaning they don't score as well, you can use No Child Left Behind to argue.

Fourteenth Amendment

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Vocabulary (in process)
jurisdiction the rules you have to follow, like the State of Washington, Lincoln School
insurrection rebellion
naturalized to become a citizen
provisions A stipulation or qualification, especially a clause in a document or agreement.
judicial legal power
suppressing to put a stop to

abridged shortened, lessened
validity valid; the truth of it
pensions a steady income given to a person(usually in retirement)
emancipation freeing
void nothing; doesn't count
obligations A social, legal, or moral requirement, such as a duty, contract, or promise that compels one to follow or avoid a particular course of action.
incurred To become liable or subject to as a result of one's actions; bring upon oneself
thereof of there
therein in there

Debate May 22, 2008 @ New Main (3 to 8:30)

A'Laisia and Melissa

We have set out debate teams!

Daisia Conrad and Kayla DeLeon

Abigail Ferguson and Mariah Zavala

Ian Laursen and Eugene Kang

Roland Farrell and Peter Whidden

Andrew Baker and Ryan Moena

Abe Nurkiewicz and Casey Goodwin

Emilie Ronhaar and Alexandria Renault

Susie Pollino and Caytlyn McAdam

Joey Estrada and Jason Yarrow

A'Laisia Redden and Melissa Ramos