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