March Public Forum Topic Analysis

Resolved: Single-gender classrooms would improve the quality of education in American public schools.

The March 2014 topic is an unprecedented opportunity for Public Forum Debate competitors in that gender, as a topic area, has never before been addressed. The novelty of gender analysis may be both valuable and challenging for debaters. Gender as a topic area is valuable because it exposes debaters to new concepts, forms of analysis, and ideas. At the same time, these concepts may be foreign compared to regularly debated topics like military interventionism, drone strikes, and national security. This topic analysis will start by clarifying topical concepts necessary to effectively debate the literature and then discuss specific arguments for and against the resolution.

Concepts

Sex: "[T]he collection of biological traits that result from an individual's chromosomal arrangement, as well as the chromosomal arrangement itself"¹.

Gender Roles: "[T]he socially constructed expectations that persons perceived to be members of a biological sex category will have certain characteristics"². Gender is socially constructed –and gender roles are socially enforced - in many different ways. Some examples include behavior patterns and practices (such as telling boys to play with trucks and girls with dolls), trait association (such as telling boys not to be 'sissies' and telling girls they should be emotionally empathetic), and role Expectations (such as telling girls they ought to be housewives and telling boys they ought to be household breadwinners)

Trans-gendered/trans-sexual: Individuals whose gender identity differs from the sex they were biologically assigned at birth. An example might be a person who "feels" like a woman, but was born in a male body. Trans-gendered individuals may take steps to alter their bodies to appear their "correct" sex, including dressing differently and/or surgical and hormonal treatments.

Sexual Orientation: The type of person sexually desired by an individual. This is distinctive from an individual's gender identity and sex; identity is who one is, while orientation is who one is attracted to.

Stereotype Threat: A term of art in the literature describing the impact stereotypes have on the academic and social success of students. Stereotype threat can be internal, such as when a student internalizes negative stereotypes and performs less successfully, or external, such as when teachers act on stereotypes in a way that hurts students.

With these concepts outlined, we can effectively examine the arguments for both sides.

Edit 3-4-14:

After a thoughtful backchannel by excellent former debater and Harvard student Julia Geiger regarding the term "transgendered", which she noted has been criticized in the trans* community for various reasons (I feel Joanne Herman accurately sums Julia’s concern here. An article taking a different view is available here and I would direct debaters interested in learning more about trans* identity specifically to the 7th paragraph beginning with "when the question of…". That paragraph best sums the academic viewpoint that balances my own.)

Please note – the edges of these terms (and sometimes the core of the terms) are often contested both in the academic literature and by the people whose lives are implicated by them. This is especially true of trans* identity - as Dr. Laura Sjoberg and Dr. Laura Shepherd note:

"Any attempt at providing definitions of these terms (including gender, trans-, tran, genderqueer, cis-) is fraught with the danger of misrepresentation so here we will provide an account only of the ways in which we deploy these terms in this specific contribution."

This article makes a similar choice – to use the terms as debaters will likely encounter them in the literature on this topic. The definitional choices should not be construed as definitive, because they risk marginalizing people who do (or don’t) find the terms as defined here to be an accurate reflection of their identity.

Affirmative Advocacy Different Needs need Different Classrooms

The most common argument for single-gender classrooms is that male and female students learn differently. There is considerable disagreement as to why males and females learn differently, though affirmative debaters can strategically advocate multiple reasons to justify the same conclusion. One branch of the "different needs" thought suggests that boys and girls are "wired" differently, and educationally develop at different paces or in different sequences. The American Psychological Association notes that modern neuroscientific evidence demonstrates several core biological differences between when and how girls and boys learn. They cite a "longitudinal pediatric neuroimaging study led by a team of neuroscientists from the National Institute of Mental Health":³

Using 829 brain scans gathered over two years from 387 subjects from 3 to 27 years old, researchers found several remarkable differences. The occipital lobe, for example — the one most associated with visual processing — shows rapid development in girls 6 to 10 years old, while boys show the largest growth in this region after 14 years old.

This study implies that girls are better suited to visual learning during 1st to 6th grade while boys are better suited to visual learning as they enter high school. The same study found other differences concluding that there are "disparities in language processing between the sexes" as well⁴. Other differences may include structured vs. freeform learning⁵, cooperative vs individual learning⁶, differences in responding to stress and emotion⁷, and the type and quantity of hormonally driven behavior⁸. Single-gender classrooms allow teachers to target educational styles, lesson content, and learning environment to the specific needs of their particular set of students. A second branch of the "different needs" school suggests that boys and girls are socialized differently, and consequently learn differently. Stanford University professor Dr. Carol Dweck argues that the existence of traditional gender roles –and the stereotype threat they cause –can cause girls to react according to different classroom dynamics⁹. Gendered stereotype threat contributes to higher level of self-doubt in girls of elementary school and middle school age. That stereotype threat is especially pronounced in fields where women have been traditionally excluded, such as science, engineering, technology and mathematics. These powerful institutional stereotypes severely diminish the quality of education for girls; Dr. Dweck notes that "despite performing as well as boys in math courses, girls often doubt their ability to develop their math skills when faced with difficult material." The impact of this stereotype threat is that "this mindset appears to contribute to substantial gender gaps in math scores that emerge during and after middle school"¹⁰. In single-gender classrooms, teachers can tailor lessons and teaching styles to address the degree and nature of the effect which gender roles have on student learning. As a result, Dr. Lisa Damour notes that "the dynamic of having only one sex in the classroom at a time [can create] opportunities that don't exist in the coed classroom"¹¹. A study of 160 schools showed that 60% of students in single-gender classes self-reported higher "self-confidence, motivation, participation, and desire to complete hard work" in single-gender classrooms than mixed-gender classrooms"¹². These results were echoed by both parents and teachers who reported seeing increases in these positive traits at similar rates¹³.

Fostering an Inclusive Learning Environment

A second major argument is that single-gender classrooms are better learning environments. There are three major versions of this argument; the "competition" argument, the "constraint" argument, and the "distraction" argument. The latter, simply stated, is that boys and girls will be less likely to focus on romantic relationships during school when they are in single-gender classes. Though included for the sake of completeness, I do not recommend using this argument because it is highly flawed. Not only is it likely beneficial for students to learn to navigate romantic relationships in a low-stakes environment (where issues like sex and finances are comparatively less salient than during adulthood), but the "distraction" argument is discriminatory in its presumption that all persons are heterosexual. The second version of the learning environment argument suggests that mixed-gender classes sharpen the visibility of gender roles, while single-gender classrooms incentivize students to explore their interests. Jane Seu, a political scientist at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, gives an illustrative example; in single-gender classrooms, "[a] young man won't have to worry about being the only male in theater or choir, nor will a young woman be intimidated to take advanced science and math classes"¹⁴. Single-gender classrooms eliminate competitive contrast between sexes, such that gender roles are less likely to play a dominant and constraining role in classroom and educational environments. Statistical evidence supports this hypothesis¹⁵:

A 2003 University of Virginia study led by educational psychologist Abigail Norfleet James, PhD, for example, found that boys who attended single-sex schools were more than twice as likely to pursue interests in subjects such as art, music, drama and foreign languages compared with boys of comparable ability who attended coed schools.

The quality of an education is substantially improved when student horizons are broadened. Educational research consistently supports the notion that broadened horizons increase creativity, critical thinking, interest and engagement, and application of learned skills¹⁶. The "competition" argument draws from sociological data showing that when boys and girls are in classes, boys dominate classroom discussions and teacher attention¹⁷, while creating a comparatively more intimidating environment for female students¹⁸. The fact of competition itself is sufficient to create performance deficits in female students, as a large-N comparative analysis of student performances found. The data supported the assertion that "sex composition, therefore, may act as a causal situational factor in determining whether gender stereotypes, such as negative stereotypes about females' mathematical ability, will be activated" which "may cause high-achieving females to experience performance deficits"¹⁹. This relationship is linear and proportional; the study showed "females' math performance decreased as the relative number of males in the room increased"²⁰.

Framework –The Requirements of a Good Aff

Debaters often make the mistake of defending more than they must actually defend based on the wording of the topic. In this case, the topic does not require affirmative debaters to defend that the entire school is composed of single-gender classrooms; in fact, advocates of single-gender classroom often suggest keeping electives (like debate!) mixed education to facilitate student socialization but making core classes like math and science –where gender disparities are most pronounced –single-gender classes. Other advocates support opt-in single-gender classes so that the option is available for students and families who feel it would help them, but not required. Either of these hybrid approaches allows affirmatives to tactically escape some of the negative's best argumentation. Since the specific implementation of single-gender classrooms is not specified –and single-gender classrooms are impossible to discuss without implementation details –the affirmative has a legitimate right to define the ground it defends. A final note on affirmative strategy –many debaters have posed the question of where trans-gendered individuals go to class. While there may be several answers, the first, best, and safest answer is that trans-gendered individuals go to the classroom of the gender in which they identify, on the basis of their identification. Schools can prevent runaway fake identification (boys or girls pretending to be trans-gendered as a joke, etc) by investigating whether or not the claim is genuine. Similar authentication procedures exist for making religious determinations (such as whether religious head coverings reflect bona fide religious beliefs) which means that schools can simply adapt the same procedures to a different subject matter. Best of luck, affirmatives!

Negative Advocacy Sex Segregation and Sociality

One of the most intuitive arguments against single-gender classrooms is that it harms long-term socialization. School is undeniably one of the primary locations of socialization²¹. This is in part true because children interact with non-family peers primarily through school and in part true because schools have access to students during formative years. A consistent body of sociological research²² demonstrates that views, norms, patterns, and behaviors learned during early schooling are extremely difficult to dislodge later in life, because these views and behaviors become the foundation for the way the student sees the world. While not impossible, changing foundational views requires unearthing deep-seated beliefs which itself may be dangerous to the psychological and emotional stability of the person in question. Clearly, then, the socialization that occurs during primary and secondary school is extremely important and can be described as one of the primary purposes of our educational system. Sex segregated classrooms have a demonstrably negative effect on that socialization in several ways. First, they leave students unable to deal with realities that will inevitably confront them later in life. Work environments, social environments, and society in general are not sex segregated, which means that sex segregated classes –as a training grounds and a preparatory environment –fail to prepare students for almost every important environment with which adults are faced. These classrooms deprive students of the opportunity to interact with students of the opposite sex, delaying the majority of those interactions until later in life. The delay itself might also be dangerous, because the stakes of socialization increase later in life. When middle school students date, they need not concern themselves with financial dependence and intermingling and the worst consequences tend to be slightly hurt feelings. When adults date, the risks are much more severe; financial complications, unwanted children, sexually transmitted diseases, rushed marriages, and acrimonious divorces are only a few of the severe consequences that can occur. Similarly, when middle school students say something unintentionally sexist (or intentionally sexist) they have a safe environment with a corrective authority to help guide them to proper conduct. When adults must confront the limits and parameters of inter-sex interactions, unintentional sexist behaviors bears the risk of lawsuits, ended careers, and criminal liability. Worse, there is no unquestioned authority analogous to a child's teacher, who might help guide the adult to better conduct. Learning how to navigate romantic and social interactions at a younger age facilitates a natural maturation process that makes missteps both less frequent and less severe when they occur. Throwing an adult with little-to-no experience into the complicated sexual-social dynamics of intersex interactions is the equivalent of putting a baby on a motorcycle before it can crawl; developmentally out of order and catastrophic for all parties involved²³.

Reinforces Gender Stereotypes

The core of the topic for both the affirmative and negative is which form of schooling best deals with gender stereotypes. Depending on the specifics of affirmative advocacies, each argument links differently. For example, if the affirmative reads evidence suggesting that different teaching styles are effective (e.g. loud for boys vs. quiet for girls) the negative has a much stronger argument compared to the affirmative who merely advocates using spatial learning tactics for younger boys and linguistic learning tactics for younger girls. First, sex segregated classrooms are ineffective because they treat male and female students as behaviorally identical. The everyday experience of most individuals runs counter to the assumption that male behavior and female behavior are undifferentiated masses that can simplistically be lumped together. As Kristen Stanberry, a disability education specialist at Stanford's Lane Medical Library writes²⁴:

Gender differences in learning aren't the same across the board; they vary along a continuum of what is considered normal. For a sensitive boy or an assertive girl, the teaching style promoted by advocates of single-sex education could be ineffective (at best) or detrimental (at worst). For example, a sensitive boy might be intimidated by a teacher who "gets in his face" and speaks loudly believing "that's what boys want and need learn".

The educational framework underlying sex segregated classrooms ends up "teaching to stereotypes rather than children"²⁵. Indeed, even the assumption that male and female brains develop differently may reinforce gender stereotypes. Dr. Anne Fausto-Sterling, a name-chair professor of Biology at Brown University, notes that "[b]rain development itself, especially in children, is to a large extent directed by social and sensory experiences; so too is hormone biology and physiological regulation."²⁶ As Dr. Fausto-Sterling's longitudinal study shows, both the biological and chemical makeup brain development is heavily influenced by the frequency and intensity of their exposure to gender roles. Males and females do not come "hard wired" either in terms of hormone production or brain structures; they are shaped by the environments in which they develop. A survey of research on neuroplasticity, development, and gender shows that the consensus of "[e]vidence has long suggested that 'hardwiring' is a poor metaphor for brain development", and is "both unscientific and unethical"²⁷. Because of student neural plasticity, Dr. Fausto-Sterling argues that sex segregated classrooms may cause gender roles to become a self-fulfilling cycle. For example, females are treated as if they either are or ought to be passive, they learn to be passive. The same is true for males, with different characteristics. As a result, "[a]llowing children to learn only with those of their same sex may push children into a sort of gender box" while such policies simultaneously diminish the educational welfare of "children who may naturally tend to display gender characteristics usually associated with the opposite sex"²⁸. Among the stereotypes reinforced by sex segregated classrooms is "heteronormativity," or the presumption that students are naturally heterosexual. When students are sex segregated to prevent romantic distraction, schools send an institutional and subliminal negative message about the sexual orientation of LGBTQ students. For the 2.6 million LGBTQ primary school students²⁹, sex segregation classroom policies send messages that their orientation is deviant, unnatural, and wrong –with drastic consequences that can range from failing performance to suicide³⁰. The position taken by opponents of sex segregation is both effectively and briefly summarized as follows³¹:

Students are individuals. Separating them based on assumptions about their gender will have the same detrimental effects as separating them based on race, sexuality, or any other factor. By separating students, we are telling them that they are fundamentally different. Instead, we should be treating each student as an individual learner and allowing them to explore the learning styles that work best for them, regardless of gender.

The evidence demonstrating that stereotype threat is damaging to academic performance is broadly supported across subject matter (in math³², science³³, engineering³⁴) and age group (middle school³⁵, high school³⁶ and generally). Affirmatives who argue for reducing stereotype threat generally agree to the impact level of the argument (that stereotypes are harmful) and disagree about the link level of the argument (whether or not sex segregation reinforces or diminishes stereotypes).

Framework –the Requirements of a Good Neg

Strategic negatives seek not only to frame the content of the debate, but the lens through which the debate is viewed by the judge. Whether single-gender classrooms reinforce or diminish stereotype threats and gender roles is almost entirely dependent on how the judge conceives of single-gender classrooms. A powerful way to control the judge's interpretation of the classrooms is using loaded terminology. On this topic, I think negatives should exclusively refer to single-gender classrooms as "sex segregated classrooms." This is effective in part because the alliteration is memorable, and in part because the term "segregation" holds an unquestionably, unbreakably negative connotation. Because the resolution is positively phrased, the affirmative has the obligation to prove that single-sex classrooms would improve the quality of education. Negatives should force the affirmative to have evidence ties of each connection to the topic. For example, if an affirmative has a contention showing that "sex segregation makes students happier," force them to read evidence proving that has a tangible, measurable, or otherwise demonstrable impact on quality of education. The negative has an uphill battle on this topic; its arguments are more complicated, but more powerful and likely more correct. As a result, the best negatives will spend time explaining the foundational concepts that their case relies upon in simple, accessible terms. Many judges will have strong predispositions about gender and sex (for example, believing that boys and girls are "hard wired" to behave a certain way). Though difficult, I think this debate is worth having rather than avoiding, because the literature ultimately supports the negative's contention. The key to winning those debates is a thorough and clean explanation. With that, I think the negative has a good chance on this topic. Good luck to everyone debating this fantastic topic!

Scroll Down for Comments

Works Cited

1. Chessman [Christian, Political Science @ University of Florida] "Guns, Genders and Sex: An Empirical Examination of the Feminist Peace". January 2014. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/AA00019335/00001 2. Sjoberg [Laura, Ph.D in political science from University of Southern California, author of 9 books and the editor of the International Journal of Feminist Politics] "Gendering Global Conflict: Towards a Feminist Theory of War" 2013 http://books.google.com/books/about/Gendering_Global_Conflict.html?id=or-rAgAAQBAJ 3. American Psychological Association. "Coed vs Single-sex ed" article in the APA Journal Monitor on Psychology, Vol 42. No. 2. Published February 2011. https://www.apa.org/monitor/2011/02/coed.aspx 4. Ibid. 5. Chadwell [David, Educational Coordinator @ South Carolina Department of Education] "Single-Gender Classes Can Respond to the Needs of Boys and Girls" from the ASCD, a nonpartisan nonprofit with 140,000 members from more than 138 countries and 56 affiliate organizations. Summer 2010. http://www.ascd.org/ascd-express/vol5/512-newvoices.aspx 6. Hodgins [Dan, Coordinator for Early Childhood Education @ University of Pennsylvania] Focus. Vol.1 Iss. 1. p6-7. University of Pennsylvania Linguistic Data Consortium. http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/myl/llog/Hodgins1.pdf 7. Ibid. 8. Ibid. 9. American Psychological Association. "Coed vs Single-sex ed" article in the APA Journal Monitor on Psychology, Vol 42. No. 2. Published February 20`. https://www.apa.org/monitor/2011/02/coed.aspx 10. Ibid. 11. Ibid. 12. Chadwell [David, Educational Coordinator @ South Carolina Department of Education] "Single-Gender Classes Can Respond to the Needs of Boys and Girls" from the ASCD, a nonpartisan nonprofit with 140,000 members from more than 138 countries and 56 affiliate organizations. Summer 2010. http://www.ascd.org/ascd-express/vol5/512-newvoices.aspx 13. Ibid. 14. Seu [Jane, political scientist at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln] "SEU: Single-Sex classrooms cannot solve all the issues". Daily Nebraskan. December 9th, 2013. http://www.dailynebraskan.com/opinion/seu-single-sex-classrooms-cannot-solve-all-the-issues/article_81ceb556-607c-11e3-bb18-0019bb30f31a.html 15. American Psychological Association. "Coed vs Single-sex ed" article in the APA Journal Monitor on Psychology, Vol 42. No. 2. Published February 2011. https://www.apa.org/monitor/2011/02/coed.aspx 16. A list of studies supporting these arguments is available at; http://www.eduplace.com/rdg/res/literacy/interd1.html 17. Mael, [Fred, Research Fellow @ American Institutes for Research and the Department of Education] "Single-Sex and Coeducational Schoooling: Relationships to Socioemotional and Academic Development" Review of Educational Research, Vol 68. No. 2. pp101-129. Summer 1998. http://www.umich.edu/~psycours/797/mael.pdf 18. Inzlicht, [Michael, Professor of Psychology @ Brown University]. "A Threatening Intellectual Environment: Why Females Are Susceptible to Experiencing Problem-Solving Deficits in the Presence of Males". Psychological Science, Vol 11. No. 5. pp365-371 September 2000 http://pss.sagepub.com/content/11/5/365.abstract 19. Ibid. 20. Ibid. 21. Cheshier [David, Professor of Communications and Director of Debate at Georgia State University]. "Foucault and Educational Reform. The Rostrum. December 1999. http://debate.uvm.edu/NFL/rostrumlib/CheshierDec99.pdf 22. See the literature review listed as "background" in http://www.umich.edu/~psycours/561/lee_g.htm 23. http://tinyurl.com/DoNotPutOnMotorcycles 24. Stanberry [Kristin, disability education specialist at Stanford's Lane Medical Library]. "Single-sex education: the pros and cons" No date given. http://www.greatschools.org/print-view/find-a-school/defining-your-ideal/1139-single-sex-education-the-pros-and-cons.gs http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/09/opinion/kimmel-single-sex-classes/ 25. Fausto-Sterling [Anne, Ph.D Developmental Genetics from Brown, Nancy Duke Lewis Professor of Biology and Gender Studies at Brown University] "The dynamic development of gender variability". Journal of Homosexuality Vol. 59. No. 3 pp 398-421 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22455327 26. Ibid. 27. Jordan-Young [Rebecca, Neuroscientist @ Columbia University]. "Hardwired for Sexism? Approaches to Sex/Gender in Neuroscience". Neuroethics. Vol. 5, Iss. 3, pp 305-315. December 2012. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs12152-011-9134-4# 28. Guarisco [Chrissy, Loyala University Chicago School of Law] "SINGLE-SEX SCHOOLS AND GENDER ROLES: BARRIER OR BREAKTHROUGH?" May 19, 2010 http://www.luc.edu/media/lucedu/law/centers/childlaw/childed/pdfs/2010studentpapers/Chrissy_Guarisco.pdf 29. Lambda Legal Organization, a civil rights advocacy group. "Facts: Gay and Lesbian youth in schools" No date given. http://data.lambda legal.org/pdf/158.pdf 30. Mays [Vickie, Professor of Psychology @ UCLA]. "Mental Health Correlates of Perceived Discrimination Among Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Adults in the United States" American Journal of Public Health, Vol 91. Iss. 11. November 2001. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1446893/ 31. Samsa [Ashley, freelance writer] "Teaching Feminism: Single-Sex Classrooms Encourage Gender Stereotyping" July 26, 2012. http://www.care2.com/causes/teaching-feminism-single-sex-classrooms-encourage-gender-stereotyping.html 32. Keller [Johannes, Professor of Psychology @ University of Mannheim] "Stereotype Threat in the Classroom: Dejection Mediates the Disrupting Threat Effect on Women's Math Performance". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 29. No. 3. pp 371-381. March 2003. http://psp.sagepub.com/content/29/3/371.short 33. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. "Competency beliefs, positive affect, and gender stereotypes of elementary students and their parents about science versus other school subjects" Vol. 36. Iss. 6. pp 719⚊747. August 1999. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199908)36:6%3C719::AID-TEA8%3E3.0.CO;2-R/abstract?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false 34. Murphy et al [Mary, Professor of Psychology @ Stanford] "How Situational Cues Affect Women in Math, Science, and Engineering Settings". Psychological Science. Vol. 18. No. 10. pp879-885. October 2007. http://pss.sagepub.com/content/18/10/879.short 35. Regner [Isabelle, Professor of Cognitive Psychology @ Marseille University] "Stereotype threat among schoolgirls in quasi-ordinary classroom circumstances" Journal of Educational Psychology. Vol. 99. Iss. 3.pp545-560.August 2007. http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/edu/99/3/545/ 36. Ibid. 37. Steele [Claude, Dean of the Graduate School of Education @ Stanford] "A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance." American Psychologist. Vol. 52. Iss. 6. pp613-629. June 1997. http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/amp/52/6/613/