Yesterday, we released our topic guide for debating on the pro side of February’s public forum debate resolution: “Resolved: The Supreme Court rightly decided that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act violated the Constitution.” Today, we’re releasing our look at this resolution from the con point of view. Check it out below! 

 

PF February 2014 Con Guide

 

So, debaters, go write some awesome con cases, and then send them to us for a free debate case critique!

 

2 Comments

  1. Joshua Calderon says:

    Today’s topic is, Single-gender classrooms would improve the quality of education in American public schools. The performance of our nation’s schools is critical to both the long- term success of our nation’s economy and the stability of our society as a whole, but SGC (Single Gender Classrooms) would not only hurt this country’s education department it would sent us back in the opposite direction many years. So not only does SGC (Single Gender Classrooms) send dangers to young children, there are no academic benefits attached to the concept, and it also should be viewed unconstitutional.
    While the ACLU strongly advocates that there is no “well-designed” evidentiary research demonstrating that single-sex education enhances students’ academic performance, it seems clear that single-sex education “increases gender stereotyping and legitimizes institutional sexism.” This is especially true in schools that separate students by sex starting in kindergarten. Kindergartners are especially vulnerable to the effects of single-sex education because they are at the age when they acquire “their notions of self-identity” and begin to learn about sex stereotypes. Although the stereotypes that kindergartners learn are often incorrect, they nonetheless apply them to themselves and others. Inductive reasoning shows that segregating students based on sex illuminates the contrast between sexes making it “easy to see the world segregated classrooms can make.
    For innovative programs like single-sex schools to receive funding for their implementation, there must be scientific evidence supporting the virtues of the program. But the empirical data does not convincingly support single-sex education. In September 2011, eight social scientists, all of whom are founders of the nonprofit American Council for Co-educational Schooling, published a report on the effects of single-sex education based on preexisting research. The report, “The Pseudoscience of Single Sex Schooling,” affirms that “sex segregated [sic] education is deeply misguided and often justified by weak, cherry picked [sic] or misconstrued scientific claims rather than by valid scientific evidence.” The article concludes that there is no “well-designed research” demonstrating that single-sex education enhances students’ academic performance; rather the research confirms that single-sex education promotes stereotyping and condones institutional sexism.
    The negative effects that single-sex education have on children are obvious. In order for single-sex programs to be authorized by the No Child Left Behind Act, the advantages must be founded on scientific truths rather than broad generalizations. Additionally, single-sex education seems to be in stark violation of the purpose of Title IX of the Education Amendments – prohibiting discrimination in public education on the basis of sex. America has made leaps and
    bounds in prohibiting discrimination since Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, and allowing classrooms or schools to be segregated on the basis of sex impedes the progress that has been made. Although the National Center for Transgender Equality’s proposed amendments to Title IX make strides in eliminating discrimination against transgender people, the amendments do not override Brown, holding that equality in all tangible factors does not constitute equality under the constitution. Single-sex schools create unequal educational institutions and are thereby not permitted under the United States Constitution.
    A review commissioned by the United States Department of Education concluded that “the results are equivocal” between single-sex schools and coeducation. The most salient lesson from the research on sex differences is that all students learn differently which is a result of many factors and does not hinge on sex or gender identity. “The Pseudoscience of Single-Sex Schooling” asserts that there is no empirical data that demonstrates that single-sex schools improve academic performance when preexisting differences are corrected. For example, students who enroll in single-sex schools are “often more academically advanced”, and students who do not perform well often transfer out, thereby falsely bolstering an illusion of increased final performance.

  2. Gilbert says:

    I see a lot of interesting articles here, i know writing articles is time consuming, but i know unlimited source of content for
    your website , just type in google – rewriter creates an unique
    article in a minute

Leave a Comment

Acces Our Research

Health Care Policy
Tax Policy
Retirement Policy
Environment Policy

Learn More

About Us
Meet Our Experts
Meet Our Staff
Contact Us

Join the Conversation

Health Policy Blog
Economic Policy Blog
Retirement & Taxes Blog
Energy & Environment Blog

Get Involved

Attend
Subscribe
Sponsor
Donate

Follow Us

RSS
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

YouTube
Flickr
Helium


Copyright © 2011 National Center for Policy Analysis. All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Sitemap