THBT single-gender classrooms would improve the quality of education in American public schools

I want to start out by thanking my opponent for the debate. Now on to the arguments. My opponent started this debate by presenting a lot of emotional and sentimental arguments that are "feel good" reasons that we shouldn't provide single gender classrooms. However, none of these reasons in any form address the actual frame of the debate that my opponent chose: Do single gender classrooms improve the quality of education in American public schools? Now, my opponent opened up his argument with the question of gender identification of students. While this is not a debate about the question of child gender identification, the fact is that until children are legally allowed to claim a different gender we must use the current binary definition of gender. Now, my opponent may claim that is discriminatory, that it violates their rights, or that it will cause more harm than good, however, until we have legally solved that issue through some form of legislation that allows identification we are to live with a binary definition based on the physiological sex of the child and therefore for purposes of this debate the child's gender identity and a minority of children that feel they are in the wrong class will not be overall detrimental to the quality of education. As with any system, there will always be outliers that do not fall within the tested sample and there will be those that ultimately do not benefit. However, as my further arguments will prove, there is currently a lacking in education that can be greatly improved with this system implemented, and while any system will not be perfect, it will be greatly improved with this implementation over the current co-ed system. My opponent argues that segregation and lack of equality between the genders should be emphasized as a reason to maintain a lower quality education. Now, first of all I will address the point that my opponent makes, "What is the difference from a few decades ago when Blacks were segregated from Whites?" Well, the difference is very clear, black and white segregation was based on arbitrary factors such as skin color with no reasoning other than arbitrary hate for the other. There was no scientific basis for it, there was not a consideration for improving education and the black schools were nearly universally worse than those of the white schools in the same neighborhood. For the system of single-gender classrooms, the basis is to improve education, both genders would be provided equal levels of education but with more emphasis on learning styles appropriate to their gender, this does not mean the subject would be different and in no way is advocating for differences in what is taught to set them up for specific careers, but just the style of learning which I will address later. Additionally, the schools themselves would not be single gender, only the individual classrooms. Lunch, recess, various extra-curricular activities, all would be co-ed which would promote the working together of the genders, only the classrooms themselves would be single-gender. So, to address my opponents second argument, this is not segregation in the same sense as it was for racial reasons. Yes it is segregation by exact definition but we do that on a daily basis. Are male and female bathrooms or locker rooms not segregation? By definition, segregation is, "the action or state of setting someone or something apart from other people or things or being set apart." By definition that is not a bad thing, we only see it as a bad thing as it is used as an all-encompassing word to denote the period of black segregation throughout much of American history however, it is a regularly practiced action in day to day society. So, if my opponent would like to argue his second point in some manner, I would suggest he changes his language as there is nothing wrong with segregation is the purpose for it is valid. Racial segregation was bad, there was no reason for it, it was arbitrary. But if you are to argue that segregation as a whole is a bad thing then you are therefore arguing that we should have unisex bathrooms and locker rooms, the Olympics and Special Olympics should be combined, juvenile and adult prisons should be combined. Segregation has a purpose, just need to ensure it is the correct purpose, and in this case it is. My opponent's third argument is simply lost by the definition of the entire debate and in his own definition of "classroom." In this argument he states that "Single-gender schools" do not provide students with an acceptable level of interaction with the other gender. However, we are not debating single gender schools, we are debating single gender classrooms. As I mentioned in my last point, the schools themselves would not be single gender but only the classrooms themselves. Extra-curricular activities, lunch and recess, study halls, libraries, all would be co-ed. My opponent defined classrooms as, "Classrooms will be defined as the environment in which children can learn the best when going to school." Which to me is a very sloppy definition, however, I will accept it as he proposed the debate. This "environment" I will take to assume is "a room, typically in a school, in which a class of students is taught" therefore not the entire school itself, so by his own definition, the argument is made null as my opponent's third argument is regarding single gender schools which we are not debating. My opponent's fourth argument is in regards to the job outcome of working together with the other gender. Re-emphasizing the previous statement, these are not single gender schools, extra curriculars can be created that emphasize working together, the classroom setting is just where a teacher directly educates a child and that is direct instruction, not learning to interact with others, therefore this isn't going to affect that too much. Once children go to college they can enter more job focused classes at which point they will be in co-ed classes and thus learn to work together. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Now, to my arguments. 1. Single Gender Classrooms allow students to learn in an environment that suits their needs. Boys have a much more hands on approach to learning, whereas girls generally are more word oriented in their learning. By establishing single gender classrooms, teachers could focus on the needs of the gender they are teaching and their learning styles rather than try and balance between the two. This would ultimately allow both genders to learn the same material but in a way that suits their needs for learning style and thus advancing them both rather than having a balance that hinders both. If you took a large truck for off-road but bad at corners, and a sports car designed for tight turns and high speed, and said get from point A to B. Now there's two options, the truck can take a long straight but rough terrain road and the sports car can take a flat but windy highway, OR they can both be tied together and take road with both rough terrain and windy flat roads. Both vehicles have to arrive at the same spot, why would they opt to stay tethered together if they can take the routes designed for them and arrive at the same place. 2. Single gender classrooms inspire student engagement. Boys have a higher level of active engagement in a classroom and are proven to be more assertive across the board and in many classroom settings boys advance faster and are more active in the class while the girls remain quiet. Single gender classrooms would eliminate this disparity and allow the girls to interact more in an environment they are more comfortable in and not competing for assertiveness. This ultimately would allow for a boost in confidence for the girls, by putting them in an environment in which they are heard, not drowned out by the boys, they would learn to speak up more and ultimately succeed in future endeavors. 3. Tests of single gender classrooms have proven successful. According to the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (http://www.ascd.org...), in math, 14 single gender classes for girls and 13 for boys outperformed co-ed counterparts, whereas only 3 for girls and 5 for boys showed co-ed counterparts outperforming. In language arts and reading, 13 for girls and 11 for boys the single gender classes outperformed and 3 for girls and 7 for boys the co-ed classes outperformed. This statistic shows that single gender classes an improvement, while language arts and reading are very close with boys, the other statistics show a clear advantage to the single gender classroom which outweighs the nearly identical stats on the boys language and even in that category it was still a win for single gender classes. My arguments have been made, I have refuted my opponents arguments. Look forward to see what he comes back with.