Vermilion Parish, Louisiana
The state of Louisiana contains 64 parishes; one of them is named Vermilion. If you’re not a bayou state native, you’ve probably never heard of it. But if you care about equal educational opportunities for girls and boys, you’d do well to learn a little more about what’s going on there.
Just before the start of the 2009–10 school year, a middle school principal in Vermilion Parish had an idea. For all core academic subjects, he decided, the vast majority of boys and girls in his school would be taught in separate classrooms. He based his plan on experimental single-sex courses from the previous school year, in which he had boys and girls removed from coeducational classes and separated by gender for math and English.
These courses utilized materials that advocated gender-specific teaching strategies; for instance, the materials advanced the stereotypes that boys must be permitted to roam around a classroom and act noisier to improve their learning outcomes, while girls required a quieter, small-group atmosphere to succeed.
So two weeks before the first day of school, the principal sent out a letter to the parents of his students informing them of this new single-sex classroom plan. As you might expect, a few parents objected, arguing that a coeducational option should be made available. The school replied that they would offer such an option, but when the school year started, those parents learned that the only coeducational offerings available were those of the special education variety. As a result, the parents filed a lawsuit. A Louisiana federal district court agreed that the program was flawed and improperly implemented and that additional coeducational courses should be offered, but it allowed the program to continue.
Under a previous U.S. Supreme Court decision, single-sex classifications in education must be reviewed under a “heightened scrutiny” standard and must demonstrate an “exceedingly persuasive justification” for their existence. The district court, however, created its own vague and previously nonexistent standard, ruling that as long as such a policy is “in the best interest of the children,” it may continue. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which argued the case before the district court, has appealed the decision to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
At AAUW, we have followed the case closely and have signed onto an amicus brief written by our friends at the National Women’s Law Center in support of the ACLU’s position. Historically, public single-sex education has often harmed girls by depriving them of equal educational opportunities. Where programs are established separately for both boys and girls, those programs have tended to be distinctly unequal, with fewer resources allocated for girls’ programs and stereotypical notions limiting vocational options. We believe that the program in Vermilion Parish fits that bill and is a violation of both the Constitution and Title IX.
The past few years have seen a marked rise in the number and scope of single-sex programs. One of the biggest reasons for this shift is a set of regulations put out in 2006 by the George W. Bush administration, which not only made it easier for schools to put single-sex classes into effect, but also weakened Title IX protections and safeguards previously put in place to prevent gender-based discrimination in our classrooms. It is no accident that a program as problematic as the one in Vermilion Parish came into existence following the implementation of these regulations. AAUW has been working to rescind these regulations.
As can been seen here, AAUW takes a thoughtful view single-sex education. In a few specific instances, where remedy of persistent discrimination is the goal, single-sex programs can at times perform a valuable function. Simply stated, that is not the case here. We hope the 5th Circuit reaches the same conclusion.
Since we are moving on to two different topics, I assume you concede the points I made and you no longer wish to discuss educational policy.
The equal pay for equal work issue is a great one to debate; however, I am not sure this is the place for it. Let me just state one particularly important point — most studies are inherently flawed as it is almost impossible to compare jobs.
Normally people who bring up this issue do not make proper comparisons. One needs to compare people who are doing exactly the same job, for the same amount of time, for the same shift, for the same company, with the same dedication to the job, with the same job efficiency, etc.
Since it is next to impossible to find large data sets where direct comparisons are really possible, one can interpret any small data set as one desires.
Don’t believe everything you think.
Check out the equality of equal pay for equal work.
Check out the % of females in poverty. Any idea why?
I think anyone who is interested in what is going on now in education must look up the true definition of equal and equality. In mathematics and science there is but one meaning. If one does look up in a dictionary, one would find that equal is “like in quantity” or “like in amount” or “same for each member of a group or class”. How is having separate classrooms for each gender not providing equality ? Usually feminists expect, demand and fight for special programs specifically for women and girls. Now this is a true violation of equality. Equality escapes most feminists as they are not really fighting for equality anymore.
Can anyone really argue that what is happening in our school systems is anything but unequal. Let’s consider college attendance and graduation rates. Let’s consider reading scores at all levels of K-12. I have heard feminists say that Title IX needs to be applied to STEM areas, yet what about applying Title IX to discrimination in psychology, sociology, nursing and education departments ?
Let me see if I can understand. The statement made above states that AAUW is for addressing past discrimination (read apparent educational discrimination against women and girls) even though this past discrimination has been more than adequately dealt with already. What about current discrimination (against men and boys) ?
Lastly, it should be pointed out that when a person must reduce there arguments to name calling and personal attacks, then their arguments must be relatively weak or non-existent.
It seems to be difficult for males to realize, or at least admit to, the advantages they have. You are misstating AAUW’s purpose for equality. A dictionary might be helpful.
I assume that you have no daughters, and maybe are not married.
How very disappointing that equity and freedom are so difficult to achieve and hold on to for too many females in our country. Florida author Leonard Sax has helped this undesirable method of grouping students. Unfortunately some young teachers have not noticed that his recommendations are not supported with actual research but anecdotal. Thank you to AAUW and ACLU for sticking up for these students.
Let us restate the position of AAUW — “we support programs that give girls benefits. If potential benefits exist for boys — it must be bad.”
I believe the day is coming when people will recognize the hypocrisy of organizations that support “equal opportunities” but then use language which really is inconsistent with the idea of true “equality”. To these organizations equal appears to mean “extra opportunities for girls” and that is all.