Slashdot Mirror


LAUSD OKs Girls-Only STEM School, Plans Boys-Only English Language Arts School

theodp writes: Citing statistics that showed a whopping 46 more boys than girls passed the AP Computer Science Exam in 2011-12, the 640,000+ student Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) on Tuesday approved a waiver to enable the District to operate a single-gender, all-girls STEM School called the Girls Academic Leadership Academy (GALA). Students in GALA will follow a six year sequence of computer courses starting in middle school that will culminate in AP Computer Science Principles. "Fewer females take AP courses in math, science, or computer science, and they are not as successful as males in receiving passing scores of 3, 4 or 5," argued the General Waiver Request (PDF, 700+ pages). "An all girls environment is reasonably necessary for the school to improve the self-confidence of girls in their academic abilities, especially in STEM areas where an achievement gap currently exists. GALA's admissions shall also comply with AB 1266 to ensure male students who identify as female are admitted to the school." The school's CS-related Partners include the UCLA Exploring Computer Science Program, as well as Google-bankrolled Girls Who Code, Black Girls Code, and NCWIT. One of the reasons the all-girls STEM school reportedly got the green light is that its backers satisfied federal regulations requiring a "substantially equal school" for excluded male students by submitting a plan for a companion all-boys school that would emphasize English Language Arts, where they often fall short of girls' test scores, rather than GALA's focus on STEM. One suspects the no-fan-of-gender-restricted-public-schools ACLU may call BS on this maneuver.

26 of 599 comments (clear)

  1. I thought we were trying to end sexism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yet we are just creating more and more by bullshit like this. Usually it's just for women's benefit, but in this case there's also discrimination against gals too.

    Why can't we just end this bullshit and let children grow up to do want they want to do?

    1. Re:I thought we were trying to end sexism? by rmdingler · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yet we are just creating more and more by bullshit like this. Usually it's just for women's benefit, but in this case there's also discrimination against gals too.

      Why can't we just end this bullshit and let children grow up to do want they want to do?

      Because. This is the sort of shite people with an activist streak get caught up in any more,

      leaving important worries like electing good people to govern us languishing on the back burner.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    2. Re:I thought we were trying to end sexism? by NotDrWho · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because SJW's want the world to be what they *want* it to be, not what it actually *is*.

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    3. Re:I thought we were trying to end sexism? by morgauxo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "I thought we were trying to end sexism?"

      Nope! What ever gave you that idea?!?! The only people who have any interest in doing that are the ones who never talk about it. The moment someone talks about it they are obviously trying to tip the scales one way or the other.

      "Why can't we just end this bullshit and let children grow up to do want they want to do?"

      Should I let my daughter chose her school? She is 5, next year will be kindergarten. The school in our district has horrible test scores and we are very concerned. Do you think she has all the knowlege, wisdom and maturity to make that kind of decision herself?

      At Maker Faire last year I came across a booth for our local tech high school. I'm very interested in all things tech myself and would love to see her grow up the same. One of the kids at the booth started talking to me.. he told me how the school was so great because there was no sports art or music stuff. They could spend all day working on "STEM".

      Now I wish everyone would learn more science and technology but hearing this kid go on about how great it was to not have any sports or arts and smiling about it.. I found that rather apalling!

      Balance people! Be a well rounded individual! Otherwise you really are losing out on something great!

      So.. unless she really really wants this... and then.. only after much discussion I don't intend to send her to THAT school!

      So... now in an effort to reduce the imbalances between sexes even more children will be subjected to unbalanced educations.

      Yay progress!

      Then again... from what I remember of going to a 'normal' school.. they were pretty unbalanced already. Mostly towards big reading, writing and social studies programs with stunted science and technology classes. Although.. they seemed to do ok with math.

    4. Re:I thought we were trying to end sexism? by dave420 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because - as stated in the summary you just read - that's clearly not working. There is no biological reason for females to not perform as well in these subjects, and as they do not, the workforce is missing out on workers. Those missed workers are clearly a resource that the industry would love to have access to.

      Sometimes to fight fire we use fire, just as sometimes to fight sexism, gender-specific measures are required to restore the balance. Sexism based on unfounded nonsense is detrimental to all involved, whereas constructive sexism intelligently implemented & designed to correct such a situation is beneficial to everyone. Taking a ridiculously black and white position is only going to further sexism.

    5. Re:I thought we were trying to end sexism? by goose-incarnated · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sexism isn't just excluding or discriminating,

      Yes, it is, in addition to prejudice and stereotyping.

      there is one other vital component: harm.

      There is no dictionary that agrees with you on this point. I'm going to side with merriam-webster and oxford on this one, as would most people. There is no dictionary in the world that defines harm as a component of sexism.

      It's like having a girl's bathroom and a boy's bathroom. The girl's bathroom might even have more facilities (tampon machines/disposal). It's not sexist because it doesn't disadvantage either gender, it's simply discriminating for a perfectly legitimate reason.

      It's not discrimination, and there is no dictionary that agrees with your use of this word either. Providing facilities for physical differences has never been regarded as discrimination, as there is no exclusion going on.

      Unless someone can show that this school will somehow harm boys then it isn't sexist.

      Only if one uses your definition of "sexist". The rest of us use the the dictionary definitions. Redefining words to make your argument work is a sure sign that your argument is broken.

      I cannot stress this enough: Redefining the word sexism to a meaning not found in any dictionary just to make your argument work is a sure sign that your argument is broken!

      It would be easier, at this point, for you to change your argument than to ask every dictionary in the world to change the meaning of the word sexism.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    6. Re:I thought we were trying to end sexism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Here's a thought. I'm a guy, they're opening this companion school. My feelings as reading the summary. "Why the hell do they give special treatment to girls for STEM and exclude boys?, that's unfair. Wait, they're opening a companion school for only boys. That's odd. Wait, it's going to cover language arts since males tend to lag there. Why the hell would I want to go to that school? I have absolutely no interest in that. Oh well, at least they're trying to be fair."

      Now, if that's my perspective and if my perspective is somewhat indicative of the general male perspective, is it not possible that the vast majority of girls would have something very similar but reversed. Getting pissy that a school for things they like is being opened but only boys are allowed, and only getting a school exclusive to them that they have no interest in? And is there going to be a lot of effort put in to figuring out why I have no interest in language arts as a boy? Is societal, have I been encouraged to not want to pursue a career in the language arts?

    7. Re:I thought we were trying to end sexism? by James+Clay · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How do you know that "[t]here is no biological reason for females to not perform as well in these subjects"? Are you asserting that our brains are the same, because I assure you they are not.

    8. Re:I thought we were trying to end sexism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yah, thankfully things are a breeze for skinny math geeks interested in computers at school, jocks were never discouraging. Not to mention how nerds are depicted in movies/TV, nothing to discourage, nope.

    9. Re:I thought we were trying to end sexism? by Penguinisto · · Score: 2, Insightful

      By activist you mean corporate lobbyists. They are the ones pushing this computer programming b.s.

      A combination of both, methinks. However, you have to look beyond who is doing it, and instead ask why they're doing it.

      The activists do it because it shoves their agendae along. They get to put their name in the papers, and more importantly, they get to feel good about themselves while they do it.

      The (tech) corporate interests on the other hand, they do it for two reasons: First, they think that by doing so, they get a bigger labor market down the road - thus driving down costs. Second, they get to pretend that they're doing something 'important', while at the same time buying themselves a big, fat rhetorical shield against accusations of $evil from the SJW crowd.

      Meanwhile, the rest of us wind up with girls being shoved into learning something they may well turn out hating, and boys sitting in an "language arts" class thinking "WTF?" Both groups will have people in them that end up loving what they've discovered, but I suspect that the majority will have wasted their time.

      But you know, both CEO and activist alike in LA can bask in the applause and adulation. Of course, for the LA County taxpayers, well, they're used to the PMITA treatment they get from their local government (to the point of sheer masochism, even) so maybe they won't feel this one as much...

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    10. Re:I thought we were trying to end sexism? by Squiddie · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What a load of bullshit. How are women "discouraged" from anything like that? I take it women who are discouraged by simple words or competitiveness are too stupid, so who gives a shit? I wasn't encouraged when I was young. I actually had to jump through loops to get education in the US, and I paid more for it, and I still got my degree. Maybe women that are already born here should quit whining about being discouraged. You'll find it's mostly people without a degree in the field that whine about it. Maybe they should have taken a major in engineering instead of women's studies.

    11. Re:I thought we were trying to end sexism? by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Bullshit. People literally can't even try to TALK about fighting the catastrophic suicide rate among men without literal crimes being committed to stop people from entering or shut the entire event down and force everyone to leave. Women have a 2:1 advantage over men in tech fields, are nearly 2/3rds of college graduates before that, and utterly dominate all of education (thanks in large part to extremely preferential treatment) before that.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    12. Re:I thought we were trying to end sexism? by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah girls facilities being better in almost every way to the point of getting private showers while boys are screwed totally isn't sexist at all. They're Seperate But Equal. Women are just more equal than men, so it's a legitimate rap-sorry-discrimination.

      Women already get astoundingly preferential treatment throughout the entire education system, which is reflected in their utter domination of virtually every measurable aspect of education up to and including being nearly 2/3rds of college graduates. Meanwhile men are drugged more, punished more and more severely, graded worse, and systematically excluded from opportunities handed to girls on a silver platter.

      The harm is there. The harm is proven. It's reflected in graduation rates.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
  2. Only in america by FictionPimp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Only america could create a society that tells me I should feel bad for finding a career I enjoy in a well paying field.

    1. Re:Only in america by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Uh huh. http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Search?search=privilege&fulltext=Search

      According to the many hits I get just on this site, which seems to be the go-to for screeching marxist feminists, I should feel bad for:

      * Conferences offering t-shirts in my cut and size (because it's so horrible that shitty promotional t-shirts aren't specifically tailored for me but instead made to fit as many people as possible!)
      * Not having "men" decide I'm gay and then using that term derogatorily behing my back (because obviously, this has never happened to any straight white male in the history of ever)
      * Never being the special case ("hi, guys -- and girls, I guess, too, if you want to get really technical about it!") - because obviously it's *my* fault there are 19 men and one woman attending the meeting/presentation/whatever
      * Never having to "feel awkward" while having "gender-appropriate" clothes (women's for a transgendered man, etc.) delivered to my workplace (because I'm living in a mud hut in the middle of the Amazon rain forest and have never seen packaging)
      * Never being insulted in a way that calls attention to my gender, such as "bitch" or "whore" (because no straight white man has ever been called a dick or prick)
      * Not having to use the toilet while worrying I'm in the wrong place (what the fuck?)

      I could go on, but that would just mean copying the "checklists" from the site here, and I can't be bothered. These are just few of the stupider points my eye fell on during the first minute of scanning the articles.

      TL;DR: Fuck you.

  3. Feminism ruins society again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If you want equality, then stop trying to segregate, and stop man-shaming.

    1. Re:Feminism ruins society again... by meta-monkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If my son wants to go to the special programming school, because that's what he's really in to, will he be allowed to? No. And why not? Because he might disrupt the all-girl environment and damage the self-confidence of the girls in the class. "You can't come because boys are icky." How is that not "man-shaming?"

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
  4. As well the ACLU should by MetalliQaZ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This country has fought long and hard to remove segregation and discrimination and it is not acceptable to slide so far backwards. One of the biggest challenges in our future is our failures in education today. Our current trend is that secondary education is becoming more and more female, and believe me, we don't want to deal with the crime and productivity implications of an abundance of under-educated men in our country. Focusing on educating girls is a bad idea. Rather, the focus should be on educating all children. We don't give kids the credit they deserve. They are perfectly capable of choosing their favorite subjects on their own.

    --
    "Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
  5. Time to start masculanism movement by sinij · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Time to start masculanism movement, because anti-male gender discrimination hit mainstream.

  6. Sexes ARE different, thankfully by mi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    One of the possible reasons why girls don't get into tech stuff may be peer pressure from other girls before they even graduate from high school.

    Or, maybe, women and men simply aren't the same?

    The anatomy and physiology are demonstrably different. Could those natural differences be having an effect on the interests in life? Feminists would like us to think, all of that is due solely to upbringing, but they offer no evidence — while denouncing detractors as "sexists" themselves.

    Though businesses aren't allowed to discriminate, sports-leagues openly do all the time. A "co-ed" volleyball team, for example, must have at least two females out of six players at all times — because having more males is an advantage. A team showing up with only one woman is penalized one way or the other (see rule 11 of this set, for example), a team showing up for a coed game without any women automatically loses.

    In chess too, for some reason, there are very few female Grandmasters (GMs). It got so embarrassing, a lesser title of Woman Grandmaster (WGM) was introduced... And there are some — but very few (all of them from countries with "traditional" views on gender-roles, BTW).

    Now, I am not going to claim, women are intrinsically "inferior" to men — for a I don't think, the sexes are comparable, nor do they have to compete. We represent the same species. But we are certainly different — and I am not surprised, if the difference is manifested in aptitude for or interest in different carriers and pursuits.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Sexes ARE different, thankfully by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Feminists would like us to think, all of that is due solely to upbringing, but they offer no evidence â" while denouncing detractors as "sexists" themselves.

      Untrue. There is plenty of evidence. There are endless studies where girls are quoted directly complaining about how they are put off STEM because of their gender. They get it from all sides - parents, teachers, other students of both genders. It's a social problem.

      On the other hand there is zero evidence that girls are genetically predispositioned to be less interested in STEM. Some people try to cite apes playing with toys associated with one gender or another, failing to notice that apes actually have pretty ridged and highly structured societies too.

      Even if there were some genetic factor, it doesn't matter. What matters is that girls want to do STEM, but there are barriers in their way because they are girls. We know this because they tell us, and because people observing them (parents, teachers) tell us.

      In chess too, for some reason, there are very few female Grandmasters (GMs). It got so embarrassing, a lesser title of Woman Grandmaster (WGM) was introduced... And there are some â" but very few (all of them from countries with "traditional" views on gender-roles, BTW).

      So to become a chess grandmaster you need to spend vast amounts of time around other chess players, who are mostly male, learning and improving. You need to immerse yourself in the world of chess as much as the game of chess. It's rare for grandmasters to appear out of nowhere, they tend to be known in chess circles for years before reaching that level. So, it could easily be a case of chess culture putting girls off from participating, the same as with CS.

      Unless you are arguing that girls are just less intelligent than boys, and thus less able to become chess grandmasters... But there is a lot of scientific evidence to support the theory that men and women are of equal intelligence at a genetic level.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  7. Re:Because girls just can not hack it with boys. by mrchaotica · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We all know that girls need special help.

    It's pretty clear to me that that's what the people designing this program think, at least!

    I mean, holy shit! They're talking about implementing a six-year academic program just to get these girls ready to pass the AP exam, which is only equivalent to an introductory college CS course! How fucking insulting can they be, to imply that those girls need six years to learn what they should be learning in one?!

    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  8. Re:my two cents by Catbeller · · Score: 3, Insightful

    To your point (sorry!) There is no "fault". Girls tend not to care about STEM subjects. It's that simple. STEM requires endless hours studying alone, about subjects that would bore an anvil to tears. We literally drug our children to hold still and have the stuff poured into them. It isn't for everyone; that's why so many antisocial types gravitate towards it. You either like it, or you don't.

    Teachers don't "fail" - students fail. And "failure" is not the right word. You can't force interest into a human child like some personality-altering enema. A teacher can instill the basics of how to be a human being, like history, and arithmetic, and reading. The rest comes from the child and the matrix the child lives in. You can't manufacture Alan Turings, and God help us if you could - the world does NOT need to be composed of semi-autistic math prodigies. We need the other types as well.

    Let the DAMNED children become what they want to become. Here's a poser: has any one of these STEM-pushers asked the kids what they think about their "failure" to become good corporate tech fodder?

  9. Re:Appropriate vocational training by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They are literally banned from studying STEM at that school. On the "beasts of burden" thing: There is no girls-only school for garbage collectors, even though women are woefully underrepresented in that field too. Men are being pushed out of "attractive" jobs, which leaves the burdensome jobs.

  10. Re:Appropriate vocational training by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Banned from that particular school, but not banned in general. It's like the girl's bathroom, Boys are banned from going in to it, but not from peeing in a separate boy's bathroom.

    Your argument about attractive jobs is interesting, since one of the common arguments against girls in STEM is that STEM, and particularly CS, is awful and they are actually far too intelligent to get into a dead end career where they will quickly be replaced by an H1-B. The problem is that it's really an argument against competition in general, because any competition makes it harder for men to get into certain jobs.

    Women do a lot of shitty jobs as well, particularly cleaning. Cleaning toilets is not very nice. Strangely there isn't much of an effort to get more men into toilet cleaning either, perhaps because the goal is for more people to have good jobs instead of shitty ones.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  11. Re:Appropriate vocational training by meta-monkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    All the janitorial staff in my office are men. Pretty sure men clean toilets, too.

    The point of these social experiments seems to get more and more women into the desk and office jobs. That leaves only the grubby, dirty, outside jobs for men. And nobody gives a shit about that.

    And no, I'm not crying to hold on to some men's only club. On my floor here my technical team is 4 men and 3 women, and our boss is a woman (as are the 2 superiors of hers to whom I report), and ~48/50 of the non-technical desk workers in the cubes outside my office window are women. Which is fine, I love my job and my workplace. So it's not like I'm "scared of teh girls takin' over!" They already have and I'm perfectly okay with that.

    But the "it's so awful, get all the training for girls and ignore boys!" hysteria seems pointless. Girls already dominate the educational system. They will dominate the future workforce. A boy growing up now who didn't have all these special programs will have a tough time competing with the girls who were prepped and trained for this their entire lives, so what else is he going to do? Maybe he'll luck out like my boss's husband. He stays home and takes care of the kids while she works. Lucky bastard.

    --
    We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.