This was ridiculous funneling of federal money to private businesses. They could have shown a movie at the school for 100th of the cost, if that.
And I don’t see any reason to segregate boys and girls for educational purposes.
Indeed. The boys get skip school to watch a movie. The girls get to meet with mentors who can give them advice on how to improve their lives.
Only a teenager would think the boys are getting the better deal.
They flew each child to a movie theater in Paris on his own private plane?
There were 5,700 of them, so that’s $10 per student.
This isn’t appropriate for GD. Please tone it down and don’t do it again.
The worst part of it is that the Title 9 gender discrimination angle is the only thing that raised red flags and got this story into the papers. How much more money is wasted inflicting worthless crap on girls and boys equally? Dallas has been hit comparitively lightly by the economic mess, but the kids, particularly the poor minority kids this federal money is supposed to help, are still getting a shitty education. Every teacher I know says they have personally paid for supplies for their classrooms, while the powers that be think a field trip to the multiplex is a good use of grant money. I’ll eat my own hat if it turns out that this wasn’t motivated by good old boy network corruption.
In Dallas, people with money spend way too much or move very far out to buy a house that feeds into a “good” public school, or they just give up on the system and pay for private school. I used to think they were motivated by racism, or classism, or competition with their peers. Maybe they are just trying to insulate their family from these kinds of stupid, counterproductive, possibly unlawful decisions.
To get back into GD territory, does anyone care to take the esteemed educators’ position that a silly big-budget popcorn movie is the best way to teach students something or other that will improve their lives?
I’ve met with some of the “mentors” that are available around here. I’d say that the kids are getting about equal educational value…but the point is, the sexes are getting treated very, very differently here. And I think that the money is being spent unwisely. The DISD has been cutting jobs and services. For the price of ONE movie attendance (plus the bussing and such), the district could have hired an additional teacher to provide instruction for the entire year, and probably have had money left over. Or the district could have hired a mentor/counselor to be available during the whole school year.
Either both sexes should have gone on the field trip, or neither sex. And the whole notion of dragging a bunch of pre-teens to a theater during school hours should have been seriously re-examined before it happened.
This happens all the time though. Did you hear people complaining when take your daughter to work day was en vogue? Do you hear people whining about female empowerment programs?
While I agree the money was spent unwisely, they likely could not have hired a teacher. First, one additional teacher, for one year is useless. Especially since we are talking about thousands of kids here. Second, hiring a teacher costs more than 50k.
I think you are focusing on the wrong thing. I agree with you that seeing a non-educational movie on the tax payer’s dime is a bad use of resources, but I really could not care less that only the boys got to go. I think the general idea that young boys will enjoy an action movie more than young girls is true, and that allowing them to go is likely no worse than any other split they could have come up with. It’s definitely better than if nobody got to go solely because taking boys and not girls is bad.
That said, what really bothers me is the recreational outrage that accompanies any decision questionable decision any public entity makes. I agree that it seems like a unwise move, but the stakes are so small that it really seems petty and parochial to meddle and get angry about it. Do you really think the kids are gonna somehow be damaged because only the boys got to see a movie because of space constraints? This will be forgotten by the kids in a few short days while adults use them as a proxy for whatever grievances they want to air. We really need to get some perspective here.
I’ll bite. Put on teacher hat. Step into the teachers lounge. Pour a cup of coffee and check the notice board
“Sweet, we get to go to a movie for free. You suckers are stuck at school with a bunch of disgruntled girls. Have fun losers!”
Otherwise, I can’t imagine why a teacher would think this is a good idea. I really doubt they asked the teacher though. This sounds like one adminstrator’s stupid idea and the teachers just grumble and go along because it’s not like they would get the money for other projects if they didn’t go to the movie.
Management makes an uninformed bad decision and the people who actually do the work can go along with it or quit? Sounds like civil service and the corporate world aren’t so different after all. Let’s all drink heavily!
Yes. I complain about all inequality based on gender. All of it.
I disagree that boys will enjoy an action movie more* and I disagree that it is better to take boys to see it instead of not taking the kids at all. Read my post up thread, is any of that ok?
The outrage is not recreational: it concerns widespread sexism in our society that needs to be eradicated. Your comment only serves to display how accepted these forms of sexism are.
*My flatmates: if I come in late the boys will be up watching a romcom after the girls have gone to bed. They love romcoms, watch them all the time. When we pick something together it’s more likely to be an action film (because my rule is law) and if the boys choose it will be a romcom.
They actually paid FULL PRICE for the tickets?
There’s lots of level of dumb here - thats not even matinee price… (in my area atleast)
What exactly is your great debate? Your OP is about boys getting a field trip and the girls being made to stay at school. I pointed out the girls get their own field trip.
Now you are saying it’s a case of separate but not equal. That’s typically about race, not gender. Little boys’ rooms have urinals, and I’m guessing (again) that the little girls’ rooms don’t. Separate but not equal makes sense sometimes. According to the educators themselves, there was more interest among boys to see a WWII fighter pilot movie than among girls. I don’t have a problem with that. No doubt there are girls who would like to have seen the movie, and no doubt there are some boys who would like to spend the day with female mentors.
The DISD has 11,000 plus (guessing again) 5th graders to take on field trips and you can only individualize the experience so much before it becomes a heck of a lot more complicated and expensive than $10/head.
You are reading way too much into my Oprah comment. As you have presented it, this is an issue of boys being treated better than girls, which is just the sort of cause célèbre Oprah would jump on, and do something nice for the girls. That’s all.
This is not relevant to the issue of gender inequality.
I have some great ideas for edifying gender inclusive 5th grade field trips too, but then I don’t have to safely herd 11K of them around.
This is where you are entirely wrong, and appear to be living in the 1950’s.
Your opinion that the boys would enjoy the movie more, and therefore should be the ones chosen to go is an outdated, wrong-headed, and foolish opinion.
Yes, there were tons of complaints and my company (large, Silicon Valley Electronics firm) specifically billed it as “Bring your child to work day”. We had boys and girls running around the place, and everyone had lots of fun.
The tickets were “only” 32k. So roughly $6.40 per.
Good for you. Do you have any other examples of you complaining about gender inequality that hurts men?
Are we really gonna debate this? Do you honestly think men and women generally see action films at the same rates?
No, but it’s not particularly analogous either.
No, it’s just a poor decision on the part of a school board that has little to no impact on anyone’s life in the grand scheme of things. This isn’t women not being allowed to vote, or even women’s teams not getting funding. It’s a goddamn movie. It’s also a situation where the decision to do what they did was made because of space constraints. This wasn’t a decision made to hurt the girls, it was just a crude way of dealing with a scarcity. I agree they could have found better ways to spend the money, but getting upset over this is ridiculous.
I assume the $57k figure includes the cost of school bus drivers, fuel and so forth.
My employer called it ‘Shun you son’ day, as he hated the idea that girls got to go to work with their parents and boys were ignored.
While I advocate treating people as equally as possible, the fact that the sexes were treated differently does not mean that the girls are getting a raw deal. Frankly, it doesn’t mean that either group is getting a raw deal. There is a distinct tendency to label any differences as though whoever is male/white is automatically getting the good stuff, and if you get something different from them, you’re a chump.
It is certainly a bad idea to segregate outings that have nothing to do with one’s gender, but I don’t personally believe that the girls are making out noticeably worse in this case.
You honestly think girls enjoy action movies as much as boys? Do you think men and women generally choose to see the same films? Do they derive the same enjoyment from those movies? The data and basic common sense says no. Now, you can say it’s a bad way to separate the kids, but I don’t think it’s such a bad way to do given the context.
It was changed in 2003, a full 10 years after it gained momentum. When it was launched, there was largely no controversy despite what apparently happened at your company. I remember being in school and feeling so annoyed that the girls got to leave, but I was generally over it the next week because, even then, I realized it was not a big deal. In fact, most of what I remember happening initially, was that people being annoyed by the logistical problems it posed (eg. one kid in school, and the other at work, etc.).
Furthermore, if you are gonna take a hard line on separating kids for one reason or another, why is it okay to only take poor kids to the movies? Don’t rich kids deserve a chance to see a free movie too? Again, I can understand the sensitivity using bases for discrimination that have historically been used for evil purposes, but that doesn’t mean doing so is always bad, or unreasonable. It’s especially dumb to get all worked up over something when the stakes are this small.