Texas will "review" propriety of that boys-only movie trip

[Redstate Bluegirl]

By MATTHEW HAAG
Staff Writer
[e-mail]


The Texas Education Agency said Friday that it was reviewing whether a $57,000 Dallas ISD fifth-grade field trip to see a war movie is a misuse of federal education dollars.

The boys-only field trip also has raised concerns about whether it violated gender-discrimination laws.

The Dallas school district sent about 5,000 boys on Thursday to see Red Tails , a movie about black American pilots in World War II , as part of Black History Month instruction. The trip was paid for with Title 1 grant money — funds earmarked for educating low-income students.

District spokesman Jon Dahlander said Thursday that a monitor from the state agency approved using the federal money. But agency officials said Friday that DISD never asked them about using the money and that the monitor, who is not employed by TEA, did not inform the department.

Link here http://www.dallasnews.com/news/education/headlines/20120210-state-to-review-disds-use-of-funds-for-boys-only-movie-trip.ece

No review needed. it was sexist. Period.

[Lucky Luciano]

1. yep - definitely sexist. I guess the review involves finding all the guilty parties an disciplining

[proud2BlibKansan]

2. Can't do that with Title I money

Besides being a ridiculous waste of money and a sexist activity, it's a violation of the use of Title I funds.

Title I denied our request to buy laminating film. No way are they going to authorize taking kids to a movie. LOL

[lumberjack_jeff]

3. "It was sexist. Period."

For sake of discussion, let's accept that it was.

Using that basis, are the programs funded by The women's educational equity program also sexist?

It seems to me there are two questions:
1) was a movie an appropriate field trip for the funding in question?
2) are gender or race-specific programs appropriate?

If the answer to 2) is yes than I think question 1 ($10 per student) is trivial

If the answer to 2) is no, then there are bigger fish to fry than a movie in one isolated school district.

[roody]

7. No, they are not.

[lumberjack_jeff]

8. And yet you don't offer any rationale.

Am I to assume that programs to benefit girls are okay just 'cuz? Or are you saying that programs to benefit boys are okay too and thus not sexist?

[Curmudgeoness]

4. It was sexist. Period.

I believe that it would have been great for the girls to see this movie too. It is part of history that everyone should be aware of, and acting like girls would not have liked the movie, or whatever excuse you come up with, is not acceptable. But I forgot, women don't need to be educated.

[lumberjack_jeff]

14. Seriously? Are you saying that in the US we don't educate girls? n/t

[Curmudgeoness]

16. I am saying that this is the direction we are heading

especially in very conservative areas of this country.

And as a female, I will say that when I was in school (back when dinosaurs roamed the land), we also were treated differently in regard to how we were educated. Thank god I survived and spit in their face.

[lumberjack_jeff]

19. Education has changed a great deal since our fellow dinosaurs were children.

But it is not going in the direction you surmise.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1114&pid=245

[Curmudgeoness]

21. It is interesting how different people look at things

from different angles. The statistics in that article did not go nearly as far back as they needed to for my experience (60's), but I can say that I only had a few male teachers in all 12 years of public education.

We had a lot of female teachers, and they gave more attention to the boys. Maybe they thought that the boys needed it more, or maybe they dismissed the girls as just future housewives, but that is how it appeared. We also did not give the problems that the boys did, so that could also be a reason the boys got more attention.

We all have different windows into the world based on our individual experiences.

[roody]

5. They could have hired a teacher

to work with small groups. They could have read about the pilots.

[jmowreader]

17. They could have waited 90 days until it makes it to DVD, and bought a copy for every school in DISD

[zbdent]

6. any explanation by the board as to WHY it was only male students???

wonder what the thinking was on that. I don't have (paid) access to the rest of the article.

[lumberjack_jeff]

9. There are dozens of metrics by which boys as a group should be identified for intervention.

they get worse grades, are more often victims of violence or suicide, drop out, get in trouble with the law and don't graduate from either high school or college.

A better question is why education doesn't target boys for educational improvement.

[niyad]

10. the statement was that "there was no room for the girls" even though there was room for THOUSANDS

of boys.

so my question is, where, exactly, was this held, because I have never heard of a movie theater that held 5,000 people.

the whole thing stinks.

[lumberjack_jeff]

11. That *is* a lame excuse.

The direct, honest and defensible answer is that they believed that the 5000 boys in the district were more in need of the message in film "a" and the 5000 girls more in need of the message of film "b".

It isn't as if they were given a school holiday to go to their parents workplace or something.

[seabeyond]

12. why did 5k boys = 57k? sounds like a rip off, on top of everything else. nt

[lumberjack_jeff]

13. $10 each?

Movie tickets are about that these days, + 10 buses + 10 drivers.

The cost doesn't surprise me at all.

[seabeyond]

15. gotcha. thanks. but it was during the day and that is cheaper and they

surely should have gotten a discount. think they were ripped off.

[RZM]

18. You have to get them to and fro though

That's extra time for the classified staff that drives them and gas costs too. I imagine those buses don't get great mileage.

[seabeyond]

20. that would be the 7k, lol. nt