In an act that I would find singularly outrageous if it were not in the current climate of fear--of everything and everyone--we see just how vulnerable some people are and how much we need the current interpretation of Title IX that includes transgender students.
In Wisconsin a trans high school student was told he could not use the boys' bathroom. He was offered the girls' bathroom or the office restroom. Neither option is acceptable but for a year, Ash Whitaker just did not use the bathroom at school, which had negative physical (and I would imagine emotional) health consequences. So he just started using the boys' bathroom seemingly without issue (and support from peers and some teachers) until the school instituted its wristband program. It would force students like Ash to use bathrooms based on sex on birth certificate. A green wristband would indicate that wearers are trans. The district and school wants to be able to monitor trans students and their bathroom use. The wristband reveals their trans identity to everyone.
A green wristband to identify trans students. The comparison is obvious and even if this is not a nationwide trend, it is deeply troubling. Whitaker and his mother have filed a Title IX lawsuit against the district. Also, this case serves as an example of the power of visibility. The Whitaker family was inspired to take action (there were other issues in addition to bathrooms) when they read about Gavin Grimm's case in Virginia.
Better news in South Carolina where a trans student, after OCR found her school district in violation of Title IX, is being allowed to use the girls' room in accordance to her gender of identity. The district engaged in a voluntary resolution of the complaint.
It is hard to take up the fight against discriminatory practices because often they lead to additional discrimination and backlash. It is more difficult in some areas and states than others. We live in Massachusetts where last week the legislature passed anti-discrimination legislation allowing trans people to use public restrooms and locker rooms in accordance with their gender identity. Yay Massachusetts! This does not mean, of course, that discrimination will cease. But an anti-discrimination measure has the backing of the state and that is hopeful. It goes into effect this fall.
Not Title IX related and not trans related (though potential implications) but too important to go without mention: Caster Semenya, who was subject to a disgraceful and malicious inspection of her gender in 2009 and then cleared to compete the following year, is competing in Rio this summer and is a favorite to win the 800 and also is a contender in the 400. But her participation is not without controversy, sadly. Again, despite being given the OK to compete in the field she has always competed in 6 years ago, some people are still worried about things being fair. Marathoner Paula Radcliffe--who does not compete against Semenya--is suspect of Semenya's participation and believes it is not sport when it is presumed that Semenya will win the gold. I guess gymnastics is going to suffer then given that Simone Biles is the presumptive all-around winner next month. Also Semenya, who won silver in 2012, is benefiting from the banning of the Russian team from track and field. Gold went to a Russian in London.
Her other fear is that so-called normal women will be pushed out of the sport when people to go areas of the world with higher occurrences of hyperandrogenism, which is the condition Semenya is believed to have. (In a rare moment of actually protecting her privacy, the results of her tests were not released.) One, athletes are recruited for specific physical traits all the time. Two, high testosterone levels are no guarantee of a specific performance outcome given that testosterone receptors are all over the body and perform different functions. Three, I could find distribution rates of intersex conditions. (They could exist, of course.)
Showing posts with label South Carolina. Show all posts
Showing posts with label South Carolina. Show all posts
Monday, July 25, 2016
Thursday, October 15, 2015
Sexual harassment roundup
Here is a roundup of some recent judicial decisions in Title IX cases alleging institutional liability for sexual harassment.
A cheerleading coach's teasing of a female student's "saggy boobs" was inappropriate but not sufficiently severe to constitute sexual harassment within the meaning of Title IX. Nor was the school district deliberately indifferent to the student's complaint, as school officials investigated the matter, suspended the coach for two weeks, and reprimanded her. Doe v. Georgetown County Sch. Dist., 2015 WL 5923610 (D.S.C. Oct. 9, 2015).
A school district was not liable to a female student for sexual assault by a male student in the same special education program. School officials were not alleged to have notice of any past instances of sexual the male student's sexual misconduct, except one incident in which he had asked a female classmate if he could touch her (and did not, apparently, touch her). Even if this incident could be found to have put school officials on notice that he was a sexual threat to other students, school officials did not respond to that incident with deliberate indifference but instead subjected the student to enhanced supervision and separated him from female student he had propositioned. Swanger v. Warrior Run Sch. Dist., 2015 WL 5830068 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 30, 2015).
Pervasive bullying that included keying the word "cunt" into a female classmate's car, but that otherwise involved no reference to sex or gender, did not constitute harassment "because of sex" for purposes of Title IX. Hankey v. Town of Concord-Carlisle, 2015 WL 5737136 (D. Mass. Sept. 30, 2015).
A federal judge in Ohio refused to dismiss a Title IX claim against a vocational college after determining material facts were in dispute that could, if proven, give rise to liability for sexual abuse of a student by a culinary arts instructor. The plaintiff, who claims she was seduced by the instructor into a sexual relationship, alleged that the college had notice of the instructor's bad boundaries, including inappropriate comments and touching. However, a trial is warranted to determine precisely how much of the instructor's earlier bad behavior had been reported, and, consequently, whether the college's response -- which included investigating the instructor and subjecting him to some monitoring, but not removing him from the classroom or limiting his contact with students -- was tantamount to indifference. Doe v. Springfield-Clark Career Technology Center, 2015 WL 5729327 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 30, 2015).
A university was not deliberately indifferent to a graduate student's report of sexual harassment by a professor, having responded to the student's complaint by conducting an investigation, changing her work assignment and office location, and supervising future meetings between the student and professor. The student was, however, allowed to continue to litigate her Title VII hostile environment claim, because Title VII does not use a deliberate indifferent standard. The fact that the professor was the student's supervisor puts the burden on the university to prove to a jury that they exercised "reasonable care" to prevent/address the harassment and that (by quitting just one week after filing her complaint) the complainant herself unreasonably failed to avail herself of preventive or corrective measures adopted by the university. Jenkins v. University of Minnesota, 2015 WL 5521746 (D. Minn. Sept. 18, 2015).
A cheerleading coach's teasing of a female student's "saggy boobs" was inappropriate but not sufficiently severe to constitute sexual harassment within the meaning of Title IX. Nor was the school district deliberately indifferent to the student's complaint, as school officials investigated the matter, suspended the coach for two weeks, and reprimanded her. Doe v. Georgetown County Sch. Dist., 2015 WL 5923610 (D.S.C. Oct. 9, 2015).
A school district was not liable to a female student for sexual assault by a male student in the same special education program. School officials were not alleged to have notice of any past instances of sexual the male student's sexual misconduct, except one incident in which he had asked a female classmate if he could touch her (and did not, apparently, touch her). Even if this incident could be found to have put school officials on notice that he was a sexual threat to other students, school officials did not respond to that incident with deliberate indifference but instead subjected the student to enhanced supervision and separated him from female student he had propositioned. Swanger v. Warrior Run Sch. Dist., 2015 WL 5830068 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 30, 2015).
Pervasive bullying that included keying the word "cunt" into a female classmate's car, but that otherwise involved no reference to sex or gender, did not constitute harassment "because of sex" for purposes of Title IX. Hankey v. Town of Concord-Carlisle, 2015 WL 5737136 (D. Mass. Sept. 30, 2015).
A federal judge in Ohio refused to dismiss a Title IX claim against a vocational college after determining material facts were in dispute that could, if proven, give rise to liability for sexual abuse of a student by a culinary arts instructor. The plaintiff, who claims she was seduced by the instructor into a sexual relationship, alleged that the college had notice of the instructor's bad boundaries, including inappropriate comments and touching. However, a trial is warranted to determine precisely how much of the instructor's earlier bad behavior had been reported, and, consequently, whether the college's response -- which included investigating the instructor and subjecting him to some monitoring, but not removing him from the classroom or limiting his contact with students -- was tantamount to indifference. Doe v. Springfield-Clark Career Technology Center, 2015 WL 5729327 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 30, 2015).
A university was not deliberately indifferent to a graduate student's report of sexual harassment by a professor, having responded to the student's complaint by conducting an investigation, changing her work assignment and office location, and supervising future meetings between the student and professor. The student was, however, allowed to continue to litigate her Title VII hostile environment claim, because Title VII does not use a deliberate indifferent standard. The fact that the professor was the student's supervisor puts the burden on the university to prove to a jury that they exercised "reasonable care" to prevent/address the harassment and that (by quitting just one week after filing her complaint) the complainant herself unreasonably failed to avail herself of preventive or corrective measures adopted by the university. Jenkins v. University of Minnesota, 2015 WL 5521746 (D. Minn. Sept. 18, 2015).
Monday, September 30, 2013
Agreements reached...
...in Portland, Maine where an investigation by OCR found that girls received fewer opportunities for participation in interscholastic sports than their male peers. The investigation also revealed some disparities in facilities. Under the agreement, the district will add girls' volleyball for the 2014-15 season and ensure equitable locker rooms, practice and competitive facilities. Administrators will also begin a process of assessing whether the district meets either prong one (proportionality) or prong three (interest) in determining the sport opportunities girls in Portland's schools receive.
...in the Union County (South Carolina) School District. Interestingly chairperson of the school board BJ McMorris announced at a meeting last week that OCR found no merit to a complaint filed in December 2012. Curious announcement given that a voluntary resolution agreement would not seem necessary for a complaint with no merit. Sure, some things will be improved, the public was told at last week's meeting, but nothing was ever really wrong was the message (along with a little passing of the buck--see below).
One of the issues with the resolution agreement process is the "no fault" aspect. Whatever semantic dance administrators--at all levels--are doing, an agreement means something was wrong that needs to be fixed.
What happened in South Carolina was that one part of the complaint in which the complainant argued that there were gender-based differences in punishments meted out to student-athletes was found to have no merit. Other aspects of the complaint and the OCR investigation did not, however, find Union County to be in tip-top Title IX shape.
Superintendent Kristi Woodall said she felt bad for the taxpayers who have to foot the bill for the work the district had to do compiling documents and otherwise accomodating OCR during the investigation. It was a throw-OCR-under-the-bus move. There have been plenty of times that OCR does not invesitgate a complaint because it does not seem to have merit.
Woodall is blaming OCR for doing its job and not taking any responsibility for its own non-compliance.
But OCR fired back seemingly immediately after the above-linked article was published in the local newspaper. A letter to the paper (which also bears some responsibility for not questioning a resolution to an proclaimed non-situation) included this statement:
“...OCR’s investigation determined that the district failed to provide female athletes equal opportunities with respect to: equitable facilities, including practice and competitive softball fields; strength training facilities and locker rooms; laundering of uniforms; pregame meals; scheduling and number of games; and maintenance of uniforms.
On Sept. 24, 2013, the district signed a Resolution Agreement to address these Title IX compliance concerns. OCR expects to issue a letter of findings, with accompanying Resolution Agreement, by the end of this week.”
...in Gloversville, New York after a January 2011 complaint triggered an OCR investigation. This is another case of spinning the situation with the superintendent of the Gloversville Enlarged School District saying that OCR found nothing wrong but that the district would be making some improvements. A project in which many of the district's fields and facilities were renovated dealt with some of the issues raised in the complaint, but the district will still be required to: schedule some girls' softball games on the lighted fields, fix the drainage on the softball fields, and make sure that a shared field is properly prepared for each respective sport that uses it.
...in the Union County (South Carolina) School District. Interestingly chairperson of the school board BJ McMorris announced at a meeting last week that OCR found no merit to a complaint filed in December 2012. Curious announcement given that a voluntary resolution agreement would not seem necessary for a complaint with no merit. Sure, some things will be improved, the public was told at last week's meeting, but nothing was ever really wrong was the message (along with a little passing of the buck--see below).
One of the issues with the resolution agreement process is the "no fault" aspect. Whatever semantic dance administrators--at all levels--are doing, an agreement means something was wrong that needs to be fixed.
What happened in South Carolina was that one part of the complaint in which the complainant argued that there were gender-based differences in punishments meted out to student-athletes was found to have no merit. Other aspects of the complaint and the OCR investigation did not, however, find Union County to be in tip-top Title IX shape.
Superintendent Kristi Woodall said she felt bad for the taxpayers who have to foot the bill for the work the district had to do compiling documents and otherwise accomodating OCR during the investigation. It was a throw-OCR-under-the-bus move. There have been plenty of times that OCR does not invesitgate a complaint because it does not seem to have merit.
Woodall is blaming OCR for doing its job and not taking any responsibility for its own non-compliance.
But OCR fired back seemingly immediately after the above-linked article was published in the local newspaper. A letter to the paper (which also bears some responsibility for not questioning a resolution to an proclaimed non-situation) included this statement:
“...OCR’s investigation determined that the district failed to provide female athletes equal opportunities with respect to: equitable facilities, including practice and competitive softball fields; strength training facilities and locker rooms; laundering of uniforms; pregame meals; scheduling and number of games; and maintenance of uniforms.
On Sept. 24, 2013, the district signed a Resolution Agreement to address these Title IX compliance concerns. OCR expects to issue a letter of findings, with accompanying Resolution Agreement, by the end of this week.”
...in Gloversville, New York after a January 2011 complaint triggered an OCR investigation. This is another case of spinning the situation with the superintendent of the Gloversville Enlarged School District saying that OCR found nothing wrong but that the district would be making some improvements. A project in which many of the district's fields and facilities were renovated dealt with some of the issues raised in the complaint, but the district will still be required to: schedule some girls' softball games on the lighted fields, fix the drainage on the softball fields, and make sure that a shared field is properly prepared for each respective sport that uses it.
Sunday, September 09, 2012
OCR Called to Investigate Title IX Violations by the South Carolina Department of Education and 20 School Districts
We've got our eye on a number of complaints reportedly filed with the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights targeting sex discrimination in athletics in the state of South Carolina. One complaint names the South Carolina Department of Education, while a separate round of complaints addresses particular disparities at 20 school districts in the state. The media hasn't yet reported much detail about this, other than to note that OCR is in the early stages of intake with the earlier-filed SCDOE.
In June, OCR settled a Title IX complaint against the Spartanburg, South Carolina school district, in a manner requiring the district's Boiling Springs and Chesnee High School to change the manner in which they schedule double-header basketball games so that girls have equal opportunity to the prime time slot. No word yet on whether similar allegations are included in the recent complaints.
In June, OCR settled a Title IX complaint against the Spartanburg, South Carolina school district, in a manner requiring the district's Boiling Springs and Chesnee High School to change the manner in which they schedule double-header basketball games so that girls have equal opportunity to the prime time slot. No word yet on whether similar allegations are included in the recent complaints.
Friday, March 23, 2012
No evidence of discrimination in SC high school
About nine months ago, we wrote about a complaint filed in Kershaw County, South Carolina where parents of a high school cheerleader felt the team was not being treated equally. Also there was some financial sketchiness about where the cheerleading team's money had gone.
At that time I noted that an OCR investigation would be interesting because cheerleading, in the way they are doing it in Kershaw County, is not recognized as a sport.
But this article, which states that the OCR investigation revealed no discriminatory treatment, does not mention this aspect at all. The complaint about access to quality coaching, funding, and facilities was apparently filed on behalf of all female student-athletes and thus, I would presume, does not apply specifically to the cheerleaders. But there was another complaint which mentioned similar issues that was filed in reference to the treatment the school gave to its softball team. The investigation into this claim also yielded no evidence of discriminatory actions or results.
Despite the confusion over which team was allegedly being discriminated against and whether cheerleading is a sport that receives equal treatment--it seems this case is closed.
At that time I noted that an OCR investigation would be interesting because cheerleading, in the way they are doing it in Kershaw County, is not recognized as a sport.
But this article, which states that the OCR investigation revealed no discriminatory treatment, does not mention this aspect at all. The complaint about access to quality coaching, funding, and facilities was apparently filed on behalf of all female student-athletes and thus, I would presume, does not apply specifically to the cheerleaders. But there was another complaint which mentioned similar issues that was filed in reference to the treatment the school gave to its softball team. The investigation into this claim also yielded no evidence of discriminatory actions or results.
Despite the confusion over which team was allegedly being discriminated against and whether cheerleading is a sport that receives equal treatment--it seems this case is closed.
Monday, June 06, 2011
What will cheerleading investigation in SC find?
Parents filing Title IX complaints with the Office of Civil Rights might be the trend of the month.
In South Carolina, parents of a cheerleader at Lugoff-Elgin High School started wondering where the money allotted for cheerleaders was going when they were told the squad would not be able to replace their ten-year old uniforms.
Even attempts by the cheerleaders' parents to fund the new uniforms were rebuffed. So the Gogans, parents of LEHS cheerleader, started their own investigation and found that there was no money in the cheerleaders' account and no explanation of where it had gone.
First things first. This is very sketchy. There is clearly something amiss here.
And the Gogans were right to question what the heck has been going on.
But they filed the OCR complaint because they wanted an explanation and greater transparency regarding how the school treats its boys' sports versus its girls' sports. Except that it does not appear that cheerleading is a sport at LEHS. Yes, the squad does engage in competitive cheer competitions. But they also sideline cheer. Their dual purpose is apparent in what does and does not get covered by the fees students must pay to participate. The cost covers uniforms and poms but not sneakers; and cheerleaders need two pairs: one for competitions and one "to cheer in."
I know that cheerleaders and parents and probably every administrator at LEHS do consider it a sport because it is a South Carolina High School League sanctioned sport. And thus they have a right to question the distribution of funds and the quality of the experience cheerleaders have.
But the Department of Education has said that a sport cannot be a sport if it exists, even in part, to support another sport. What has happened at the intercollegiate level is that competitive cheer squads (or stunt squads or tumbling and acrobatics squads--depending on which side squads are choosing) are no longer cheering on the sidelines. Sideline cheerleaders are now a different group.
So what will OCR find when it goes to South Carolina? Will this even be an issue?
When will the rules at the intercollegiate level trickle down to high schools thus making high school state athletic associations take notice?
In South Carolina, parents of a cheerleader at Lugoff-Elgin High School started wondering where the money allotted for cheerleaders was going when they were told the squad would not be able to replace their ten-year old uniforms.
Even attempts by the cheerleaders' parents to fund the new uniforms were rebuffed. So the Gogans, parents of LEHS cheerleader, started their own investigation and found that there was no money in the cheerleaders' account and no explanation of where it had gone.
First things first. This is very sketchy. There is clearly something amiss here.
And the Gogans were right to question what the heck has been going on.
But they filed the OCR complaint because they wanted an explanation and greater transparency regarding how the school treats its boys' sports versus its girls' sports. Except that it does not appear that cheerleading is a sport at LEHS. Yes, the squad does engage in competitive cheer competitions. But they also sideline cheer. Their dual purpose is apparent in what does and does not get covered by the fees students must pay to participate. The cost covers uniforms and poms but not sneakers; and cheerleaders need two pairs: one for competitions and one "to cheer in."
I know that cheerleaders and parents and probably every administrator at LEHS do consider it a sport because it is a South Carolina High School League sanctioned sport. And thus they have a right to question the distribution of funds and the quality of the experience cheerleaders have.
But the Department of Education has said that a sport cannot be a sport if it exists, even in part, to support another sport. What has happened at the intercollegiate level is that competitive cheer squads (or stunt squads or tumbling and acrobatics squads--depending on which side squads are choosing) are no longer cheering on the sidelines. Sideline cheerleaders are now a different group.
So what will OCR find when it goes to South Carolina? Will this even be an issue?
When will the rules at the intercollegiate level trickle down to high schools thus making high school state athletic associations take notice?
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Complaint targets Boiling Springs HS
I'm not blogging about the recently filed OCR complaint targetting Boiling Springs High School in South Carolina because I think the story is especially unusual or raises any new issues.
It's just an example of both good coverage of the issue (for the most part) and a good complaint.
Mike Tutterow, who has two girls at Boiling Springs (why didn't my high school have such a cool name??), filed the complaint after attempting to work out some of the issues (for several years) he saw within the athletic department. Note that anyone can file an OCR complaint. One does not have to be affiliated, in any way, with the school.
But Tutterow witnessed many discrepancies including: the quality and rate of replacement of boys' and girls' soccer uniforms; girls' coaches who had to launder their own team's uniforms; access to strength training; and differences in facilities (specifically the softball and baseball complexes).
It's not just treatment of athletes, however, it's about participation as well.
Girls are 47 percent of the schools 1600-person student body. They have only 30 percent of the athletic opportunities.
OCR visited Boiling Springs last week for two days.
The school superintendent, though, believes the school is in compliance and thinks OCR will find the complaint "unfounded." Based on what I have read, this seems unlikely. But the superintendent did say the district would make whatever changes recommended by OCR should the complaint indeed be founded.
It's just an example of both good coverage of the issue (for the most part) and a good complaint.
Mike Tutterow, who has two girls at Boiling Springs (why didn't my high school have such a cool name??), filed the complaint after attempting to work out some of the issues (for several years) he saw within the athletic department. Note that anyone can file an OCR complaint. One does not have to be affiliated, in any way, with the school.
But Tutterow witnessed many discrepancies including: the quality and rate of replacement of boys' and girls' soccer uniforms; girls' coaches who had to launder their own team's uniforms; access to strength training; and differences in facilities (specifically the softball and baseball complexes).
It's not just treatment of athletes, however, it's about participation as well.
Girls are 47 percent of the schools 1600-person student body. They have only 30 percent of the athletic opportunities.
OCR visited Boiling Springs last week for two days.
The school superintendent, though, believes the school is in compliance and thinks OCR will find the complaint "unfounded." Based on what I have read, this seems unlikely. But the superintendent did say the district would make whatever changes recommended by OCR should the complaint indeed be founded.
Tuesday, September 08, 2009
Same-sex classrooms in South Carolina
We have blogged about same-sex classrooms in public schools previously and this article out of Greenville, SC does not appear to say anything new about the situation. It is a quite balanced piece that uses narratives from same-sex classroom teachers and parents as well as research and testimony from educational researchers. Again, it is a lot of the same things we have heard: some students do well in this environment, some test scores are up, most of the same-sex classrooms reify gender stereotypes, the research on the success of these spaces is suspect.
What prompted this posting was the picture attached to the article. It shows boys in a "dukes up" pose. The teacher who appears to be a woman is in a similar pose but we only see her arms.
The article contains numerous descriptions about classroom decorations (the boys have sports paraphernalia and the girls have gingham and flower pots) and behaviors (the boys get to stand on chairs and recite spelling lists and jump around between lessons). All these things are worrisome in themselves. But why are schools teaching boys to box? And why was this activity missing from the text of the article?
Proponents of sex-segregated classrooms counter naysayers who worry about the lack of mixed gender socialization saying that girls and boys can socialize during recess and lunch and before and after school. But what kind of socialization occurs when boys are raising their fists and girls are planting flowers?
What prompted this posting was the picture attached to the article. It shows boys in a "dukes up" pose. The teacher who appears to be a woman is in a similar pose but we only see her arms.
The article contains numerous descriptions about classroom decorations (the boys have sports paraphernalia and the girls have gingham and flower pots) and behaviors (the boys get to stand on chairs and recite spelling lists and jump around between lessons). All these things are worrisome in themselves. But why are schools teaching boys to box? And why was this activity missing from the text of the article?
Proponents of sex-segregated classrooms counter naysayers who worry about the lack of mixed gender socialization saying that girls and boys can socialize during recess and lunch and before and after school. But what kind of socialization occurs when boys are raising their fists and girls are planting flowers?
Monday, October 01, 2007
South Carolina and Single-Sex Education
In a recent story for the Associated Press, reporter Seanna Adcox touted South Carolina as a "leader" in single-sex education, as the first and only state to name a statewide coordinator of efforts to separate boys and girls into separate classrooms.
Thanks to the efforts of that statewide coordinator, David Chadwell, single-sex education in South Carolina is flourishing. About 70 of the 360 programs to go into effect nationwide under the Department of Education's 2006 regulations are in that state.
So what is it that South Carolina's separate classrooms look like? Adcox's article gives us a glimpse:
Thanks to the efforts of that statewide coordinator, David Chadwell, single-sex education in South Carolina is flourishing. About 70 of the 360 programs to go into effect nationwide under the Department of Education's 2006 regulations are in that state.
So what is it that South Carolina's separate classrooms look like? Adcox's article gives us a glimpse:
In one recent boys' class, a group of gangly seventh-graders sprawled on the floor around a giant vinyl chart, using skateboard parts and measuring tape to learn pre-algebra. In a different school a few miles away, middle school girls interviewed each other, then turned their surveys about who's shy and who has dogs into fractions, decimals and percentages. Classical music played softly in the background.With so many sex stereotypes crammed into these three sentences, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that single-sex education is anything but a self-fulfilling prophecy. Doesn't anyone in S.C. see the inequitable consequences of encouraging boys, but not girls, to "sprawl" -- to take up space and to be in touch with their bodies? Isn't anyone in S.C. concerned about a curriculum that attaches the label of "shy" to some measurable percentage (or fraction, or decimal) of girls --but not boys-- but assumes that boys--but not girls-- might be more interested in a math lesson premised on skateboards and tools? I think policies like these are socially engineering gender differences more than they are responding to them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)