3 ms·

Or... we could look at data? No? LAUSD: ~4.5:1 in elementary school, ~1:1 in secondary, ~4:1 in special ed[1] Across all CA public schools: ~2.5:1 [2] Across

Or... we could look at data? No? LAUSD: ~4.5:1 in elementary school, ~1:1 in secondary, ~4:1 in special ed[1] Across all CA public schools: ~2.5:1 [2] Across the US: 3:1 [3] So, more women? Yes. 20:1? Wild outlier. So, what about the claim that it's more women, somehow building a system more friendly to girls? Turns out the data says "not so much" there, too. Principals are roughly 1:1[4] [1] https://achieve.lausd.net/cms/lib/CA01000043/Centricity/domain/280/democurrent/B-1.pdf https://achieve.lausd.net/cms/lib/CA01000043/Centricity/doma... [2] https://www.ed-data.org/state/CA https://www.ed-data.org/state/CA [3] https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_clr.asp https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_clr.asp [4] https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cls.asp#:~:text=In%202017%E2%80%9318%2C%20about%2078,and%209%20percent%20were%20Hispanic https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cls.asp#:~:text=I....

jfim 6y ago
According to your data, a 20:1 ratio could be explained. The first figure of your link [3] shows that the ratio for elementary level teachers is 89:11. Plugging these numbers into R shows that it's not exactly a surprising result: > prop.test(1,21,p=11/100) 1-sample proportions test with continuity correction data: 1 out of 21, null probability 11/100 X-squared = 0.31913, df = 1, p-value = 0.5721 alternative hypothesis: true p is not equal to 0.11
- groby_b 6y ago
  Yep - my mistake, I only looked at the LAUSD data for elementary schools, and then at total numbers instead for the following data sets. This makes the "principals are 1:1" data even more interesting. It also lends a good chunk more weight to the idea that at least elementary schools are an environment with outsizedly more female role models. I still think the "build a system" argument doesn't hold - see the 1:1 data - but I'm certainly more convinced on "the effects of the system-as-is result in this", even without the conscious build step.

jfim 6y ago

According to your data, a 20:1 ratio could be explained. The first figure of your link [3] shows that the ratio for elementary level teachers is 89:11. Plugging these numbers into R shows that it's not exactly a surprising result: > prop.test(1,21,p=11/100) 1-sample proportions test with continuity correction data: 1 out of 21, null probability 11/100 X-squared = 0.31913, df = 1, p-value = 0.5721 alternative hypothesis: true p is not equal to 0.11

groby_b 6y ago
Yep - my mistake, I only looked at the LAUSD data for elementary schools, and then at total numbers instead for the following data sets. This makes the "principals are 1:1" data even more interesting. It also lends a good chunk more weight to the idea that at least elementary schools are an environment with outsizedly more female role models. I still think the "build a system" argument doesn't hold - see the 1:1 data - but I'm certainly more convinced on "the effects of the system-as-is result in this", even without the conscious build step.