BILL ANALYSIS
AB 685
Page A
Date of Hearing: April 15, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Julia Brownley, Chair
AB 685 (Davis) - As Introduced: February 26, 2009
SUBJECT : School facilities: compliance with Title IX
SUMMARY : Requires the School Facilities Planning Division of
the California Department of Education (CDE) to include, as part
of its review of an application for new construction plan
approval, a determination of whether the proposed project would
comply with federal law prohibiting discrimination in
educational programs or activities on the basis of sex<1> (Title
IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (20 U.S.C. Sec. 1681 et
seq.)).
EXISTING LAW :
1)Requires, under the Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of
1998, the State Allocation Board (SAB) to allocate to
applicant school districts, prescribed per-unhoused-pupil
state funding for construction and modernization of school
facilities, including hardship funding, and supplemental
funding for site development and acquisition.
2)Prohibits the SAB from apportioning funds to any school
district unless the applicant school district has certified to
the SAB that it has obtained the written approval of the CDE
that the site selection, and the building plans and
specifications, comply with the standards adopted by the CDE.
3)Specifies that participation in a particular physical
education activity or sport, if required of pupils of one sex,
shall be available to pupils of each sex.
4)Expresses the intent of the Legislature that opportunities for
participation in athletics be provided equally to male and
female pupils. Provides that no public funds shall be used in
connection with any athletic program conducted under the
auspices of a school district governing board or any student
organization within the district, which does not provide equal
opportunity to both sexes for participation and for use of
---------------------------
<1> The Education Code uses the term "gender" to mean sex. This
analysis uses the term "sex" to be consistent with Title IX.
AB 685
Page B
facilities.
5)Specifies that discrimination on the basis of sex includes
exclusion from the participation in, or denial of equivalent
opportunity in, athletic programs.
6)Specifies that an educational institution may be found to have
effectively accommodated the interests and abilities in
athletics of both sexes use one of three specified tests.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS : Background . Title IX of the Education Amendments of
1972 to the 1964 Civil Rights Act provides that "No person in
the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from
participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to
discrimination under any educational program or activity
receiving Federal financial assistance." According to the
author, "While Title IX applies to all aspects of educational
opportunities, it is well-known for opening the door to
athletics for girls and women."
Existing Law . State law prohibits discrimination based on sex
and considers exclusion from the participation in, or denial of
opportunity in athletic programs as discrimination. Current
law, pursuant to Education Code 230(d), offers the following
three ways an educational institution may be found to be
providing equivalent athletic opportunities:
1)If interscholastic level participation opportunities for male
and female pupils are provided in numbers substantially
proportionate to their respective enrollments;
2)If the school district can show a history and continuing
practice of program expansion that is demonstrably responsive
to the developing interest and abilities of the members of the
sex that have been and are underrepresented among
interscholastic athletes; or
3)If the school district can demonstrate that the interest and
abilities of the members of the sex that have been
underrepresented among interscholastic athletes is fully and
effectively accommodated by the present program, where, in the
past, the school district was unable to show a continuing
practice of program expansion.
AB 685
Page C
California Interscholastic Federation (CIF) . The CIF was
organized at a high school athletic convention held at the
Y.M.C.A. Field House, Los Angeles, on March 28, 1914. The
primary responsibilities of CIF are to administer high school
athletic programs and to promulgate and enforce rules relating
to a student's involvement in athletics - age, semesters in
school, scholarship, residence, transfer status, and amateur
standing. Such regulations, which are generated by the 1,400
member base of secondary schools, prevent undesirable
exploitation of high school students, provide for the welfare of
participants, and ensure that interscholastic athletics offer
major benefits to students in a safe, rewarding environment.
The CIF's "Guide to Equity in Athletics" provides
recommendations and guidelines to help schools meet Title IX
requirements. The Guide specifies two components for
assessment:
1)Effective accommodation of athletic interest and abilities
(whether there is equivalent participation rates of
male/female athletes); and
2)Equivalence in other athletics benefits and opportunities
(whether male and female athletes receive equivalent
equipment, clothing, travel benefits, publicity, game and
practice time and scheduling, facilities).
Purpose of the bill . This bill requires the CDE School
Facilities Planning Division to determine whether a proposed new
school facility complies with the requirements of Title IX. The
author states that this bill stems from an informational hearing
held last year by the Assembly Committee on Arts, Entertainment,
Sports, Tourism & Internet Media on oversight of the California
Interscholastic Federation. The topic of the informational
hearing included a review of gender equity in sports.
A 2004 report titled "Title IX Athletics Compliance at
California's Public High Schools, Community Colleges, and
Universities" by RMC Research Corporation, prepared for the
California Postsecondary Education Commission and the CDE, found
that "high schools' greatest disparities in regard to gender
equity were in participation in athletics and coaching. Lack of
gender training was also an issue." The findings were based on
a survey to high schools. Approximately 44% of the schools that
received a survey provided responses, representing about 15% of
AB 685
Page D
all public high schools with athletic programs. According to
the report, only 26% of the 125 reporting high schools were in
compliance with Title IX based on proportionality (#1 described
above). The report concluded that "female students are
underrepresented in high school athletics programs, and fewer
varsity sports are offered to female students. Most athletic
directors don't really know if they meet the participation test
because they don't collect and review participation data."
One of the witnesses, Elizabeth Kristen, Project Director of the
Title IX K-12 Equality Project at the Legal Aid Society -
Employment Law Center, stated the following:
"A common practice has schools building new sports facilities
for boys and leaving girls to play at sub-standard athletic
venues. Even when new facilities are built for boys and girls,
girls' facilities are not as nice as those provided to the boys.
For example, schools frequently lavish funds on new football
stadiums whose use benefits proportionally more boys than girls.
Comparing baseball to softball fields at almost any high school
will show that the boys' baseball facilities are nice, have more
amenities and are better maintained than the girls' softball
facilities."
The Legal Aid Society and the California Women's Law Center
filed two class action lawsuits against two school districts for
failing to comply with Title IX. In Cruz v. Alhambra, the
plaintiffs charged that the Alhambra Unified School District and
the City of Alhambra collaborated to build a state-of-the-art
baseball field exclusively for boys' use, while the girls'
softball program was provided a small, dirty and dangerous field
and the girls' basketball team had to practice in a small
"girls" gym. The lawsuit also charged that girls had less
access to weight training facilities, fewer locker rooms, less
support, and less funding. The lawsuit was resolved through
settlement agreements with the District and the City.
In Ollier v. Sweetwater, the plaintiffs charged that Castle Park
High School in Sweetwater Union High School District in Chula
Vista provided substandard amenities for the girls' softball
team and similar to the Alhambra case, provided less access to
the weight room, fewer locker rooms, less publicity and less
funding for the girls. There was also a large disparity between
girls' and boys' enrollment and participation in athletics. The
court just recently released a partial summary judgment and
AB 685
Page E
ruled against the district in finding that there was unequal
participation opportunity. The remaining issues, including
unequal treatment and benefits, which includes facilities, may
go to trial.
The Legal Aid Society and the California's Women's Law Center
suggest strengthening enforcement of Title IX activities to
avoid lawsuits. One of the recommendations is to utilize the
review process for school plans to ensure that facilities are
equal for boys and girls. This bill would implement this
recommendation.
Eligibility for state bond funds . Under current law, in order
to be eligible for state education bond funds, the School
Facility Program requires a local educational agency (LEA) to
first obtain approval from the CDE to ensure that the site
selected is safe and conducive to learning (e.g., the school
will not be built near high-voltage power transmission lines,
high-pressure natural gas lines) and the building specifications
support the school's education plan.
In 2000, the CDE's School Facilities Planning Division revised
its "School Site Analysis and Development Guide" with
recommended changes to site acreage for school facilities in
part to promote compliance with Title IX. The CDE conducted a
survey of playfield areas to determine whether existing high
schools provided adequate space to accommodate women's team
sports. The study found that about two-thirds of the districts
surveyed reported inadequate field areas. While smaller schools
were more able to provide equal access by scheduling and
overlapping the use of playfields, larger schools that had
various levels of softball (freshmen, junior varsity, and
varsity) needed additional playfield space. As a result, the
CDE increased the recommended acreage for field areas by 1.4 to
3.4 acres to accommodate a combined softball/soccer field and a
combined softball/touch football/soccer field.
Can the CDE School Facilities Planning Division determine
definitive compliance with Title IX? State law and CIF
guidelines indicate that compliance with Title IX is based on a
number of factors, some of which are programmatic (equal time in
the weight room or equal practice schedules) and fiscal
(equivalent expenditures for uniforms). The CDE already makes
recommendation for site acreage to accommodate expanded
facilities and makes inquiries if, for example, it proposes a
AB 685
Page F
baseball field and not a softball field. It is unclear whether
CDE can make a definitive determination of compliance with Title
IX without development of further standards and guidelines
through which the CDE can use as a measure of compliance. For
example, if a school plan includes a weight room, does there
need to be one for boys and one for girls? Is equity solely
that there is a baseball field for boys and a softball field for
girls or is equity achieved when the fields are of comparable
size and quality? The author should add into the bill a
requirement that one or more entities be charged with developing
standards or guidelines through which the CDE School Facilities
Planning Division may use to review plans.
This bill may be too broad . Title IX applies to more than just
athletic equality. For purposes of this bill, staff recommends
narrowing the scope of review to athletic-related facilities,
which would encompass physical aspects of sports facilities as
well as support facilities such as locker rooms or weight rooms.
Arguments in Support . The author states that "this bill will
help prevent such [law] suits in the future, by providing a
mechanism for enforcing existing law with regard to gender
equity in schools."
Equal Rights Advocates states, "Too often, we see the
construction of athletic facilities that offer a troubling
picture of gender inequity at our schools. While boys' teams
enjoy bleachers and fences and scorecards, girls are forced to
play on dirt fields. Millions are spent on stadiums while girls
are deprived the opportunity to play. We believe California
legislation tying approval for school construction to the
project's compliance with Title IX is a straightforward
mechanism that raises awareness of Title IX and creates
accountability at minimal cost."
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Legal Aid Society-Employment Law Center (sponsor)
American Civil Liberties Union
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
(AFL-CIO)
California Association for Health, Physical Education,
Recreation and Dance
AB 685
Page G
California Commission on the Status of Women
California Women's Law Center
Equal Rights Advocate
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Sophia Kwong Kim / ED. / (916) 319-2087