BILL ANALYSIS
AB 685
Page A
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 685 (Davis)
As Amended April 22, 2009
Majority vote
EDUCATION 8-2 APPROPRIATIONS 11-5
------------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Brownley, Ammiano, |Ayes:|De Leon, Ammiano, Charles |
| |Arambula, Buchanan, | |Calderon, Davis, Fuentes, |
| |Carter, Eng, Solorio, | |Hall, John A. Perez, |
| |Torlakson | |Price, Skinner, Solorio, |
| | | |Torlakson |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+---------------------------|
|Nays:|Nestande, Miller |Nays:|Nielsen, Duvall, Harkey, |
| | | |Miller, Audra Strickland |
------------------------------------------------------------------
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 school
facility project, with respect to athletic facilities, 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.)].
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, minor absorbable costs to the CDE.
COMMENTS : Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Title
IX) 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."
---------------------------
<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
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.
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.
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 of high schools. Approximately 44% of the high schools
that received a survey provided responses, representing about
15% of 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. 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."
This bill requires the CDE School Facilities Planning Division
to determine whether a proposed new school facility complies
AB 685
Page C
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.
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
ruled against the district in finding that there was unequal
AB 685
Page D
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.
Under current law, in order to be eligible for state education
bond funds, the School Facility Program requires a local
educational agency 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.
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, a school plan proposes a 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
AB 685
Page E
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 bill should include 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.
Analysis Prepared by : Sophia Kwong Kim / ED. / (916) 319-2087
FN: 0000621