BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Gloria Romero, Chair
2009-2010 Regular Session
BILL NO: AB 685
AUTHOR: Davis
AMENDED: April 22, 2009
FISCAL COMM: Yes HEARING DATE: July 15, 2009
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT:Kathleen Chavira
SUBJECT : K-12 Athletic facilities: Title IX.
SUMMARY
This bill requires the School Facilities Planning Division
of the California Department of Education to include, as
part of its review of an application for new construction
plan approval, a determination whether any proposed
athletics-related facilities comply with Title IX.
BACKGROUND
Current law requires the California Department of Education
(CDE) to establish standards for use by school districts to
ensure that the design and construction of school
facilities are educationally appropriate and promote school
safety. Current law requires the CDE to review and approve
new construction plans for school facility projects funded
by the State Allocation Board (SAB). The plan review is
conducted by the School Facilities Planning Division (SFPD)
of the CDE. The SFPD review verifies project consistency
with the design standards of California Code of
Regulations, Title 5.
Current federal law (Title IX of the Education Amendments
of 1972 to the 1964 Civil Rights Act) provides that, in
part, "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." In order to be in compliance with Federal
Title IX, a school must show compliance with one of these
three parts. The federal tests are:
1) Athletic participation of women and girls is
AB 685
Page 2
proportionate to enrollment.
2) The school has a history and continuing practice of
program expansion for women or girls.
3) The school is fully meeting female athletes' interests
and abilities in its present athletic program.
Current state law (AB 833, Steinberg, Chapter 660, 2003)
establishes standards virtually identical to those of
Federal Title IX, with one modification: in Test 2,
"history" is defined to mean the past two years.
Title IX applies to all aspects of educational
opportunities, not just athletics.
ANALYSIS
This bill :
1) Requires the School Facilities Planning Division
(SFPD) of the State Department of Education to
include, as part of its review of a new construction
plan, a determination of whether the proposed project
complies with Title IX.
2) Restricts the authority granted to the SFPD to
athletics-related facilities only.
STAFF COMMENTS
1) Source of the bill . In 2008, the Assembly Committee
on Arts, Entertainment, Sports, Tourism & Internet
Media held an informational hearing entitled: State
Oversight of the California Interscholastic
Federation. According to testimony and a 2004 study
by the RMC Research Corporation, the committee learned
that only 26% of California high schools complied with
Title IX's proportionality standard. According to the
author, the California Department of Education (CDE)
expressly retains responsibility for enforcement of
Title IX. This bill attempts to provide a mechanism
for enforcing existing law through the facilities
planning process with regard to gender equity in
schools.
AB 685
Page 3
2) CDE Handbook . The Facilities Planning Division of
the California Department of Education prepares, and
makes available to schools, a Guide to School Site
Analysis and Development. To ensure compliance with
gender equity laws (Education Amendments of 1972,
Title IX), the California Department of Education
conducted a study of the adequacy of playfield areas
that were planned and constructed under the CDE's
guidelines. The study involved a sample of high
schools throughout the state stratified by size;
geographic location; and urban, suburban, and rural
areas. About two-thirds of the school districts
surveyed reported that their field areas were
inadequate to accommodate women's team sports. Smaller
schools were usually able to offer equal access by
scheduling and overlapping the use of playfields, but
larger schools that scheduled two or three levels of
softball (freshmen, junior varsity, and varsity)
needed additional playfield space. As a result of
that study, the current edition of the Guide
incorporates an additional field area for grades nine
through twelve which adds 1.4 to 3.4 acres to
playfield areas, depending on the enrollment and the
particular grade levels involved.
3) Title IX study . A March 2004 report prepared by the
California Postsecondary Education Commission and the
CDE. Title IX Athletics Compliance at California's
Public High Schools, Community Colleges, and
Universities found that, for the most part, high
schools rated the quality and availability of their
locker rooms, practice facilities and competition
facilities as adequate or very good. Analyses
revealed two statistically significant differences:
respondents rated the quality of locker rooms and
practice facilities to be poorer on average for boys
than girls. When football was excluded, there was no
significant difference between boys' and girls' teams.
The majority (65%) of respondents indicated that their
school had comparable boys' and girls' team rooms, 17%
indicated there were no team rooms for either gender,
15% reported that they were not comparable, and 4%
were unsure.
4) How does this solve the problem ? This bill requires
the School Facilities Planning Division (SFPD) to
AB 685
Page 4
determine whether a K-12 district's athletic
facilities plans are in compliance with Title IX.
Staff notes that compliance with Title IX relies on a
determination as to whether the participation of women
and girls is proportionate to enrollment, whether the
school has a history and continuing practice of
program expansion for women or girls, and whether the
school is fully meeting female athletes' interests and
abilities in its present athletic program. It is
unclear how the SFPD would determine whether a school
is compliant with Title IX since none of these
measures would clearly be reflected in the district's
athletic facilities plans. Making such a determination
would appear to require extensive research into the
practices of the district with regards to female
athletic program. Is the SFPD the appropriate entity
to conduct such research and make such a
determination? Would it be more appropriate for the
CDE to convene a work group to identify the scope of
the problem and to develop guidelines and processes
for assisting district's in ensuring gender equity in
their athletic programs?
SUPPORT
Consumer Attorneys of California
OPPOSITION
None received.