BILL ANALYSIS
AB 685
Page 1
GOVERNOR'S VETO
AB 685 (Davis)
As Amended September 1, 2009
2/3 vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |48-28|(May 18, 2009) |SENATE: |26-13|(September 3, |
| | | | | |2009) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |49-28|(September 9, | | | |
| | |2009) | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: ED.
SUMMARY : Requires 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 design, with respect to
athletic facilities, would provide gender equitable access to
the facility. Specifically, this bill :
1)Requires the CDE to determine if a proposed school facility
project design would accomplish either or both of the
following:
a) Provide the opportunity for gender equitable access to
athletic facilities; and,
b) Provide equity in the size and quality of areas to be
used exclusively by either boys or girls, including, but
not necessarily limited to, locker rooms, playing and
practice facilities, or medical and training service areas.
2)Defines "athletics-related facilities" to include, but are not
necessarily limited to, gymnasia, playing fields, and
hardcourts proposed to be used for interscholastic sports
sanctioned by the California Interscholastic Federation or for
AB 685
Page 2
other extracurricular athletic events.
3)Authorizes the CDE to convene a working group to develop
guidelines and procedures for implementation of the
requirements of this bill in a manner that is consistent with
existing law regarding compliance with Title IX of the
Education Amendments of 1972 (20 U.S.C. Sec. 1681 et seq.) and
to make any recommendations for changes that are necessary for
the implementation of the requirements of this bill.
Authorizes the CDE to submit a report including the guidelines
and procedures developed for implementing the requirements of
this bill, and including any additional pertinent
recommendations, to the chairpersons of the Assembly and
Senate committees on education no later than December 31,
2010.
4)Specifies the following if the CDE convenes a working group
pursuant to this bill:
a) The activities of the working group shall be funded from
within existing resources; and,
b) The Superintendent of Public Instruction shall select
the members of the working group, which shall include among
those members one representative from each of the
following:
i) The CDE's School Facilities Planning Division;
ii) The CDE's Office of Equal Opportunity;
iii) The California Interscholastic Federation;
iv) The State Department of Justice's Civil Rights
Enforcement Section;
v) A large urban school district;
vi) A rural school district; and,
vii) A suburban school district.
The Senate amendments delete the requirement that the CDE's
School Facilities Planning Division make a determination on
whether a new construction plan design complies with Title IX of
the Education Amendments of 1972 (20 U.S.C. Sec. 1681 et seq.),
and instead insert the provisions described above in the
AB 685
Page 3
Summary.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations
Committee, according to CDE, costs for convening the working
group and developing guidelines would be approximately $150,000,
including the cost of a consultant position and additional costs
for reporting. Ongoing costs for assessing projects are
anticipated to be minor.
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."
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
AB 685
Page 4
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 to determine whether a proposed new
school facility would allow equitable access to athletic
facilities and/or provide equity in the size and quality of
areas to be used exclusively by either boys or girls, consistent
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.
AB 685
Page 5
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'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). When this bill passed the Assembly, concerns
were raised by the Education Committee on whether CDE can make a
AB 685
Page 6
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. Senate amendments
added authorization for the CDE to convene a working group with
representatives from the CDE, the Department of Justice and
school districts to develop guidelines and procedures for
evaluating athletic facilities and submit a report to the
chairpersons of the Assembly and Senate Education Committees by
December 31, 2010.
GOVERNOR'S VETO MESSAGE :
"This bill creates another bureaucratic mechanism to add another
layer of review to the new construction plan approval process
that is unnecessary since federal law already requires that
school sites provide sufficient access to all students,
regardless of their gender. School districts have an incentive
to ensure all of their facilities are Title IX compliant since
civil remedies
are available to individuals who prevail in proving a district's
non-compliance with statutory and regulatory guidelines.
Therefore, this bill is unnecessary."
Analysis Prepared by : Sophia Kwong Kim / ED. / (916) 319-2087
FN: 0003362