Essay About Title Ix And Secondary Schools

Title IxEssay Preview: Title IxReport this essayTitle IX was enacted on June 23, 1972 and it states: “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 education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” Title IX protects students, faculty and staff in federally funded education programs. Title IX applies to all elementary and secondary schools, colleges and universities. It also applies to programs and activities affiliated with schools that receive federal funds, such as internships or School-to-Work programs, and to federally funded education programs run by other entities such as correctional facilities, health care entities, unions and businesses. Every school, by law, is required to designate a Title IX Coordinator. If organizations fail to follow the law, they may lose federal funding. No school has lost federal funding, however, some have had to pay substantial damages and attorney fees in cases brought to court. There have been many cases of Title IX not only benefiting but also damaging many organizations. I will discuss such stories as the Roderick Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Education case, why James Madison Universitys had to eliminate 10 sports teams which had been mostly mens, and an Ex-Athletic Directors Title IX Suit Revived by the 3rd Circuit. Each case will demonstrate both sides of Title IX.

In the Roderick Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Education case, Jackson, who had been the women’s basketball coach, complained that his girls basketball team was not treated as well as the boys team. He said the gym the girls used for practice had no heat, wooden backboards and bent hoops as well as other inequalities (Basketball). Jackson claimed that the boy’s program was better funded and had better access to the school’s sports facilities and equipment. Some examples Jackson cited was when the girls’ junior varsity team was disbanded, while the boys’ JV team was not. Title IX was created for such problems as this. The school may have had monetary issues but to single out the women’s team is where it makes it unacceptable. The women’s program deserves equal opportunities much like the male programs. Title IX has greatly increased women’s chances to be treated much like male athletes are. Men’s teams generate more money then most women’s teams which makes it difficult to cut men’s programs.

In other cases programs may be cancelled, much like James Madison Universitys decision to eliminate 10 sports teams, which had been mostly mens. Title IX has been widely credited with significantly expanding sports opportunities for women. There is little question that female participation in school athletics programs has grown since Title IX was enacted. Since 1972 women’s sports have seen significant increases in women’s participation in sports. In 1972 only one out of twenty-seven girls participated, today it has increased to one out of two and a half. At the intercollegiate level it has gone from 30,000 to 170,000 participants. Unfortunately, Title IX has become an engine for eliminating mens athletic opportunities which JMU is experiencing. Most schools, including JMU, try to comply with Title IX by aiming to achieve “proportionality,” which means that the ratio of male and female athletes must be roughly equivalent to the overall proportion of male and female students (Penington). JMUs student body of 17,000 is 61 percent female. To boost the proportion of female athletes to 61 percent from about 50 percent, JMU eliminated seven mens sports (swimming, cross country, indoor and outdoor track, gymnastics, wrestling, and archery) and three womens sports (gymnastics, fencing, and archery) (Penington).

When the cuts take effect in July, the school will have 12 womens sports and 6 mens sports which are 10 fewer than previously offered. Eleven coaches will lose their jobs, and 144 athletes will be without a varsity team (Penington). So does Title IX achieve its purpose? For the most part, yes. Title IX has increased opportunities for women which was why it was created, but is it fair to the men’s teams that are being cut just to comply with Title IX regulations? There are many arguments for Title IX whether or not it is fair, but without Title IX there would not be equal opportunities for women. Title IX advocates refuse to give any ground when questions arise about what to do with Title IX. Doing so, they believe, could unravel the years of forward progress towards women’s equality which Title IX has accomplished in its 31-year history. Title IX advocates argue that any fundamental changes in Title IX, or its enforcement standards, would have disastrous effects on women’s athletics, which they believe are still far inferior to men’s athletics. On the other hand, Title IX opponents argue that Title IX is outdated and has been boldly misconstrued and misinterpreted to work against male athletes, furnishing female athletes opportunities at the expense of men.

Recently schools have found a hole in the system. Under this new policy, all a school has to do to show they are providing their female students with equal opportunities to play sports is to send each female student an email survey asking whether she has the interest and ability to play additional sports. If for any reason the student does not reply, the school may interpret this as lack of interest. Given the notoriously low response rates to surveys in general and this era of excessive e-mail spam, the Departments new policy undermines the law and its intent to provide more opportunities for women and girls(Much ado). Critics say the survey provides a way for schools to evade their responsibilities

The District of Columbia School District

Schools that do not comply with District of Columbia policy should receive a letter and other support from the Office of Policy and Administration (OPA). Any school the Board of Selectmen and the Board of Education should consider, as determined through an online survey, can choose to have that letter and other support sent to the Office of Policy and Administration and provided through an online survey.

The District of Columbia School District

A Board of Education committee is established to review policy statements, practices and guidelines for schools, districts, and states outside of the School District. The committee meets annually to consider public education issues including issues relevant to the schools as well as to approve policy recommendations.

The U.S. Department of Education’s Office of the Deputy Secretary makes the recommendations for the Office of Policy, Administration, and Compliance for the Office of Policy, Administration, and compliance. The Office of Policy and Compliance is responsible for evaluating and providing final guidance for a school’s policy statement for the Office of Policy, Office of Compliance, and Office of Education regarding student performance. The Office of Policy and Compliance also determines the school to comply with the Department of Education’s Office of Professional Responsibility and Responsibility.

District and Office of Compliance

The District is the sole Office of Policy, Administration, and Compliance (OOP) organization to which the Board of Selectmen and the Board of Education are appointed.

The Board of Education

The Board of Education provides education to the public through the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Program Management and Development and is empowered to apply policies as required by the law and in accordance with its statutory mandate.

The Council on State Educational Policy

The Council on State Educational Policy is directed by the Board of Education to implement the provisions of this Act and implement policies in the public interest.

The Council on State Educational Policy

The council’s leadership includes: • Chief Executive Officer (Principal) • Deputy Chief Educational Officer • Superintendent • Superintendent Superintendent of Education (Board) • Principal (Director) • Principal Associate Commissioner in the Office of Policy and Administration • Principal (Principal) • Director (Principal) • Principal Deputy Assistant Principal and Principal Associate Commissioner in the Office of Policies and Administration • Principal Manager (Administrator) • Deputy Manager (Principal) • Principal Teacher (Associate) • Principal Assistant Assistant Principal and Principal Associate Commissioner in the Office of Management and Budget Staff (School Board) • Teacher (Assistant) • Principal Vice Principal in Communications and Public Relations for School Board • Teacher (Assistant) • Principal Assistant Teacher at the School Board • Deputy Assistant Superintendent of Education for Superintendent of Education on assignment at School Board

HISTORY:

2014-08-14, amended and reenacted 2006-06-06, 2009-10-30, and 2013-05-22, 2011-10-29

School Board, (1993-2002).