Bleacher Battle in Plymouth

[jonriv]

Also- the term bleachers is misleading- the seats the parents put in were brick enclosed -folding pro- stadium seats.- a MAJOR difference

[ron2691]

I would not doubt that this may be a liability issue since the seats and seating area was upgraded by parents and not school district employees. I know work and improvements have been done on our school facilities, only to be torn down because the work was not done by certified school employees. A lawsuit was won when someone was injured on school grounds in a parent built out-building.

[blackwidow]

The issue has nothing to do with parents building the bleachers. That was made quite clear in the article. They are making it an equality issue.
And Now since the girl's softball field has bleachers and the boy's baseball field does not, things are again unequal. Since there is no money to build "compliant" baseball bleachers, the only solution is to tear down the softball bleachers as well. And so it goes.

My local high school boys baseball has brand new stadium seating bigger than what is shown in the article, meanwhile our girls softball has standard aluminum seating just the same as shown in the article. Maybe I should take photos and file a lawsuit? Hmmmm.

[jonriv]

No- a lawsuit is not the first thing or even required. I would contact the the school AD and voice your observations and concerns. Make them aware of the potential issues and give them the opportunity to correct the problem. If not corrected- all you have to do is submit the issue to your local OCR(Office for Civil Rights - U.S. Department of Health and Human Services) They do the investigation and if there is a finding give the loacal school board the opportunity to respond and take corrective action.

The law has been in place since 1972. Any AD who is not aware of it's parameters and consequences is simply not doing there job. The fact that there is still such a disparity in facilities so many places shows that there are lots of ADs not doing their jobs

[jonriv]

Pretty EAsy to understand:

Three-part test[edit]HEW's 1979 Policy Interpretation articulated three ways compliance with Title IX can be achieved. This became known as the "three-part test" for compliance. A recipient of federal funds can demonstrate compliance with Title IX by meeting any one of the three prongs.[25]

"All such assistance should be available on a substantially proportional basis to the number of male and female participants in the institution's athletic program."
"Male and female athletes should receive equivalent treatment, benefits, and opportunities" regarding facilities.
"The athletic interests and abilities of male and female students must be equally effectively accommodated."[13][26]
"Institutions must provide both the opportunity for individuals of each sex to participate in intercollegiate competition, and for athletes of each sex to have competitive team schedules which equally reflect their abilities." Compliance can be assessed in any one of three ways:[25]
1.Providing athletic participation opportunities that are substantially proportionate to the student enrollment. This prong of the test is satisfied when participation opportunities for men and women are "substantially proportionate" to their respective undergraduate enrollment.
2.Demonstrating a continual expansion of athletic opportunities for the underrepresented sex. This prong of the test is satisfied when an institution has a history and continuing practice of program expansion that is responsive to the developing interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex (typically female).
3.Accommodating the interest and ability of underrepresented sex. This prong of the test is satisfied when an institution is meeting the interests and abilities of its female students even where there are disproportionately fewer females than males participating in sports

[blackwidow]

Title IX in it's original form had nothing to do with athletics...its reach has been gradually expanded, challenged and expanded. Even today as it stands it continues to be challenged and expanded as seen in the bleacher battle.
I don't see how the comfort of the spectators has any relevance to the equal access to participation in sports. But that's just me. Meanwhile...tear down those bleachers and make everyone sit on the grass...equally.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_IX

[jonriv]

The Bleachers are part of the "facilities"

It is a "public" school


Frankly speaking- women's/girls sports continue to get screwed

[AlwaysImprove]

Yawn. Keep using Title 9 to tear down facilities and it will only lead to Title 9 being less effective for real things that are needed. You want to focus on where the old ladies butt rests, say this is about equality in facilities. Your without me.

Stay focused on what is truly important. Scholarships fields. Not letting it become about petty butt jealousy.

[jonriv]

The decision to "tear down" was the school board's--- there were other options and had they done their job properly they would not have been put in this position. I feel bad for the parents, since they had great intenetions, but the the school administration is paid to know better.

Title ix is not the villian here, but the local school administration.

Again, this is nothing new

[blackwidow]

Another look at the issue..
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wendy-n-p ... 60862.html

From the article.......
The lingering message: by federal mandate your fund raising efforts, while well intentioned, may result in ill consequences for the very school district and athletic program you intend to help. But the fact is that all athletic booster programs are not created equal. Some work harder and smarter and have better success. Some don't raise funds at all. Is there parity between men's and women's athletic supporters? Not necessarily.

Public outrage asks whether the DOE considered all factors about the bleacher project; fan seating was created by boosters, for fans, not a playing field issue but a facility issue nonetheless. With this perceived over-regulation by the federal government, have athletic boosters reached a point when they cannot choose their fundraising priorities without creating an inequity that the school system would need to remedy? In times of financial belt-tightening, disincentives for supporting athletics are counterproductive to the needs of schools. Boosters have always been eager devotees of kid's community sports, willing to work for their noble cause. They may not be so eager in the future.