High school baseball parents buy new bleachers and scoreboard, dept. of edu. orders them to tear the

It will more likely be between non-sucky and sucky male athletes in revenue sports. The rest of the males and all the women know their only payoff is a degree, they recognize that value and channel all the discipline and focus into getting it. There are also a couple of other demographic rifts that might matter more than gender.

 

Not quite. Is more like one classroom of students being given shiny new textbooks and laptops while another classroom in the same school has books that are falling apart with age and they all share one old desktop computer. If YOUR kid was in that second classroom, you might not be too happy about it.

 

I agree. Brutally stupid. I hope the President steps in and says just that. Perhaps he can do something about it, since this was a federal agency stepping into a local situation. It isn't about what political party is in power in Washington, but rather about a series of dumb decisions by Washington bureaucrats, the type that exist in every administration, for better or for worse.

 

I don't think Title IX requires the seats of baseball and softball teams to be identical. In fact, I'm pretty sure about every university in the country would be in violation if that were the case.

UT Baseball: http://www.fieldturf.ca/images/highProfiles/University of Texas Disch Falk Field web.jpg

UT Softball: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-8rHnjyfN4Rc/TdVPESYrsPI/AAAAAAAAAJQ/kYSFV24wHs8/s1600/mccombs.jpg

 

You never think why Fox or your conservative/libertarian blogs fed the story of a local story about kid's sports to you.

Hey, good find by the one per centers.

Ever notice they don't feed you any stories from around the country how the federal government does thousands of things right?

Ever get one from #RandPaulisGod?

 

I'm with the Department of Education here because I'm uncomfortable with this trend of families subsidizing the capital expenses of schools that are supposed to be paid for with taxes. I understand why parents do it -- budget cuts force schools to cut necessary things from their budgets, so parents band together to help their local school provide the things necessary for their children's education. Makes sense and very noble and all that. But, it exacerbates the social inequity in the public education system where wealthy people in wealthy neighborhoods have better public schools providing better educations to their wealthy children than poor kids will ever have access to. Because parents of means will come to the rescue of schools laid out by budget cuts, legislators don't have to worry so much about the blowback and can keep schools underfunded. For middle- and upper- class neighborhoods, that means their free schools aren't really free -- in fact, they can't compete with similar schools unless their PTA does this -- and lower-class neighborhoods have schools that can't compete with the amenities available at the richer ones. So, if you're going to chew gum in class, you should bring enough gum for everyone.

Is this then equality in poverty, like the old Soviet communism? A little. But, (1) we're affluent enough of a society that we don't have to underfund schools, (2) there's less urgency to properly fund schools if parents subsidize instead of forcing legislative change, and (3) there's always private school if you want to spend your own treasure so Tommy can play on a good field.

 

No it doesn't. It requires the funding to be equal for male and female athletics.

 

Quoted for emphasis.

 

Hey, for the types of folks who spread these stories, the public schools are "government" schools which they want to destroy due to their ideology.

 

If it stinks of communism, IT IS communism...and you putting expensive lipstick on it doesn't change that fact.

 

Even that's not really true. I can guarantee that UT Football's funding is more than all UT women's athletics combined - and that's ignoring other men's sports.

 

Uhhh, it has nothing to do with communism.

 

This is the test.


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

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]

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.

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).

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.

 

It seems adding bleachers wouldn't affect compliance with Prong #3. It would be helpful to see the original notice from the Dept of Education - as I said earlier, it seems there's more to this story than being reported in the fairly one-sided news report.

 

According to this article, these bleachers were built 6 years ago.
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/highs...superior-to-softball-bleachers-210604955.html

 

I'm not going to delve in thought, especially after JV's eloquent post, since the biggest farce is that this is about families and private donors paying for a prettier and "more equipped" sportsball field rather than the actual education system itself.

It's like we're splitting hairs about getting our priorities straight without even realizing it.

 

Life isnt fair nor equal, and parents wanting to help should not be discouraged but rather encouraged.

DD