Difference between revisions of "Proportionality test"
m (punctuation) |
m |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
| − | Proportionality tests can be said to be contrary to the principles of a [[meritocracy]], as they encourage promotion to sports teams based on gender, not ability. | + | Proportionality tests can be said to be contrary to the principles of a [[meritocracy]], as they encourage promotion to sports teams based on gender, not ability. The result is a decline in quality since the best athletes are not given the platform to excel. |
==References== | ==References== | ||
Revision as of 16:41, March 22, 2010
The proportionality test is a three-part test first adopted under Title IX by the Carter Administration and then expanded by the Clinton Administration,[1] which seeks to apply gender quotas to school sports. The test consists of counting the number of male and female participants on the school sports teams, and holds that schools are in compliance with Title IX if they:
- have the same proportion of girls in sports as enrolled in the school,
- are expanding the opportunities for girls in sports, or
- are satisfying the entire interest of girls to participate in sports.
When a school needs to cut sports teams for budgetary reasons and cannot provide additional sports for girls, then prongs (2) and (3) of the test cannot be satisfied. In that case the school must meet the quota requirement of (1), thereby causing it to eliminate many more boys teams than girls teams in order to make the proportional representation. James Madison University recently did precisely that, cutting far more boys teams than girls teams in order to meet Title IX's requirement for access for both boys and girls.
Many seek to apply the proportionality test fully to high schools.[2] [3]
Proportionality tests can be said to be contrary to the principles of a meritocracy, as they encourage promotion to sports teams based on gender, not ability. The result is a decline in quality since the best athletes are not given the platform to excel.
References
- ↑ "[I]n 1996, the Education Department issued a 'clarification.' In it, Clinton-administration Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Norma Cantu proposed steps that might be taken to demonstrate compliance with these tests, but left it up to the Education Department's Office of Civil Rights to determine whether those measures were adequate. She designated test one -- the proportionality test -- as a 'safe harbor,' where school administrators had to find shelter if they wanted to be sure they were protected from subjectively derived judgments of noncompliance."[1]
- ↑ http://psg.com/~patf/TitleIX.pdf
- ↑ http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTgxOTlmZmMzYTgwMWZkZWY1NDA1YjkxZWE5MTU0Yjc=