District has Title 9 Violations?!

A place to discuss issues relating to the Rockford School District, which serves the majority of Greenfield.

District has Title 9 Violations?!

Postby nikidog » Sat Nov 03, 2012 9:47 pm

District Has Title 9 Violations!?

According to the “Vote YES for the Rockford Area Schools Bond Referendum” flyer I received from the Vote Yes for the Future Committee, among the “Health & Safety Concerns” of the Rockford Schools that they mention, is that the district has been “Sited for Title 9 violations.”

In regards to the districts’ “Title 9 violations,” I would be interested to know what specific violations they committed and how these violations are “Health and Safety Concerns.”
Title IX (9) 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” (http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/tix_dis.html)
According to the federal government’s Office for Civil Rights, Title IX covers “admissions, recruitment, financial aid, academic programs, student treatment and services, counseling and guidance, discipline, classroom assignment, grading, vocational education, recreation, physical education, athletics, housing and employment.”

The Office of Civil Rights has already handled complaints in schools and other related institutions in regards to “the provision of less than a fair share of funds for athletic scholarships to females,” “inequitable pay for female teachers holding similar teaching positions to those held by male counterparts,” and “discrimination against female students on the basis of pregnancy,” among other gender-discrimination issues.

My question for the Rockford School district, in what way(s), has the violated Title IX? In what way(s ) has the district “excluded” a female student or staff member “on the basis of sex” from “participation in” an “education program or activity,” “denied” them the “benefits of” an education program or activity, and/or “subjected” them to “discrimination”? In what way(s) has the district discriminated against female students, staff, and/or other persons?

As an unapologetic feminist, I require both an answer to my question and a remedy to whatever Title IX violation(s), i.e., instances of sex discrimination that the district has committed, before this district gets another dime from me from this bond, levy, or any other voter-related funding. Don’t expect me to support schools that discriminate against women and girls in any way. No wonder some of the parents I know have pulled their daughters and sons out of the district. Were I a parent, I would do the same.
nikidog
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 9:07 pm

Re: District has Title 9 Violations?!

Postby fuzz on the kiwi » Mon Nov 05, 2012 8:02 am

Don't quote me on this, as I do not know for sure, but often times a Title IX violation can pertain to equal locker room space and or athletic field space. If in the past, prior to Title IX, a school had smaller locker rooms / facilities for females due to fewer sport offerings (which was the case with most schools back in the day unfortunately). This isn't necessarily a violation in the sense that something was done to a person but rather an item that must be accounted for when upgrades are made if that makes sense.
fuzz on the kiwi
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2012 2:41 pm

Re: District has Title 9 Violations?!

Postby fuzz on the kiwi » Mon Nov 05, 2012 3:22 pm

Again, it is really a shame when people do not get their facts straight before formulating judgements. I contacted the school today and was given the correct information. The essence of the Title IX findings in this case pertain entirely to facilities and no discrimination at all. The audit requires that locker rooms must be similar and have the same amenities for both boys and girls activities. The locker rooms are original to the building and were not included in the 2001 updates that were part of the last bond issue. The locker rooms were always included in the high school improvements with the bond, but with the audit findings, they will need to be done regardless of the bond results. Funds from the district’s general fund will pay the necessary improvements if the bond does not pass.

Once again, get your facts straight.
fuzz on the kiwi
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2012 2:41 pm

Re: District has Title 9 Violations?!

Postby wastingmoney » Mon Nov 05, 2012 7:59 pm

The only notes on this item by the "yes" people read: "Sited for Title 9 violations". Did they mention they were "only" building violations? No .. of course not.

Did you get clarifications on the asbestos issues too? Are the students in an known unsafe environment right now, or is it all just BS to get more money? There is no grey area dealing with that stuff. Either it is dangerous, or you don't touch it and it is fine.

How about those Fire Hazards - are those areas closed down? Or is everyone being exposed to that hazard until they get money. Again, there is no grey area there.
wastingmoney
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2012 1:33 pm

Re: District has Title 9 Violations?!

Postby nikidog » Tue Nov 06, 2012 12:54 am

Fuzz on the Kiwi

According to the district’s Bond Informational Meeting on Oct. 24th, 2012 by Superintendent Paul Durand, Chair of the School Board, Ted Botten, Pat Overom of ICS, and Joel Sutter of Ehler & Associates, the section titled “Title IX & Civil Rights Violations” states that some of the districts’ “Facilities do not currently meet federal standards. Identified through a compliance audit by Federal and State agencies.”

They say that “Passage of this bond [proposed for November 6th, 2012] will allow us to modernize and bring these areas into compliance with the Title IX and Americans with Disabilities Act standards.”
Apparently school district “violation areas” include “restroom facilities,” “Access to common areas,” and “Locker rooms & showers.”
http://bond-election-information.district.rockford.k12.mn.us/modules/groups/homepagefiles/gwp/2387872/3071462/File/Oct%2024%20Bond%20Informational%20Presentation.pdf

Does anyone know when the district failed this compliance audit?

Fuzz, you state that these violations “pertain entirely to facilities and no discrimination at all.” Well, you are right, in that these violations “pertain entirely to facilities,” but seriously wrong in saying these facility violations have “no discrimination at all.”

Actually Title IX violations that pertain to facilities still constitute “discrimination.” After all , Title IX states 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 education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” (italics are mine). Since this law includes rules about facilities, my logical conclusion would be that school “facilities” can be a source of “discrimination.” Otherwise, why would the law bother laying out the rules about education facilities, if not to prevent any “discrimination” in terms of these facilities?

Title IX is a portion of the Education Amendments of 1972. The Office for Civil Rights, under the U.S. Department of Education is charged with enforcing this law. Title IX has specific rule pertaining to facilities of public schools that are relevant here.

According to the U.S. Department of Justice, “Under the Title IX common rule, recipients of federal financial assistance must not discriminate in providing facilities on the basis of sex. A recipient may provide separate toilet, locker room, and shower facilities on the basis of sex. However, such facilities provided to one sex must be comparable to the facilities provided to the other sex. 65 Fed. Reg. at 52871.” (http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/cor/coord/ixlegal.php#3. Comparable Facilities (§ __.410)

Author Paul Steinbach, in his article “School Locker Rooms Built Before the Women’s Sports Boom Warrant Reexamination” discusses the details of sports facilities and Title IX.
He says that “Title IX language that deals specifically with equal opportunity in athletics combines ‘provision of locker rooms, practice and competitive facilities’ as one of 10 items” that public schools must comply with (http://www.athleticbusiness.com/articles/article.aspx?articleid=17&zoneid=16)

The two factors pertaining to public school locker rooms include "availability of locker rooms" and "quality of locker rooms." Basically, “A high school with two locker rooms for boys and one for girls, for example, would be breaking the law. So would a school with two locker rooms for each gender, but with smaller locker rooms for girls. And factors such as locker room amenities, accommodations for coaches or proximity to playing fields may also be enough to tip the scales.”

This sounds like, to be in violation of Title IX, any school or other such institution that receives federal funding must have an unequal number of locker rooms and other sports facilities for both genders, have a bigger facility for one gender than it does for the other, and/or have facilities with more “amenities” for one gender than it provides for the other.

But it’s not quite that simple.

According to the Office for Civil Rights (OCR), to be Title IX compliant, “the locker facilities for a women's team do not have to be the same as for a men's team, as long as the effect of any differences in the overall athletic program are negligible.” (http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/interath.html)

I don’t know what counts as “negligible” in terms of how the difference in locker facilities have an “effect . .. . . the overall athletic program.” The point the law seems to be making is that locker facility differences for men and women are acceptable so long as they do not have a significant “effect” on the “athletic program” available to both genders.

The OCR does indicate that discriminatory intent with regards to these facilities matters.
According to the OCR, “If a comparison of program components indicates that benefits, opportunities, or treatment are not equivalent in quality, availability, or kind, the institution may still be in compliance with the law if the differences are shown to be the result of nondiscriminatory factors.” (italics are mine)

Thus, if the differences in facilities, “benefits, opportunities, or treatment are not equivalent,” these facilities and opportunities may be permissible under Title IX so long as they were not “the result of discriminatory factors.” What constitute “discriminatory factors,” could be interpreted as “intentional discrimination” and “intentional sex discrimination.” (http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?page=4&xmldoc=In%20FCO%2020120131165.xml&docbase=CSLWAR3-2007-CURR). The key word here, aside from the obvious “discrimination,” is “intentional.”

In other words, if the locker rooms for the boys and girls in the district high school are not “equivalent” in some way, the school can still be compliant with Title IX so long as they can show that whenever the non-equivalent locker rooms were built, even though they were built to be “not equivalent” for boys and girls, that they were built this way as “the result of nondiscriminatory factors.” To be compliant, the district would have to show that these locker room differences were not the result of discriminatory factors. They would have to show, that the reason or intent for any differences between girls’ and boys’ locker rooms was non-discriminatory in nature. However, they would be in violation, if the reason or intent for these differences were discriminatory reasons or intent to discriminate.

Again the OCR notes that “Difficulty in compliance will exist only if disparities are of a substantial and unjustified nature in a school's overall athletic program; or if disparities in individual program areas are substantial enough in and of themselves to deny equality of athletic opportunity.” (italics mine again).

Again, the school districts’ differences between the girls’ and boys’ facilities, would have to be “substantial” enough to “deny equality of athletic opportunity” to students or be “unjustified.”

Fuzz, you say that the school today told you that “The audit requires that locker rooms must be similar and have the same amenities for both boys and girls activities.” My assumption then, is that the locker rooms in the high school are not compliant with Title IX. (You refer to the “locker rooms” of the “high school.”)

But, according to Title IX rules, lack of “similar amenities” is not of itself sufficient to make the district not in compliance with this law. To violate Title IX in regards to the locker rooms, the district would have to either have created these locker room “amenities” dissimilarities as the result of discriminatory factors (i.e. intent to discriminate), these dissimilarities would have to be “substantial and unjustified,” and/or the “disparities in individual program areas” or facilities like the locker rooms would have to be “substantial enough in and of themselves to deny equality of athletic opportunity.”

Fuzz, you say that “This isn't necessarily a violation in the sense that something was done to a person.” Well, this Title IX violation was not done to a particular person. But “discriminatory factors” and differences in facilities that are “substantial enough in and of themselves to deny equality of athletic opportunity” harm multiple persons. Discrimination and lack of “equality of opportunity” do harm the individuals who are discriminated against or denied equal opportunity.

Fuzz, you seem to be minimizing this issue.

Fuzz, you also say that “The locker rooms [that are not in compliance] are original to the building and were not included in the 2001 updates that were part of the last bond issue.” The high school was in fact renovated by VetterJohnson Architects in 2001, as you say (http://www.vjarch.com/portfolio/RockfordHS-B4_After.htm). (They also renovated REAMS school at some point. )You also say that “The locker rooms were always included in the high school improvements with the bond”.”

To which “last bond issue” are you referring? To the bond that failed in February 21st, 2012? Or, are you saying there was another bond proposed in 2001. According to the Minnesota Secretary of State’s website, there was no District 883 referendum on the ballot on November 6th of 2001: bond , levy, or otherwise.
If the locker rooms in the originally put into the “were not included in the 2001 updates that were part of the last bond issue,” and these high school the locker rooms were known to not be Title IX--compliant in 2001, why did “improvements” to make them compliant never get done? Why were they not done with the 20001 “updates” to the high school? Has the school district knowingly been non-compliant since 2001?

Fuzz, I agree with you that “If in the past, prior to Title IX, a school had smaller locker rooms / facilities for females due to fewer sport offerings (which was the case with most schools back in the day unfortunately).” Having smaller locker rooms and facilities for females probably “was the case with most schools back in the day,” prior to the 1972 passage of Title IX. I suspect that is also true for facilities in terms of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which wasn’t made official until 1990.

In fact, with the ADA, when the facility was built matters. “The ADA Standards for Accessible Design, or the “ADA Standards,” refer to the requirements necessary to make a building or other facility architecturally (physically) accessible to people with disabilities.” (http://www.ada.gov/pcatoolkit/chap1toolkit.htm).

However, just because buildings were built before the passage of the ADA (I don’t know if Title IX is similar in its requirements) does not give the school legal leeway to still be non-compliant with the ADA. Even buildings designed and constructed before 1992, the year when all buildings had to comply with ADA standards, now must be made up to standard.

“Facilities built before January 26, 1992, are referred to as “pre-ADA” facilities. If there is an architectural barrier to accessibility in a pre-ADA facility, you may remove the barrier using the ADA Standards for Accessible Design or UFAS as a guide, or you may choose to make the program, service, or activity located in the building accessible by providing ‘program access.’ Program access allows you to move the program to an accessible location, or use some way other than making all architectural changes to make the program, service, or activity readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities.”

Although I do not know when any of the district schools were built (I do know the middle school is the oldest and REAMS is the newest), even if any of these schools was built pre-1992, as I suspect is the case with at least the middle school and high school, they still must meet ADA standards. The district could do that by making necessary “architectural changes” or by moving “the program to an accessible location.”
Since the district is still not compliant in at least some respects with the ADA in terms of facilities, they either violated the ADA in 1992 or thereafter by building schools that violate the ADA when they were built, or they failed to take any actions to bring their “pre-ADA” facilities up to ADA standards with building changes or by moving relevant programs.

Fuzz, you conclude that “The locker rooms were always included in the high school improvements with the bond, but with the audit findings, they will need to be done regardless of the bond results. Funds from the district’s general fund will pay the necessary improvements if the bond does not pass.”

I have no problem paying to make “necessary improvements” to the “high school locker rooms” that failed the “audit findings.” And, since they will evidently be done whether or not this upcoming bond passes, it seems that the issue will be (had better be) resolved either way.

Once again, I got my facts straight. The district is violating Title IX and that entails “discrimination,” regardless of the fact that the violations are facilities violations.
nikidog
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 9:07 pm

Re: District has Title 9 Violations?!

Postby fuzz on the kiwi » Tue Nov 06, 2012 7:54 am

You screamed Discrimination, I contacted the District and was told:

The district underwent a Civil Rights Audit conducted by the State of Minnesota. The specific high school facility items noted were as follows:

7. ACCESSIBILITY
D. New Construction
1. Drain Pipes
2. Grab Bars
3. Shower bench/spray
4. Parking
5. Signage
8. Comparable Facilities-Private Showers/Curtains – Boys Locker Room

Tell me, how in any way shape or form was a female student or staff member discriminated on the basis of sex. Don't claim that a smaller locker room built prior to title IX is your stance on discrimination. If you scream fire in a crowded room you had better make sure there is one first. Again, you speculated and conjured, I investigated and got the facts.
fuzz on the kiwi
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2012 2:41 pm

Re: District has Title 9 Violations?!

Postby nikidog » Tue Nov 06, 2012 11:08 pm

Fuzz, Title IX violations constitute discrimination. Period. That’s why we have Title IX, to prevent discrimination against women and girls when it comes to athletics and other programs that are parts of schools, universities, and other similar federally-funded institutions.

Founders and Contributors of “Title IX Blog,” Erin Buzuvis, Professor of Law at Western New England University and Kristine Newhall, PhD, candidate in Women’s Studies at the University of Iowa, put it quite well:

“Last year we blogged about Title IX violations at the high schools in New Hanover County, North Carolina -- in particular, the inequitable locker room facilities that had girls' teams doubling up and changing in the weight room, and the county's ongoing efforts to honor a 2008 compliance agreement with OCR . But today there's good news for the girls at Hoggard and Laney high schools, the county purports to have completed all of the necessary renovations to comply with Title IX. Of the new, spacious girls' locker room with varnished wood lockers (a "carbon copy" of the existing boys' locker room), Hoggard girls' basketball coach Ray Beatty said,

'Everyone that's been in there has been overwhelmed, especially the girls that have been with me for a while[.] It's more like a college atmosphere now than in the past. My girls probably just felt like second-class citizens because the boys had such nice facilities, but now they feel like first-class citizens.'

"To me, this quote epitomizes the intent and effect of Title IX, indeed, civil rights laws in general, and provides the most compelling counterargument to those who say the law is unnecessary and unimportant. No group should be stigmatized by second-class treatment. Discrimination in athletics, whether it be in the number of participation opportunities for each sex, or the quality of their playing fields and locker rooms, sends a clear message to students about whose athletic experience society appreciates, expects, and respects. It's obvious that they should be equal. It's not obvious why it takes government intervention to make schools realize that too, but until it is, Title IX is both necessary and important.”
(http://title-ix.blogspot.com/2010/11/fi ... title.html)

In Title IX , section 106.41 covers the “Provision of locker rooms, practice and competitive facilities” in terms of “Athletics,” and section 106.33, “Comparable facilities” states that “A recipient [of federal funding] may provide separate toilet, locker room, and shower facilities on the basis of sex, but such facilities provided for students of one sex shall be comparable to such facilities provided for students of the other sex.” (See http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/cor/by ... cfr106.php)

Fuzz, you say that one of the district’s Title IX violations is “Comparable Facilities-Private Showers/Curtains – Boys Locker Room.”

Am I to take it, then, that the boys’ locker room needs “Private Showers/Curtains?” Or, is the girls’ locker room lacking in “comparable private showers/curtains”?

“A smaller locker room built prior to title IX is” at least one of my “stances on discrimination.” So too is the private showers/curtains issues. If the girls’ locker room in fact lacks these comparable private showers and curtains, then that is discrimination against the girls who attend gym classes and/or play sports at the high school. Privacy is important, particularly for teenagers and children. If a female student is uncomfortable in not having sufficient privacy to change into gym clothes, athletic uniforms, and the like, or if she is required to shower or simply wants to shower prior to gym class or sports, then she may choose to forego attending gym classes (assuming her parent(s) request this on her behalf) or not to participate in school sports even if she wants to participate in those sports .

This lack of privacy, yes, even by something is seemingly simple as “private showers/curtains,” matters in that it has the potential to discourage at least some female students from participating in gym/sports. And, assuming the boy’s locker rooms has “private showers/curtains,” they would not need to forego gym/sports for lack of privacy. This specific lack of “comparable facilities” thus makes it easier for boys to participate in gym/sports than it does for girls. It makes gym/sports more accessible for boys than it does for girls, and thus entails unequal accessibility, based on sex.

The fact that the locker room was built prior to Title IX does not make the effect of potentially hindering the participation of female students at the high school any less negligible. Yes, there are many schools built before the passage of Title IX with this and similar issues.

However, as you can see from the above blog, other schools (in this case, two high schools in New Hanover County, North Carolina) are still expected by the OCR (Office of Civil Rights) to make “necessary renovations.” Another article detailing the New Hanover County school Title IX issue also makes it clear that “The athletic facilities [in these schools], including the girls' and boys' locker rooms, were built in 1970, two years before Congress enacted the Title IX law” in 1972 (http://articles.courant.com/2001-03-09/ ... tle-ix-law).

Their Board of education Chairman Daniel Wolfe wrote ``We have recently learned that the high school locker rooms are not in compliance with Title IX. As we are in violation of a federal law, this is clearly a problem that must be addressed.''

He didn’t say “we’re not in violation” of “Title IX because the schools were built prior to the passage of Title IX.” Rockford is no less in violation of Title IX because the locker rooms were built before the law.

You could argue that it’s not the fault of current school district that the locker rooms were not built equitably by past school district staff. However true that may be, it is still “a problem that must be addressed” by the current school district. Though it is an inherited problem that the current school district is not responsible for originally creating, the school district is still responsible to fix the problem.
It may be unfair, but it doesn’t make it any less of a problem.

Here’s an analogous situation: the current generation of the U.S. is not responsible for creating of slavery or segregation, which still has lasting effects in today’s society. We didn’t create slavery or segregation. Some of our ancestors did. But the fact still remains that if we, as a society, do not address the lasting negative effects of these forms of discrimination that exist today, we are the ones to blame for what we fail to do to eliminate or at least alleviate these effects. It’s still our generation’s responsibility to solve these problems even though we didn’t create these problems. The same goes for Title IX and gender discrimination, in general.

And incomparable locker room facilities do matter to the students who use them as evidenced by the comment of one female student at the New Hanover school:

“’We've joked that the boys had a bigger locker room,’ said senior Lindsay Peirson, who scored 31 goals last season to help lead the field hockey team to the championship. But, she added, ‘it's got to be unfair’ that two boys' teams per season get separate rooms while only one girls' team gets such an accommodation.

So, I think I’ve answered your question, Fuzz, which was "Tell me how in any way shape or form was a female student or staff member discriminated on the basis of sex.” I simply cannot make it clearer than that. I would suggest a course in feminist ethics or women's studies, if that would help you understand.

I know you say, Fuzz, that this issue will be addressed in the upcoming bond referendum or the necessary changes will be made using “Funds from the district’s general fund will pay the necessary improvements if the bond does not pass.” That’s good. But why, if the district has known of these violations since 2001, have they failed to correct them?

I only wish that our district had taken the more proactive stance of the New Hanover County Board of Education Chairman back in 2001 when it learned of these problems and addressed these problems then.
Fuzz, you also mention “accessibility.” That’s a significant concern, particularly for persons with mobility disabilities. Did you not in fact indicate that the district had knowledge of these vioaltions in 2001?

My guess is that “grab bars” issue at the high school an Americans with Disabilities issue. A student with mobility issues would need that bar for safety reasons in order to use the locker room and/or bathroom facilities.

According to the “Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) to buildings and facilities subject to the law” (see http://www.access-board.gov/adaag/checklist/a16.html), there are multiple potentials for violations with “grab bars” in public schools.

Some of requirements for grab bars in public schools are as follows: “the outside diameter of the grab bar,” “the space between the grab bar and the wall,” how “secured” the grab bars are in “their fittings,” the “structural strength” of these bars, and the fact that these bars and the walls to which they are mounted must be “free of sharp or abrasive elements,” among other requirements.

The grab bar requirements of public school showers are comparable to the requirements for toilet stall grab bars.

Now, these requirements may seem nit-picky, but to a student with cerebral palsy, spina bifida, or other mobility disabilities, these are crucial for these students to safely access shower and toilet facilities in public schools. Now, if a student with a mobility problem cannot use the bathrooms at a public school, that public school would probably also be in violation the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which mandates that all children are to be educated in the "least restrictive environment" appropriate for that child. This law requires public schools to make all possible accomodations to allow students with disabilities to be educated at public schools.

So, if a student cannot safely use the bathroom at school, then he or she is not going to be able to attend public school. If the school can make those reasonable accomodations for that student that would allow the student to be educated in a public school (i.e. installing ADA-compliant grab bars in toilet stalls), and the school fails to make those accomodations, then that school is violating that student’s right to education in the “least restrictive environment,” i.e. education in a public school.

I suspect that the district’s violation of “Shower Bench/and Sprayer” issues is a similar ADA violation that pertains to students with mobility problems.

The ADA also specifies rules regarding a shower’s “Spray Unit” (4.20.60). For example, a shower spray unit must have a “hose” that is “at least 60 inches long, and the “spray unit” must be able to be “used both as a hand-held and as a fixed shower head.”

Section 4.21.3 of the law deals with requirements of a “seat” in a “transfer type shower,” including dimensions of the “seat,” its shape, and layout in regards to the shower “controls.”
Section 4.21.4 covers “grab bars” in a “transfer type shower,” and section 4.26.3. addresses “seats for accessible bathtubs and showers” in terms of “structural strength requirements.”

Again, these requirements are specific for a reason. For students with mobility issues to safely use showers in the school’s locker rooms, those students would need “grab bars” to help them avoid slippage. Shower “seats” along with a “spray unit” that could be detached and long enough so they could reach these seats would allow the student with mobility to problems to shower while seated, a much safer option in terms of potential falls than having them stand up. And if the student relied on a wheelchair, cane, braces, or other such supports for mobility, then these shower features would be requisites for him/her to use the showers at all.

If these students cannot use locker room showers, then they may be unable to participate, if not in extracurricular sports, then at least in P.E. classes.

Parking is also addressed by the ADA. Some ADA requirements in terms of parking include having “accessible parking spaces” that are connected to the “shortest accessible route of travel from adjacent parking to the building's accessible entrance” and having “van accessible” parking spaces.
Again, these rules are meant to make the school building itself “accessible” to students with mobility and other types of disabilities. For example, without “van accessible” parking spaces, students in wheelchairs that use vans with wheelchair lifts would be unable to get into the school. Obviously this does not allow them equal opportunity to an education at the public school that lacks these types of parking spaces.

As for “signage” violations, the ADA also covers this issue. One requirement is that “signs” provide direction to, or information about, functional spaces of the building.” Such signs might, for example, direct students to handicap wheelchair accessible bathrooms.

At least some signs also must feature “Grade II Braille.” How else would a blind student locate the restroom or another school room or school facility?

Finally, the ADA also addresses issues with “drain pipes.” Section 4.19.4 covers “Pipe shielding” an requires “hot water pipes and drain pipes” to be “insulated or otherwise configured to protect against contact.” While I am not sure how this specifically pertains to students with disabilities, exposed hot water and drain pipes are obviously a safety hazard for students who could burn themselves by touching these pipes and drains.

Again, I don't know which specific violations the school district committed in these areas you mention. But, according to your information and similar information from the school district's website that the school committed at least one of the aforementioned violations in each of these areas.

Fuzz, I call discrimination “discrimination,” and fires “fires.” I don’t think glossing over these issues, using euphemisms, or calling them anything other than what they are is acceptable. I suggest that if you think Title IX and/or the ADA violations do not constitute discrimination that you take it up with the founders of these laws who say that they are in fact forms of discrimination.

Please tell me where, again “speculated and conjured” this information. I investigated and got the facts. Tell me which facts are in dispute here?
nikidog
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 9:07 pm

Re: District has Title 9 Violations?!

Postby yesyes » Wed Nov 07, 2012 9:29 am

Get a job. I hope 'Fuzz" doesn't bother to argue with you anymore....you are clearly uninformed, and uneducated. GET YOUR FACTS Nikkidog! END of story. Goodbye Greenfield....join Wayzata's district and play with the BIGDOGS...THEN you can try to argue with THEM!
yesyes
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 10:25 am

Re: District has Title 9 Violations?!

Postby nikidog » Wed Nov 07, 2012 8:46 pm

YesYes: "Get a job. I hope 'Fuzz" doesn't bother to argue with you anymore....you are clearly uninformed, and uneducated. GET YOUR FACTS Nikkidog! END of story. Goodbye Greenfield....join Wayzata's district and play with the BIGDOGS...THEN you can try to argue with THEM!"

It's easy to call someone "uninformed" when you don't have any real information to offer. Those ARE FACTS. PROVE THAT THEY ARE NOT. The burden of proof is now on you. I have presented my argument. You have presented none. You can call me names and insult me based on false assumptions all you want. It doesn't make your position any stronger. By the way, I am educated. I have a bachelor's degree and graduated valedictorian with a 4.0 gpa. And, yes, I work too. Stop making assumptions. You don't know me. You don't know who I am.

Gee, I didn't know Greenfield could secede from the school district. If I had kids, I would gladly send them to Wayzata over Rockford.
nikidog
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 9:07 pm

Re: District has Title 9 Violations?!

Postby wastingmoney » Thu Nov 08, 2012 3:47 pm

yesyes: Please continue your efforts to help greenfield be removed from the rockford school district. That is something we can all fully support. I'd much rather give my money to the Delano district (which is where most of the decent kids go anyway), and it would be great to see how your school would survive without the massive amount of taxes you get from greenfield (since our houses are valued a bit more than the trailer parks in rockford).

By the way, could you get your schools the hell off our land while you're at it? You don't add to our property values - you destroy them. If you could get rid of our "cousins" problem at the same time, you'd be doing us another favor.
wastingmoney
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2012 1:33 pm


Return to Rockford School District

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests

cron