The Common Core State Standards Initiative is an educational initiative in the United States that details what Kâ€"12 students should know in English language arts and mathematics at the end of each grade. The initiative is sponsored by the National Governors Association (NGA) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) and seeks to establish consistent educational standards across the states as well as ensure that students graduating from high school are prepared to enter credit-bearing courses at two- or four-year college programs or to enter the workforce.

Background

In the 1990s, the "Standards & Accountability Movement" began in the U.S. as states began writing standards (a) outlining what students were expected to know and to be able to do at each grade level, and (b) implementing assessments designed to measure whether students were meeting the standards. As part of this education reform movement, the nation's governors and corporate leaders founded Achieve, Inc. in 1996 as a bipartisan organization to raise academic standards and graduation requirements, improve assessments, and strengthen accountability in all 50 states. The initial motivation for the development of the Common Core State Standards was part of the American Diploma Project (ADP).

A 2004 report, titled Ready or Not: Creating a High School Diploma That Counts, found that both employers and colleges are demanding more of high school graduates than in the past. According to Achieve, Inc., "current high-school exit expectations fall well short of employer and college demands." The report explained that the major problem currently facing the American school system is that high school graduates were not provided with the skills and knowledge they needed to succeed in college and careers. "While students and their parents may still believe that the diploma reflects adequate preparation for the intellectual demands of adult life, in reality it falls far short of this common-sense goal." The report said that the diploma itself lost its value because graduates could not compete successfully beyond high school, and that the solution to this problem is a common set of rigorous standards.

Development

In 2009, the NGA convened a group of people to work on developing the standards. This team included David Coleman, William McCallum of the University of Arizona, Phil Daro, and Student Achievement Partners founders Jason Zimba and Susan Pimentel to write standards in the areas of English and language arts. Announced on June 1, 2009, the initiative's stated purpose is to "provide a consistent, clear understanding of what students are expected to learn, so teachers and parents know what they need to do to help them." Additionally, "The standards are designed to be robust and relevant to the real world, reflecting the knowledge and skills that our young people need for success in college and careers," which should place American students in a position in which they can compete in a global economy.

The standards are copyrighted by NGA Center for Best Practices (NGA Center) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), which controls use of and licenses the standards. The NGA Center and CCSSO do this by offering a public license which is used by State Departments of Education. The license states that use of the standards must be "in support" of the Common Core State Standards Initiative. It also requires attribution and a copyright notice, except when a state or territory has adopted the standards "in whole".

Adoption

Forty-two of the fifty U.S. states and the District of Columbia are members of the Common Core State Standards Initiative, with the states of Oklahoma, Texas, Virginia, Alaska, Nebraska, Indiana, and South Carolina not adopting the initiative at a state level. Minnesota adopted the English Language Arts standards but not the Mathematics standards. Although a fast trend the curriculum lost momentum and found at least 12 states introducing legislation to prohibit implementation. Three states that initially adopted Common Core have since decided to repeal or replace it, namely Indiana, Oklahoma, and South Carolina.

Standards were released for mathematics and English language arts on June 2, 2010, with a majority of states adopting the standards in the subsequent months. (See below for current status.) States were given an incentive to adopt the Common Core Standards through the possibility of competitive federal Race to the Top grants. U.S. President Barack Obama and U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan announced the Race to the Top competitive grants on July 24, 2009, as a motivator for education reform. To be eligible, states had to adopt "internationally benchmarked standards and assessments that prepare students for success in college and the work place." Though states could adopt other college- and career-ready standards and still be eligible, they were awarded extra points in their Race to the Top applications if they adopted the Common Core standards by August 2, 2010. Forty-one states made the promise in their application. Virginia and Texas were two states that chose to write the ir own college and career-ready standards, and were subsequently eligible for Race to the Top. Development of the Common Core Standards was funded by the governors and state schools chiefs, with additional support from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Pearson Publishing Company, the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, and others.

Until the Every Student Succeeds Act was passed in December 2015, the US Department of Education had encouraged states to adopt the Common Core Standards by tying the grant of waivers from the No Child Left Behind Act to adoption of the Standards. However, the Every Student Succeeds Act not only replaced the No Child Left Behind Act, it also expressly prohibits the Department of Education from attempting to "influence, incentivize, or coerce State adoption of the Common Core State Standards ... or any other academic standards common to a significant number of States."

Though the Common Core State Standards do not cover science and social studies content standards, the Next Generation Science Standards were released in April 2012 and have been adopted by many states. They are not directly related to the Common Core, but their content can be cross-connected to the mathematical and English Language Arts standards within the Common Core.

President Donald Trump plans to abolish the standards and allow local communities to control their standards, which will be done with the School Choice And Education Opportunity Act (SCAEOA). However, the Common Core is not under federal control, and details of the SCAEOA have not yet been released, so it is not yet clear how the SCAEOA can end the Common core.

English Language Arts standards

The stated goal of the English Language Arts and Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects standards is to ensure that students are college and career ready in literacy no later than the end of high school. There are five key components to the standards for English and Language Arts: Reading, Writing, Speaking and Listening, Language, and Media and Technology. The essential components and breakdown of each of these key points within the standards are as follows:

Reading

• As students advance through each grade, there is an increased level of complexity to what students are expected to read and there is also a progressive development of reading comprehension so that students can gain more from what they read.
• Teachers, school districts, and states are expected to decide on the appropriate curriculum, but sample texts are included to help teachers, students, and parents prepare for the year ahead. Molly Walsh of Burlington Free Press notes an appendix (of state standards for reading material) that lists "exemplar texts" from works by noted authors such as Ovid, Voltaire, William Shakespeare, Ivan Turgenev, Edgar Allan Poe, Robert Frost, W. B. Yeats, Nathaniel Hawthorne, and the more contemporary including Amy Tan, Atul Gawande and Julia Alvarez.
• There is some critical content for all students â€" classic myths and stories from around the world, foundational U.S. documents, seminal works of American literature, and the writings of Shakespeare â€" but the rest is left up to the states and the districts.

Writing

• The driving force of the writing standards is logical arguments based on claims, solid reasoning, and relevant evidence. The writing also includes opinion writing even within the Kâ€"5 standards.
• Short, focused research projects, similar to the kind of projects students will face in their careers, as well as long-term, in-depth research is another piece of the writing standards. This is because written analysis and the presentation of significant findings are critical to career and college readiness.
• The standards also include annotated samples of student writing to help determine performance levels in writing arguments, explanatory texts, and narratives across the grades.

Speaking and listening

• Although reading and writing are the expected components of an English language arts curriculum, standards are written so that students gain, evaluate, and present complex information, ideas, and evidence specifically through listening and speaking.
• There is also an emphasis on academic discussion in one-on-one, small-group, and whole-class settings, which can take place as formal presentations as well as informal discussions during student collaboration.

Language

• Vocabulary instruction in the standards takes place through a mix of conversations, direct instruction, and reading so that students can determine word meanings and can expand their use of words and phrases.
• The standards expect students to use formal English in their writing and speaking, but also recognize that colleges and 21st-century careers will require students to make wise, skilled decisions about how to express themselves through language in a variety of contexts.
• Vocabulary and conventions are their own strand because these skills extend across reading, writing, speaking, and listening.

Media and technology

• Since media and technology are intertwined with every student's life and in school in the 21st century, skills related to media use, which includes the analysis and production of various forms of media, are also included in these standards.
• The standards include instruction in keyboarding, but do not mandate the teaching of cursive handwriting. As of late 2013, seven states had elected to maintain teaching of cursive: California, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Massachusetts, North Carolina and Utah.

Mathematics standards

The stated goal of the mathematics standards is to achieve greater focus and coherence in the curriculum. This is largely in response to the criticism that American mathematics curricula are "a mile wide and an inch deep".

The mathematics standards include Standards for Mathematical Practice and Standards for Mathematical Content.

Mathematical practice

The Standards mandate that eight principles of mathematical practice be taught:

1. Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them.
2. Reason abstractly and quantitatively.
3. Construct viable arguments and critique the reasoning of others.
4. Model with mathematics.
5. Use appropriate tools strategically.
6. Attend to precision.
7. Look for and make use of structure.
8. Look for and express regularity in repeated reasoning.

The practices are adapted from the five process standards of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics and the five strands of proficiency in the U.S. National Research Council's Adding It Up report. These practices are to be taught in every grade from kindergarten to twelfth grade. Details of how these practices are to be connected to each grade level's mathematics content are left to local implementation of the Standards.

As an example of mathematical practice, here is the full description of the sixth practice:

Attend to precision

Mathematically proficient students try to communicate precisely to others. They try to use clear definitions in discussion with others and in their own reasoning. They state the meaning of the symbols they choose, including using the equal sign consistently and appropriately. They are careful about specifying units of measure, and labeling axes to clarify the correspondence with quantities in a problem. They calculate accurately and efficiently, express numerical answers with a degree of precision appropriate for the problem context. In the elementary grades, students give carefully formulated explanations to each other. By the time they reach high school they have learned to examine claims and make explicit use of definitions.

Mathematical content

The standards lay out the mathematics content that should be learned at each grade level from kindergarten to Grade 8 (age 13â€"14), as well as the mathematics to be learned in high school. The standards do not dictate any particular pedagogy or what order topics should be taught within a particular grade level. Mathematical content is organized in a number of domains. At each grade level there are several standards for each domain, organized into clusters of related standards. (See examples below.)

In addition to detailed standards (of which there are 21 to 28 for each grade from kindergarten to eighth grade), the standards present an overview of "critical areas" for each grade. (See examples below.)

In high school (Grades 9 to 12), the standards do not specify which content is to be taught at each grade level, nor does the Common Core prescribe how a particular standard should be taught. Up to Grade 8, the curriculum is integrated; students study four or five different mathematical domains every year. The standards do not dictate whether the curriculum should continue to be integrated in high school with study of several domains each year (as is done in other countries), or whether the curriculum should be separated out into separate year-long algebra and geometry courses (as has been the tradition in most U.S. states). An appendix to the standards describes four possible pathways for covering high school content (two traditional and two integrated), but states are free to organize the content any way they want.

There are six conceptual categories of content to be covered at the high school level:

• Number, and quantity;
• Algebra;
• Functions;
• Modeling;
• Geometry;
• Statistics and probability.

Some topics in each category are indicated only for students intending to take more advanced, optional courses such as calculus, advanced statistics, or discrete mathematics. Even if the traditional sequence is adopted, functions and modeling are to be integrated across the curriculum, not taught as separate courses. Mathematical Modeling is a Standard for Mathematical Practice (see above), and is meant to be integrated across the entire curriculum beginning in kindergarten. The modeling category does not have its own standards; instead, high school standards in other categories which are intended to be considered part of the modeling category are indicated in the standards with a star symbol.

Each of the six high school categories includes a number of domains. For example, the "number and quantity" category contains four domains: the real number system; quantities; the complex number system; and vector and matrix quantities. The "vector and matrix quantities" domain is reserved for advanced students, as are some of the standards in "the complex number system".

Examples of mathematical content

Second grade example: In the second grade there are 26 standards in four domains. The four critical areas of focus for second grade are (1) extending understanding of base-ten notation; (2) building fluency with addition and subtraction; (3) using standard units of measure; and (4) describing and analyzing shapes. Below are the second grade standards for the domain of "operations and algebraic thinking" (Domain 2.OA). This second grade domain contains four standards, organized into three clusters:

Represent and solve problems involving addition and subtraction.

1. Use addition and subtraction within 100 to solve one- and two-step word problems involving situations of adding to, taking from, putting together, taking apart, and comparing, with unknowns in all positions, e.g., by using drawings and equations with a symbol for the unknown number to represent the problem.

Add and subtract within 20.

2. Fluently add and subtract within 20 using mental strategies. By end of Grade 2, know from memory all sums of two one-digit numbers.

Work with equal groups of objects to gain foundations for multiplication.

3. Determine whether a group of objects (up to 20) has an odd or even number of members, e.g., by pairing objects or counting them by 2s; write an equation to express an even number as a sum of two equal addends.

4. Use addition to find the total number of objects arranged in rectangular arrays with up to 5 rows and up to 5 columns; write an equation to express the total as a sum of equal addends.

Domain example: As an example of the development of a domain across several grades, here are the clusters for learning fractions (Domain NF, which stands for "Number and Operationsâ€"Fractions") in Grades 3 through 6. Each cluster contains several standards (not listed here):

Grade 3:

• Develop an understanding of fractions as numbers.

Grade 4:

• Extend understanding of fraction equivalence and ordering.
• Build fractions from unit fractions by applying and extending previous understandings of operations on whole numbers.
• Understand decimal notation for fractions, and compare decimal fractions.

Grade 5:

• Use equivalent fractions as a strategy to add and subtract fractions.
• Apply and extend previous understandings of multiplication and division to multiply and divide fractions.

In Grade 6, there is no longer a "number and operationsâ€"fractions" domain, but students learn to divide fractions by fractions in the number system domain.

High school example: As an example of a high school category, here are the domains and clusters for algebra. There are four algebra domains (in bold below), each of which is broken down into as many as four clusters (bullet points below). Each cluster contains one to five detailed standards (not listed here). Starred standards, such as the Creating Equations domain (A-CED), are also intended to be part of the modeling category.

Seeing Structure in Expressions (A-SSE)

• Interpret the structure of expressions
• Write expressions in equivalent forms to solve problems

Arithmetic with Polynomials and Rational Functions (A-APR)

• Perform arithmetic operations on polynomials
• Understand the relationship between zeros and factors of polynomials
• Use polynomial identities to solve problems
• Rewrite rational expressions

Creating Equations.★ (A-CED)

• Create equations that describe numbers or relationships

Reasoning with Equations and Inequalities (A-REI)

• Understand solving equations as a process of reasoning and explain the reasoning
• Solve equations and inequalities in one variable
• Solve systems of equations
• Represent and solve equations and inequalities graphically

As an example of detailed high school standards, the first cluster above is broken down into two standards as follows:

Interpret the structure of expressions

1. Interpret expressions that represent a quantity in terms of its context.★

a. Interpret parts of an expression, such as terms, factors, and coefficients.

b. Interpret complicated expressions by viewing one or more of their parts as a single entity. For example, interpret P(1+r)ⁿ as the product of P and a factor not depending on P.

2. Use the structure of an expression to identify ways to rewrite it. For example, see x⁴ â€" y⁴ as (x²)² â€" (y²)², thus recognizing it as a difference of squares that can be factored as (x² â€" y²)(x² + y²).

Assessment

According to the Common Core State Standards Initiative website, formal assessment is expected to take place in the 2014â€"2015 school year, which coincides with the projected implementation year for most states. The assessment is being created by two consortiums with different approaches. The final decision of which assessment to use will be determined by individual state education agencies. Both of these leading consortiums are proposing computer-based exams that include fewer selected and constructed response test items, unlike the Standardized Test that has been more common.

• The PARCC RttT Assessment Consortium comprises the 19 jurisdictions of Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, District of Columbia, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Tennessee. Their approach focuses on computer-based "through-course assessments" in each grade together with streamlined end-of-year tests. (PARCC refers to "Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers" and RttT refers to the Race to the Top.)
• The second consortium, called the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium, comprised 31 states and territories (as of January 2014) focusing on creating "adaptive online exams". Member states include Alaska, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, U.S. Virgin Islands, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

As of October 2015, SBAC membership was reduced to 20 members: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Montana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, U.S. Virgin Islands, The Bureau of Indian Education, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, Wyoming.

While some states are working together to create a common, universal assessment based on the Common Core State Standards, other states are choosing to work independently or through these two consortiums to develop the assessment. Florida Governor Rick Scott directed his state education board to withdraw from PARCC. Georgia withdrew from the consortium test in July 2013 in order to develop its own. Michigan decided not to participate in Smarter Balanced testing. Oklahoma tentatively withdrew from the consortium test in July 2013 due to the technical challenges of online assessment. And Utah withdrew from the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium in August 2012.

Reception and criticism

The Common Core State Standards have drawn both support and adverse criticism from politicians, analysts, and commentators. Teams of academics and educators from around the United States led the development of the standards, and additional validation teams approved the final standards. The teams drew on public feedback that was solicited throughout the process and that feedback was incorporated into the standards. The Common Core initiative only specifies what students should know at each grade level and describes the skills that they must acquire in order to achieve college or career readiness. Individual school districts are responsible for choosing curricula based on the standards.

The mathematicians Edward Frenkel and Hung-Hsi Wu wrote in 2013 that the mathematical education in the United States is in "deep crisis" caused by the way math is currently taught in schools. Both agree that math textbooks, which are widely adopted across the states, already create "mediocre de facto national standards". The texts, they say, "are often incomprehensible and irrelevant". The Common Core State Standards address these issues and "level the playing field" for students. They point out that adoption of the Common Core State Standards and how best to test students are two separate issues.

In 2012, Tom Loveless of the Brookings Institution called into question whether the standards will have any effect, and said that they "have done little to equalize academic achievement within states". In response to the standards, the libertarian Cato Institute claimed that "it is not the least bit paranoid to say the federal government wants a national curriculum." Some conservatives have assailed the program as a federal "top-down" takeover of state and local education systems. South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley said her state should not "relinquish control of education to the federal government, neither should we cede it to the consensus of other states."

Educational analysts from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute determined that the Common Core standards, "are clearly superior to those currently in use in 39 states in math and 37 states in English. For 33 states, the Common Core is superior in both math and reading." According to the National Education Association, the Common Core State Standards are supported by 76% of its teacher members.

A spokesman from ExxonMobil said of Common Core: "It sets very important milestones and standards for educational achievement while at the same time providing those most invested in the outcome â€" local teachers and administrators â€" with the flexibility they need to best achieve those results".

The Heritage Foundation argued in 2010 that the Common Core's focus on national standards would do little to fix deeply ingrained problems and incentive structures within the education system.

A 2014 Mother Jones article, "We Can Code It", which advocates for adding computer literacy and coding to the Kâ€"12 curriculum in the United States, notes that computer science is not incorporated into the Common Core requirements.

Marion Brady, a teacher, and Patrick Murray, an elected member of the school governing board in Bradford, Maine, wrote that Common Core drains initiative from teachers and enforces a "one-size-fits-all" curriculum that ignores cultural differences among classrooms and students. Diane Ravitch, former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Education and education historian, wrote in her book Reign of Error that the Common Core standards have never been field-tested and that no one knows whether they will improve education. Nicholas Tampio, Assistant Professor of Political Science at Fordham University, said that the standards emphasize rote learning and uniformity over creativity, and fail to recognize differences in learning styles.

Michigan State University's Distinguished Professor William Schmidt wrote:

In my view, the Common Core State Standards in Mathematics (CCSSM) unquestionably represent a major change in the way U.S. schools teach mathematics. Rather than a fragmented system in which content is "a mile wide and an inch deep," the new common standards offer the kind of mathematics instruction we see in the top-achieving nations, where students learn to master a few topics each year before moving on to more advanced mathematics. It is my opinion that [a state] will best position its students for success by remaining committed to the Common Core State Standards and focusing their efforts on the implementation of the standards and aligned assessments.

The standards require certain critical content for all students, including: classic myths and stories from around the world, America's Founding Documents, foundational American literature, and Shakespeare. In May 2013, the National Catholic Educational Association noted that the standards are a "set of high-quality academic expectations that all students should master by the end of each grade level" and are "not a national curriculum".

Advancing one Catholic perspective, over one hundred college-level scholars signed a public letter criticizing the Common Core for diminishing the humanities in the educational curriculum: The "Common Core adopts a bottom-line, pragmatic approach to education and the heart of its philosophy is, as far as we can see, that it is a waste of resources to 'over-educate' people," though the Common Core set only minimumâ€"not maximumâ€"standards. Mark Naison, Fordham University Professor, and co-founder of the Badass Teachers Association, raised a similar objection: "The liberal critique of Common Core is that this is a huge profit-making enterprise that costs school districts a tremendous amount of money, and pushes out the things kids love about school, like art and music".

As Common Core is implemented in New York, the new tests have been criticized. Some parents have said that the new assessments are too difficult and are causing too much stress, leading to an "opt-out movement" in which parents refuse to let their children take the tests.

Former governor Jeb Bush has said of opponents of the standards that while "criticisms and conspiracy theories are easy attention grabbers", he instead wanted to hear their solutions to the problems in American education. In 2014, Bobby Jindal wrote that "It has become fashionable in the news media to believe there is a right-wing conspiracy against Common Core."

Diane Ravitch has also stated:

The financial cost of implementing Common Core has barely been mentioned in the national debates. All Common Core testing will be done online. This is a bonanza for the tech industry and other vendors. Every school district must buy new computers, new teaching materials, and new bandwidth for the testing. At a time when school budgets have been cut in most states and many thousands of teachers have been laid off, school districts across the nation will spend billions to pay for Common Core testing. Los Angeles alone committed to spend $1 billion on iPads for the tests; the money is being taken from a bond issue approved by voters for construction and repair of school facilities. Meanwhile, the district has cut teachers of the arts, class size has increased, and necessary repairs are deferred because the money will be spent on iPads. The iPads will be obsolete in a year or two, and the Pearson content loaded onto the iPads has only a three-year license.

Writer Jonathan Kozol uses the metaphor "cognitive decapitation" to describe the unfulfilling educational experience students are going through due to the subjects that have been excluded in their curriculum as a result of the Common Core. He notes cognitive decapitation is often experienced in urban schools of color, while white children have the privilege to continue engaging in a creative curriculum that involves the arts.

In 2016, ACT, Inc., administrators of the ACT college readiness assessment, reported that there is a disconnect between what is emphasized in the Common Core and what is deemed important for college readiness by some college instructors. ACT has been a proponent of the Common Core Standards, and Chief Executive Officer Martin Roorda stated that "ACT's findings should not be interpreted as a rebuke of the Common Core."

Early results

Kentucky was the first to implement the Common Core State Standards, and local school districts began offering new math and English curricula based on the standard in August 2010. In 2013, Time magazine reported that the high school graduation rate had increased from 80 percent in 2010 to 86 percent in 2013, test scores went up 2 percentage points in the second year of using the Common Core test, and the percentage of students considered to be ready for college or a career, based on a battery of assessments, went up from 34 percent in 2010 to 54 percent in 2013. According to Sarah Butrymowicz from The Atlantic,

Kentucky's experience over the past three school years suggests it will be a slow and potentially frustrating road ahead for the other states that are using the Common Core. Test scores are still dismal, and state officials have expressed concern that the pace of improvement is not fast enough. Districts have also seen varying success in changing how teachers teach, something that was supposed to change under the new standards.

The Common Core State Standards are considered to be more rigorous than the standards they replaced in Kentucky. Kentucky's old standards received a "D" in an analysis by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute. School officials in Kentucky believe it will take several more years to adjust to the new standards, which received an A- in math and a B+ in English from the Fordham Institute.

Adoption and implementation by states

The chart below contains the adoption status of the Common Core State Standards as of May 12, 2015. Among the territories of the United States (not listed in the chart below), the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the American Samoa Islands have adopted the standards while Puerto Rico has not adopted the standards. As of May 12, 2015, three states have repealed Common Core. Nine additional member states have legislation in some stage of the process that would repeal Common Core participation.

References

Further reading

• Hess, Frederick M. and Michael Q. McShane eds. Common Core Meets Education Reform: What It All Means for Politics, Policy, and the Future of Schooling (Teachers College Press; 2013) 232 pages; Essays by academics and policy analysts on integrating Common Core Standards with existing efforts at accountability and other reforms.
• Pattison, Darcy. What is Common Core? (Mims House; 2013) 78 pages; Overview and introduction to the Common Core State Standards.
• Richard P. Phelps and R. James Milgram, The Revenge of Kâ€"12: How Common Core and the New SAT Lower College Standards in the U.S., Boston: Pioneer Institute, 2014.

External links

• Official website

Learn more »

Title IX is a portion of the United States Education Amendments of 1972, Public Law No. 92â€'318, 86 Stat. 235 (June 23, 1972), codified at 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681â€"1688, co-authored and introduced by Senator Birch Bayh; it was renamed the Patsy Mink Equal Opportunity in Education Act in 2002, after Patsy Mink, its late House co-author and sponsor. It states (in part) 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.

History

Foundation and hearings

Although the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was written in order to end discrimination in various fields based on sex, religion, race, color, or national origin, in the area of employment, the 1964 Act did not include any prohibition on gender discrimination in public education and federally assisted programs but it did energize the women's rights movement, which had somewhat slowed after women's suffrage in 1920. While Title IX is best known for its impact on high school and collegiate athletics, the original statute made no explicit mention of sports.

In 1967, President Lyndon Johnson sent a series of executive orders in order to make some clarifications. Before these clarifications were made, the National Organization for Women (NOW) persuaded President Johnson to include women in his executive orders. Most notable is Executive Order 11375, which required all entities receiving federal contracts to end discrimination on the basis of sex in hiring and employment.

In 1969, Bernice Sandler used the executive order to help her fight for her job at the University of Maryland. She used university statistics showing how female employment at the university had plummeted as qualified women were replaced by men. Sandler brought her complaints to the Department of Labor's Office for Federal Fair Contracts Compliance where she was encouraged to file a formal complaint. Citing inequalities in pay, rank, admissions and much more, Sandler began to file complaints not only against the University of Maryland but numerous other colleges as well. Working in conjunction with NOW and Women's Equity Action League (WEAL), Sandler filed 269 complaints against colleges and universities.

In 1970, Sandler joined Representative Edith Green's Subcommittee on Higher Education of the Education and Labor Committee and sat in on the congressional hearings where women's rights were discussed. It was in the congressional hearings that Green and Sandler first proposed Title IX. An early draft was authored by Representative Patsy Mink, with the assistance of Representative Green. In the hearing there was very little mention of athletics. Their focus was more specifically on the hiring and employment practices of federally financed institutions.

Introduction and enactment

The first person to introduce Title IX in Congress was its author and chief Senate sponsor, Senator Birch Bayh of Indiana.

At the time, Bayh was working on numerous constitutional issues related to women's rights, including the Equal Rights Amendment, to build "a powerful constitutional base from which to move forward in abolishing discriminatory differential treatment based on sex". As they were having some difficulty getting the ERA out of committee, the Higher Education Act of 1965 was on the floor for reauthorization, and on February 28, 1972, Senator Bayh introduced the ERA's equal education provision as an amendment.

Prior to Title IX's enactment women were not given the opportunities that men were. Men were the ones given academic opportunities such as scholarships and funding while women were not viewed as equal. As a result, Title IX was created. Pre- Title IX in 1971 only 1% of the athletic budgets went to female sports on the college level. On the high school level male athletes outnumbered female athletes 12.5 to 1. After Title IX, there was a 600% increase in the number of women playing college sports.

In his remarks on the Senate floor, Bayh said, "We are all familiar with the stereotype of women as pretty things who go to college to find a husband, go on to graduate school because they want a more interesting husband, and finally marry, have children, and never work again. The desire of many schools not to waste a 'man's place' on a woman stems from such stereotyped notions. But the facts absolutely contradict these myths about the 'weaker sex' and it is time to change our operating assumptions."

"While the impact of this amendment would be far-reaching", Bayh concluded, "it is not a panacea. It is, however, an important first step in the effort to provide for the women of America something that is rightfully theirsâ€"an equal chance to attend the schools of their choice, to develop the skills they want, and to apply those skills with the knowledge that they will have a fair chance to secure the jobs of their choice with equal pay for equal work".

Title IX became law on June 23, 1972. When President Nixon signed the bill, he spoke mostly about desegregation busing, but did not mention the expansion of educational access for women he had enacted.

Implementation

The wording of Title IX is very brief, requiring specific language and clarifications to be articulated in its implementing regulations. President Nixon directed the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) to carry this out.

Title IX would affect men's athletics and prompted some concern to look for ways to limit the influence of Title IX. Senator Bayh spent the next three years keeping watch over HEW to get regulations formulated that carried out its legislative intent of eliminating discrimination in higher education on the basis of sex. When they were issued in summer 1975 they were contested, and hearings were held by the House Subcommittee on Equal Opportunities on the discrepancies between the regulations and the law. In 1974, Senator John Tower introduced the Tower Amendment, which would have exempted revenue-producing sports from Title IX compliance. Later that year, the Tower Amendment was rejected and the Javits Amendment, proposed by Senator Jacob Javits, stating that the HEW must include "reasonable provisions considering the nature of particular sports" was adopted in its place.

In June 1975, HEW published the final regulations detailing how Title IX would be enforced. The regulations were codified in the Federal Register in the Code of Federal Regulations Volume 34, Part 106 (34 C.F.R. [https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/34/106 106]34 C.F.R. 106). It was not until this step was completed that many people truly understood the ramifications of Title IX as it would apply to college athletics. Universities receiving Federal financial assistance were given three years to comply with the Title IX regulations. The NCAA claimed that the implementation of Title IX was illegal. A revised Tower Amendment was proposed and many debates occurred but Title IX stood.

In 1979, HEW, under Jimmy Carter's administration, issued further clarifications in its Intercollegiate Athletics Policy Interpretation.

In 1980, HEW was split into two separate agencies in accordance with the Department of Education Organization Actâ€"the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Department of Education (ED). Responsibility for Title IX enforcement in educational institutions was delegated to ED's Office for Civil Rights (OCR).

The regulations and Policy Interpretation clarified of a number of key issues. Separate teams and equal opportunity and can be found in 34 C.F.R. 106.41, comparable facilities in 34 C.F.R. 106.33, and financial assistance in Section 34 C.F.R. 106.37. These subsections explain that evaluating the equality of these sections "strictly based on expenditures is an unfair method for evaluating equity." The OCR came up with a way "to investigate" the equality of schools and institutions called, the Investigator's Manual on July 28, 1980. The OCR went even further years later and issued three letters of clarification in 1996, 1998 and 2003. The first letter (1996) was written to clarify the proportionality test, the second (1998) to clarify the meaning of "substantially equal," and the third (2003) was to reaffirm the first clarification letter after a number of commission discussions and hearings.

Further legislation and regulations

The Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1988 was passed in response to the U.S. Supreme Court's 1984 ruling Grove City College v. Bell in which the Court held that Title IX applied only to those programs receiving direct federal aid. The case reached the Supreme Court when Grove City College disagreed with the Department of Education's assertion that it was required to comply with Title IX. Grove City College was not a federally funded institution; however, they did accept students who were receiving Basic Educational Opportunity Grants through a Department of Education program. The Department of Education's stance was that, because some of its students were receiving federal grants, the school was receiving federal assistance and Title IX applied to it. The Court decided that since Grove City College was only receiving federal funding through the grant program, only that program had to be in compliance. The ruling was a major victory for those opposed to Title IX, as it ma de many institutions' sports programs outside of the rule of Title IX and, thus, reduced the scope of Title IX. Grove City's victory, however, was short-lived. The Civil Rights Restoration Act was passed in 1988 which extended Title IX coverage to all programs of any educational institution that receives any federal assistance, both direct and indirect.

In 1994, the Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act, sponsored by congresswoman Cardiss Collins, required federally assisted higher education institutions to disclose information on roster sizes for men's and women's teams, as well as budgets for recruiting, scholarships, coaches' salaries, and other expenses, annually.

In October 2002, less than a month after the death of Rep. Patsy Mink, Congress passed a resolution to rename Title IX the "Patsy Takemoto Mink Equal Opportunity in Education Act," which President George W. Bush signed into law.

On November 24, 2006, the Title IX regulations were amended to provide greater flexibility in the operation of single-sex classes or extracurricular activities at the primary or secondary school level.

Applicability and compliance

The legislation, as a mere interpretation by a governing political administration, has the potential to cover all educational activities, and complaints alleging sex discrimination in fields such as: science, math education, health care, and dormitory facilities. It also applies to non-sport activities such as school band and clubs; however, social fraternities and sororities, sex-specific youth clubs such as Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts, and Girls State and Boys State are specifically exempt from its requirements.

Title IX also has the potential to apply to an entire school, or institution, that receives federal financial assistance.

The regulations implementing Title IX require all institutions receiving federal financial assistance to perform self-evaluations of whether they offer equal opportunities based on sex. In order to provide written assurances to the Department of Education, the institution has to be in compliance for the period that the federally funded equipment or facilities remain in use. With respect to athletic programs, the Department of Education evaluates the following factors in determining whether equal treatment exists:

1. Whether the selection of sports and levels of competition effectively accommodate the interests and abilities of members of both sexes;
2. The provision of equipment and supplies;
3. Scheduling of games and practice time;
4. Travel and per diem allowance;
5. Opportunity to receive coaching and academic tutoring on mathematics only;
6. Assignment and compensation of coaches and tutors;
7. Provision of locker rooms, practice and competitive facilities;
8. Provision of medical and training facilities and services;
9. Provision of housing and dining facilities and services;
10. Publicity.

Unequal aggregate expenditures for members of each sex or unequal expenditures for male and female teams if a recipient operates or sponsors separate teams will not constitute noncompliance with this section, but the Assistant Secretary [of Education for Civil Rights] may consider the failure to provide necessary funds for teams for one sex in assessing equality of opportunity for members of each sex.

Although, the most well-known application of Title IX regarding athletics is that there are several protections the law specifically delineates. 34 C.F.R. 106.40 protects pregnant and parenting students from discrimination based on pregnant status, marital status, or parenthood. Their condition must be treated as any other medical condition. Students may not be excluded from any activity based on their condition of pregnancy, parenthood, or marital status. If they attend a separate facility, they must elect to do so voluntarily, and the facility must provide comparable programs.

Three-part test

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 financial assistance can demonstrate compliance with Title IX by meeting any one of the three prongs, according to a non-legal binding Dear Colleague letter issued in 2010 by the Office for Civil Rights.

• "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."
• "The athletic interests and abilities of male and female students must be equally effectively accommodated."
• "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:

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.

Litigation after Grove City case

Since Title IX was passed into law, there have been many court cases claiming non-compliance. One of the most notable cases is Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools, was brought to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1992. The decision in this case required that punitive damages should be awarded to plaintiffs when Title IX is intentionally avoided. In 1993 the court of appeals ruled that financial difficulties is not an excuse for non-compliance in Favia v. Indiana University of Pennsylvania.

In one specific instance, Title IX was instrumental in a court case involving Louisiana State University (LSU). In 1996, a federal court referenced Title IX in ruling that LSU violated the civil rights of female athletes by refusing to fund a trip to a women's volleyball tournament in Hawaii, when earlier in the year, travel for a men's basketball tournament was funded. Since this ruling, LSU has made changes in its athletic programs to achieve compliance. LSU is one of only three NCAA programs that are 100% self-funded and that do not accept financial contributions from the university or government.

In an "unusual" case, Title IX was invoked to justify a school's decision to upgrade its football program from Division I FCS (formerly Iâ€'AA) to Division I FBS (formerly Iâ€'A). The Western Kentucky University Board of Regents approved this move in November 2006, to take effect in 2009. At the time of the vote, WKU was purportedly out of Title IX compliance because it had a disproportionately large number of female scholarship athletes. By upgrading football, it increased the percentage of male athletes on scholarship. However, the following year, it eliminated its men's soccer team.

The Associated Press reported in May 2011 that the Department of Education was investigating the University of Delaware (UD) for potential sex discrimination against men, following a complaint by members of the school's men's cross country and track teams. UD had announced in January 2011 that it would be eliminating both teams at the end of the current school year.

In May 2014, for the first time the Department of Education released a list of 55 colleges and universities under investigation for having mishandled sexual assault. According to The New York Times, this was "an unusual step meant to increase pressure on the institutions to crack down on the problem [of sexual assault] on their campuses." Three of notoriety include the Ivy League schools Harvard University, Princeton University, and Dartmouth College. As of January 2015, with the launch of an investigation at Barnard College on December 29, 2014, the list includes 94 colleges and universities.

Applicability to transgender students

In 2014 and 2016, non-legal binding guidelines were issued by the U.S. Department of Education stating that transgender students are protected from sex-based discrimination under Title IX. It instructed public schools to treat transgender students consistent with their gender identity in academic life. A student who identifies as a transgender boy, for instance, is allowed entry to a boys-only class, and a student who identifies as a transgender girl is allowed entry to a girls-only class. This also applies to academic records if that student is over the age of eighteen at a university. The memo states in part that "[a]ll students, including transgender students, or students who do not conform to sex stereotypes, are protected from sex-based discrimination under Title IX. Under Title IX, a recipient generally must treat transgender, or gender non-conforming, consistent with their gender identity in all aspects of the planning, implementation, enrollment, operation, and evaluation of single-sex classes."

In February 2017, the departments of justice and education under the Trump administration withdrew the guidance on gender identity issued by the Obama administration.

Impact

Though views differ as respects the impact of Title IX, discussion typically focuses on whether or not Title IX has resulted in increased athletic opportunities for females, and whether and to what extent Title IX has resulted in decreased athletic opportunities for males. In addition, the legislation had impacts on aspects other than athletes. The increased exposure of female sports led to increased dominance by males of the governance of female athletics. For example, the male-dominated NCAA, which had been content to let the female-dominated AIAW run female championships, decided to offer female championships, thus leading to the eventual demise of the AIAW.

Advocates of Title IX's current interpretation cite increases in female athletic participation, and attribute those increases to Title IX. One study, completed in 2006, pointed to a large increase in the number of women participating in athletics at both the high school and college level. The number of women in high school sports had increased by a factor of nine, while the number of women in college sports had increased by more than 450%. A 2008 study of intercollegiate athletics showed that women's collegiate sports has grown to 9,101 teams, or 8.65 per school. The five most frequently offered college sports for women are, in order: (1) Basketball, 98.8% of schools have a team, (2) Volleyball, 95.7%, (3) Soccer, 92.0%, (4) Cross Country, 90.8%, and (5) Softball, 89.2%.

At the same time, many contend that the current interpretation of Title IX by the OCR has resulted in the dismantling of men's programs, despite strong participation in those sports. For example, though interest in the sport of wrestling has consistently increased at the high school level since 1990, scores of colleges have dropped their wrestling programs during that same period. The OCR's three-prong test for compliance with Title IX often is cited as the reason for these cuts. Wrestling historically was the most frequently dropped sport, but other men's sports later overtook the lead, such that according to the NCAA, the most-dropped men's sports between 1987 and 2002 were as follows: Cross country (183), indoor track (180), golf (178), tennis (171), rowing (132), outdoor track (126), swimming (125) and wrestling (121).

A non-legal binding guideline announced by Vice President Joe Biden on 4 April 2011 on sexual harassment or violence required that institutions conduct investigations and discipline on the preponderance of the evidence standard, rather than that of beyond reasonable doubt. The use of such a standard by the University of North Dakota has been criticized by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education in the case of Caleb Warner, who was suspended for three years in January 2010 on the basis of a report by a complainant who was subsequently charged with filing a false report by state police, a decision which the University has refused to reconsider.

Impact on sexual violence

Title IX applies to all educational programs and all aspects of a school's educational system. Civil rights activists and organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) maintain that "when students suffer sexual assault and harassment, they are deprived of equal and free access to an education." Further, according to an April 2011 letter issued by the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights, "The sexual harassment of students, including sexual violence, interferes with students' right to receive an education free from discrimination and, in the case of sexual violence, is a crime."

The letter, known colloquially as the "Dear Colleague" letter, states that it is the responsibility of institutions of higher education "to take immediate and effective steps to end sexual harassment and sexual violence." The letter illustrates multiple examples of Title IX requirements as they relate to sexual violence, and makes clear that, should an institution fail to fulfill its responsibilities under Title IX, the Department of Education can impose a fine and potentially deny further institutional access to federal funds.

On March 15, 2011, Yale undergraduate student and alleged sexual violence survivor Alexandra Brodsky filed a Title IX complaint along with fifteen fellow students alleging Yale "has a sexually hostile environment and has failed to adequately respond to sexual harassment concerns."

On October 2012, an Amherst College student, Angie Epifano, wrote an explicit, personal account of her alleged sexual assault and the ensuing, "appalling treatment" she received when coming forward to seek support from the College's administration. In the narrative, Epifano alleged that she was raped by a fellow Amherst student and described how her life was affected by the experience; she stated that the perpetrator harassed her at the only dining hall, that her academics were negatively affected, and that, when she sought support, the administration coerced her into taking the blame for her experience, and ultimately institutionalized her and pressured her to drop out.

"The fact that such a prestigious institution could have such a noxious interior fills me with intense remorse mixed with sour distaste. I am sickened by the Administration's attempts to cover up survivors' stories, cook their books to discount rapes, pretend that withdrawals never occur, quell attempts at change, and sweep sexual assaults under a rug. When politicians cover up affairs or scandals the masses often rise up in angry protestations and call for a more transparent government. What is the difference between a government and the Amherst College campus? Why can't we know what is really happening on campus? Why should we be quiet about sexual assault?"

When the Amherst case reached national attention, Annie E. Clark and Andrea Pino, two women who were allegedly sexually assaulted at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill connected with Amherst student, Dana Bolger, and Brodsky to address the parallel concerns of hostility at their institution, filing Title IX and Clery Act complaints against the university on January 2013, both leading to investigations by the U.S. Department of Education.

Following the national prominence of the UNC Chapel Hill case, organizers Pino and Clark went on to coordinate with students at other schools; in 2013, complaints citing violations of Title IX were filed by Occidental College (on April 18), Swarthmore College and the University of Southern California (on May 22). These complaints, the resulting campaigns against sexual violence on college campuses, and the organizing of Bolger, Brodsky, Clark, Pino and other activists led to the formation of an informal national network of activists. Bolger and Brodsky also started Know Your IX, an organization of student activists focused on legal education and federal and state policy change.

In addition to its use within formal complaints submitted to the Department of Education, Title IX has been utilized in civil litigation. In 2006, a federal court found that there was sufficient evidence that the University of Colorado acted with "deliberate indifference" toward students Lisa Simpson and Anne Gilmore, who were sexually assaulted by student football players. The university settled the case, promising to change its policies and pay $2.5 million in damages. In 2008, Arizona State University was the subject of a lawsuit that alleged violations of rights guaranteed by Title IX: the university expelled a football player for multiple instances of severe sexual harassment, but readmitted him; he went on to rape a fellow student in her dorm room. Despite its claim that it bore no responsibility, the school settled the lawsuit, agreeing to revise and improve its official response to sexual misconduct and to pay the plaintiff $850,000 in damages and fees.

Impact on male athletics

Some believe that the increase in athletic opportunity for girls in high school has come at the expense of boys' athletics. For example, the College Sports Council has stated, "Nationwide, there are currently 1.3 million more boys participating in high school sports than girls. Using a gender quota to enforce Title IX in high school sports would put those young athletes at risk of losing their opportunity to play." High school participation rates from the National Federation of High School associations report that in 2010â€"11, there were 4,494,406 boys and 3,173,549 girls participating in high school athletics.

There have been different interpretations regarding Title IX's application to high school athletics. The American Sports Council sued the Department of Education in 2011 seeking a declaratory judgment that its policy interpreting Title IX's requirement for equity in participation opportunities is limited to colleges and universities. The American Sports Council argued that "The three-part test and its encouragement of quotas, has no relevance to high schools or high-school sports, and no federal regulation or interpretation has ever said that high schools must abide by the three-part test". On the other hand, the Department of Education insists that Title IX is a "valuable tool" for ensuring a level playing field for all students" and "plays a critical role in ensuring a fundamental level of fairness in America's schools and universities".

Between 1981 and 1999 university athletic departments cut 171 men's wrestling teams, 84 men's tennis teams, 56 men's gymnastics teams, 27 men's track teams, and 25 men's swimming teams. While some teamsâ€"both men's and women'sâ€"have been eliminated in the Title IX era, both sexes have seen a net increase in the number of athletic periods over a similar time period as the above quote, and by studies including more recent data, though when total enrollment which had likewise increased is controlled for, only women had an increase in participation.

Because teams vary widely in size, it is more appropriate to compare the number of total participation opportunities. Additionally, the total number of college participation opportunities has increased for both sexes in the Title IX era, though solely for women when increased enrollment is accounted for, as men's participation remained static relative to university enrollment, and men's opportunities outnumber women's by a wide margin.

The Women's Sports Foundation reported in a 2007 study of athletic opportunities at NCAA institutions that over 150,000 female athletic opportunities would need to be added in order to reach participation levels proportional to the female undergraduate population. The same study found that men's athletics also receives the lion's share of athletic department budgets for operating expenses, recruiting, scholarships, and coaches salaries.

Impact on female athletics

"In 1971, fewer than 295,000 girls participated in high school varsity athletics, accounting for just 7 percent of all varsity athletes; in 2001, that number leaped to 2.8 million, or 41.5 percent of all varsity athletes, according to the National Coalition for Women and Girls in Education. In 1966, 16,000 females competed in intercollegiate athletics. By 2001, that number jumped to more than 150,000, accounting for 43 percent of all college athletes. In addition, a 2008 study of intercollegiate athletics showed that women's collegiate sports had grown to 9,101 teams, or 8.65 per school. The five most frequently offered college sports for women are, in order: (1) basketball, 98.8% of schools have a team, (2) volleyball, 95.7%, (3) soccer, 92.0%, (4) cross country, 90.8%, and (5) softball, 89.2%. Since 1972, women have also competed in the traditional male sports of wrestling, weightlifting, rugby, and boxing. Parents have begun to watch their daughters on the playing fields, court s, and on television. A recent article in the New York Times found that there are lasting benefits for women from Title IX: participation in sports increased education as well as employment opportunities for girls. Furthermore, the athletic participation by girls and women spurred by Title IX was associated with lower obesity rates. No other public health program can claim similar success."

In a 1973 article titled “Women in Sportâ€"Programmed to be Losers,” Sports Illustrated argued that women would benefit from experiencing a release of aggression and the feeling of winning. Similar work from The New York Times shifted the way women’s sports were covered in the United States.

A study found that after Title IX, the number of female college students playing sports was six times higher than prior to Title IX. Prior to Title IX, women's athletic teams received less than 10% of their academic institutions' budget and athletic scholarships for women did not exist. According to a report by the National Coalition for Women and Girls in Education, in 2009â€"2010, women received 48% of all athletic scholarship funds at Division 1 schools.

Title IX has helped young female athletes pursue careers after college with the availability of scholarships offered through women's sports. Before Title IX, classes available to women were sewing and skills needed around the home, which were low-paid jobs. Since Title IX, more classes have been available to women to pursue majors of their choice and further their careers with jobs that pay more.

Controversy

Title IX has been a source of controversy in part due to claims that the OCR's current interpretation of Title IX, and specifically its three-prong test of compliance, is no longer faithful to the anti-discrimination language in Title IX's text, and instead discriminates against men and has contributed to the reduction of programs for male athletes.

Critics of the three-prong test contend that it operates as a "quota" in that it places undue emphasis on the first prong (known as the "proportionality" prong), which fails to take into account any differences in the genders' respective levels of interest in participating in athletics (in spite of the third prong, which focuses on any differences in the genders' respective levels of interest in participation). Instead it requires that the genders' athletic participation be substantially proportionate to their enrollment, without regard to interest. Prong two is viewed as only a temporary fix for universities, as universities may only point to past expansion of opportunities for female students for a limited time before compliance with another prong is necessary. Critics say that prong three likewise fails to consider male athletic interest in spite of its gender-neutral language, as it requires that the university fully and effectively accommodate the athletic interests of the "u nderrepresented sex", despite the fact that ED regulations expressly require that the OCR consider whether the institution "effectively accommodate[s] the interests and abilities of members of both sexes". As such, with a focus on increasing female athletic opportunities without any counterbalance to take male athletic interest into consideration, critics maintain that the OCR's three-prong test actually operates to discriminate against men.

Defenders of the three-prong test counter that the genders' differing athletic interest levels is merely a product of past discrimination, and that Title IX should be interpreted to maximize female participation in athletics regardless of any existing disparity in interest. Thus while defenders argue that the three-prong test embodies the maxim that "opportunity drives interest", critics argue that the three-prong test goes beyond Title IX original purpose of preventing discrimination, and instead amounts to an exercise in which athletic opportunities are taken away from male students and given to female students, despite the comparatively lower interest levels of those female students. Author and self-described women's rights advocate John Irving opined in a New York Times column that on this topic, women's advocates were being "purely vindictive" in insisting that the current OCR interpretation of Title IX be maintained.

On March 17, 2005, OCR announced a clarification of prong three of the three-part test of Title IX compliance. The guidance concerned the use of web-based surveys to determine the level of interest in varsity athletics among the underrepresented sex. Opponents of the clarification â€" including the NCAA Executive Committee, which issued a resolution soon afterward asking Association members not to use the survey â€" claimed the survey was flawed in part because of the way it counted non-responses. On April 20, 2010, the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights abandoned the 2005 clarification that allowed institutions to use only Internet or eâ€'mail surveys to meet the interests and abilities (third prong) option of the three-part test for Title IX compliance.

On April 20, 2010, the United States Commission on Civil Rights weighed in on the OCR's three-prong test and procedures for implementing it. On that date, the Commission on Civil Rights released several recommendations on Title IX policy to address what it termed "unnecessary reduction of men's athletic opportunities". The Commission advocated use of surveys to measure interest, and specifically recommended that the Department of Education's regulations on interest and abilities be revised "to explicitly take into account the interest of both sexes rather than just the interest of the underrepresented sex", almost always females.

In 2011 the Dear Colleague Letter, which mentioned Title IX, stated that sexual violence also falls into the category of sexual discrimination, which in fact would not be tolerated. In the letter it stated that it was the duty of Colleges and Universities to enforce consequences if there were any students who had been victims to sexual violence, and that it was also the responsibility of these institutions to prevent any sexual violence to begin with. Schools were being threatened that if they were not in compliance with what the Dear Colleague Letter stated that they would lose all of their federal funding. Many schools were being investigated by the O.C.R, and several came under scrutiny for non-compliance. There have been several lawsuits that state that the O.C.R unlawfully made the decision to have contents of the Dear Colleague Letter enforced, and some cited that there was unfair treatment.

There are currently a number of cases regarding the use of bathrooms by transgender individuals, and there is a debate about whether or not a school administrator denying an individual their right to use their bathroom of choice qualifies as a Title IX discrimination case. The Obama administration, in interpreting Title IX to include "gender identity and expression" under the broader category of "sex," claimed that it wanted to make sure that all sexes and genders feel safe when using these restrooms.

Recognition

On the twenty-fifth anniversary of Title IX the National Women's Law Center lodged twenty-five complaints with the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights.

There were several events praising the 40th anniversary of Title IX in June 2012. For example, the White House Council on Women and Girls hosted a panel to discuss the life-altering nature of sports. Panelists included Billie Jean King, Allâ€'American NCAA point guard Shoni Schimmel of the University of Louisville, and Aimee Mullins, the first double-amputee sprinter to compete in NCAA track and field for Georgetown University.

President Barack Obama wrote a pro-Title IX op-ed published in Newsweek magazine.

The Women's Sports Foundation honored over 40 female athletes.

On June 21, 2012, espnW projected a digital mosaic featuring the largest-ever collection of women and girls' sports images (all of which were submitted by the athletes themselves) onto the First Amendment tablet of the Newseum in Washington, D.C. The mosaic also included photos of espnW's Top 40 Athletes of the Past 40 Years.

ESPN The Magazine produced its first "Women in Sports" issue in June 2012.

Also in June 2012, ESPN Classic first showed the documentary Sporting Chance: The Lasting Legacy of Title IX, narrated by Holly Hunter. It also showed the documentary On the Basis of Sex: The Battle for Title IX in Sports, and other programming related to women's sports.

In 2013 ESPN Films broadcast Nine for IX, a series of documentaries about women in sports. Good Morning America anchor Robin Roberts and Tribeca Productions cofounder Jane Rosenthal are executive producers of the series.

Commission on Opportunity in Athletics

On June 27, 2002, Secretary of Education Rod Paige announced the creation of the Commission on Opportunity in Athletics (COA), a blue-ribbon panel to examine ways to strengthen enforcement and expand opportunities to ensure fairness for all college athletes. Co-chairs for the COA were Cynthia Cooper and Ted Leland. The purpose of the Commission was to collect information, analyze issues, and obtain broad public input directed at improving the application of federal standards for measuring equal opportunity for men and women and boys and girls to participate in athletics under Title IX.

The panel held four town hall meetings (in Atlanta, Chicago, Colorado Springs, and San Diego) to allow the general public to comment on the past, present, and future of Title IX. On February 26, 2003, the COA issued its final report. The COA provided twenty-three recommendations to the Secretary of Education. Although many of the recommendations were unanimous, some of the more controversial recommendations passed by an 8â€"5 vote. These dealt with considering non-scholarship athletes in prong one of the three-part test for compliance and allowing interest surveys to determine compliance with prong three. On the same day, Secretary of Education Rod Paige announced he would only consider unanimous recommendations, whose effect on the Department of Education was to:

• Reaffirm its strong commitment to equal opportunity for girls and boys, women and men
• Aggressively enforce Title IX in a uniform way across the nation
• Give equal weight to all three prongs of the test governing Title IX compliance
• Encourage schools to understand that the Department of Education disapproves of cutting teams in order to comply with Title IX

Similar US state laws

Because Title IX only addresses public and private schools that receive federal funding, several states have enacted similar laws to prohibit discrimination based on sex regardless of whether the school receives federal funding. As of 2008, about a third of the states have done so, including Alaska, California, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Washington, and Wisconsin.

Learn more »

Warren Edward Buffett (/ˈbʌfᵻt/; born August 30, 1930) is an American business magnate, investor, and philanthropist. He is considered by some to be one of the most successful investors in the world, and as of March 2017 is the second wealthiest person in the United States with a total net worth of $78.7 billion.

Born in Omaha, Buffett developed an interest in business and investing in his youth, eventually entering the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania in 1947 before transferring and graduating from University of Nebraskaâ€"Lincoln. After graduating at 19, Buffett enrolled at Columbia Business School of Columbia University, learning and eventually creating his investment philosophy around a concept pioneered by Benjamin Grahamâ€"value investing. He attended New York Institute of Finance to specialize his economics background and soon after began various business partnerships, including one with Graham. After meeting Charlie Munger, Buffett created the Buffett Partnership. His firm would eventually acquire a textile manufacturing firm called Berkshire Hathaway and assume its name to create a diversified holding company.

Buffett has been the chairman and largest shareholder of Berkshire Hathaway since 1970, and his business exploits have had him referred to as the "Wizard", "Oracle" or "Sage" of Omaha by global media outlets. He is noted for his adherence to value investing and for his personal frugality despite his immense wealth.

Buffett is a notable philanthropist, having pledged to give away 99 percent of his fortune to philanthropic causes, primarily via the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. He is also active in contributing to political causes, having endorsed Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton in the 2016 U.S. presidential election; he has publicly opposed the policies, actions, and statements of the current U.S. president, Donald Trump.

Early life and education

Buffett was born in 1930 in Omaha, Nebraska. He was the second of three children and the only son of Leila (née Stahl) and Congressman Howard Buffett, Buffett began his education at Rose Hill Elementary School. In 1942, his father was elected to the first of four terms in the United States Congress, and after moving with his family to Washington, D.C., Warren finished elementary school, attended Alice Deal Junior High School and graduated from Woodrow Wilson High School in 1947, where his senior yearbook picture reads: "likes math; a future stockbroker." After finishing high school and finding success with his side entrepreneurial and investment ventures, Buffett wanted to skip college to go directly into business, but was overruled by his father.

Buffett displayed an interest in business and investing at a young age. Much of Buffett's early childhood years were enlivened with entrepreneurial ventures. One of his first business ventures, Buffett sold chewing gum, Coca-Cola bottles, or weekly magazines door to door. He worked in his grandfather's grocery store. While still in high school, he made money delivering newspapers, selling golf balls and stamps, and detailing cars, among other means. On his first income tax return in 1944, Buffett took a $35 deduction for the use of his bicycle and watch on his paper route. In 1945, as a high school sophomore, Buffett and a friend spent $25 to purchase a used pinball machine, which they placed in the local barber shop. Within months, they owned several machines in three different barber shops across Omaha. The business was sold later in the year for $1,200 to a war veteran.

Buffett's interest in the stock market and investing dated to schoolboy days he spent in the customers' lounge of a regional stock brokerage near his father's own brokerage office. On a trip to New York City at age ten, he made a point to visit the New York Stock Exchange. At 11, he bought three shares of Cities Service Preferred for himself, and three for his sister Doris Buffett (founder of The Sunshine Lady Foundation). At the age of 15, Warren made more than $175 monthly delivering Washington Post newspapers. In high school, he invested in a business owned by his father and bought a 40-acre farm worked by a tenant farmer. He bought the land when he was 14 years old with $1,200 of his savings. By the time he finished college, Buffett had accumulated $9,800 in savings (about $99,000 today).

In 1947, Buffett entered the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. He would have preferred to focus on his business ventures; however, he enrolled due to pressure from his father. Warren studied there for two years and joined the Alpha Sigma Phi fraternity. He then transferred to the University of Nebraskaâ€"Lincoln where at 19, he graduated with a Bachelor of Science in Business Administration. After being rejected by Harvard Business School, Buffett enrolled at Columbia Business School of Columbia University upon learning that Benjamin Graham taught there. He earned a Master of Science in Economics from Columbia in 1951. After graduating, Buffett attended the New York Institute of Finance.

The basic ideas of investing are to look at stocks as business, use the market's fluctuations to your advantage, and seek a margin of safety. That's what Ben Graham taught us. A hundred years from now they will still be the cornerstones of investing.

Investment career

Early business career

Buffett worked from 1951 to 1954 at Buffett-Falk & Co. as an investment salesman; from 1954 to 1956 at Graham-Newman Corp. as a securities analyst; from 1956 to 1969 at Buffett Partnership, Ltd. as a general partner and from 1970, as Chairman and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway Inc.

In April 1952, Buffett discovered that Graham was on the board of GEICO insurance. Taking a train to Washington, D.C. on a Saturday, he knocked on the door of GEICO's headquarters until a janitor admitted him. There he met Lorimer Davidson, Geico's Vice President, and the two discussed the insurance business for hours. Davidson would eventually become Buffett's lifelong friend and a lasting influence, and would later recall that he found Buffett to be an "extraordinary man" after only fifteen minutes. Buffett wanted to work on Wall Street; however, both his father and Ben Graham urged him not to. He offered to work for Graham for free, but Graham refused.

Buffett returned to Omaha and worked as a stockbroker while taking a Dale Carnegie public speaking course. Using what he learned, he felt confident enough to teach an "Investment Principles" night class at the University of Nebraska-Omaha. The average age of his students was more than twice his own. During this time he also purchased a Sinclair Texaco gas station as a side investment. However, this was not successful.

In 1952, Buffett married Susan Thompson at Dundee Presbyterian Church. The next year they had their first child, Susan Alice. In 1954, Buffett accepted a job at Benjamin Graham's partnership. His starting salary was $12,000 a year (about $107,000 today). There he worked closely with Walter Schloss. Graham was a tough boss. He was adamant that stocks provide a wide margin of safety after weighing the trade-off between their price and their intrinsic value. The argument made sense to Buffett but he questioned whether the criteria were too stringent and caused the company to miss out on big winners that had other appealing features. That same year the Buffetts had their second child, Howard Graham. In 1956, Benjamin Graham retired and closed his partnership. At this time Buffett's personal savings were over $174,000 (about $1.53 million today) and he started Buffett Partnership Ltd.

In 1957, Buffett operated three partnerships. He purchased a five-bedroom stucco house in Omaha, where he still lives, for $31,500. In 1958 the Buffetts' third child, Peter Andrew, was born. Buffett operated five partnerships that year. In 1959, the company grew to six partnerships and Buffett met future partner Charlie Munger. By 1960, Buffett operated seven partnerships. He asked one of his partners, a doctor, to find ten other doctors willing to invest $10,000 each in his partnership. Eventually eleven agreed, and Buffett pooled their money with a mere $100 original investment of his own. In 1961, Buffett revealed that Sanborn Map Company accounted for 35% of the partnership's assets. He explained that in 1958 Sanborn stock sold at only $45 per share when the value of the Sanborn investment portfolio was $65 per share. This meant that buyers valued Sanborn stock at "minus $20" per share and were unwilling to pay more than 70 cents on the dollar for an investment portfolio with a map business thrown in for nothing which earned him a spot on Sanborn's board.

Assuming Berkshire

In 1962, Buffett became a millionaire because of his partnerships, which in January 1962 had an excess of $7,178,500, of which over $1,025,000 belonged to Buffett. He merged these partnerships into one. Buffett invested in and eventually took control of a textile manufacturing firm, Berkshire Hathaway. He began buying shares in Berkshire from Seabury Stanton, the owner, whom he later fired. Buffett's partnerships began purchasing shares at $7.60 per share. In 1965, when Buffett's partnerships began purchasing Berkshire aggressively, they paid $14.86 per share while the company had working capital of $19 per share. This did not include the value of fixed assets (factory and equipment). Buffett took control of Berkshire Hathaway at a board meeting and named a new president, Ken Chace, to run the company. In 1966, Buffett closed the partnership to new money. He later claimed that the textile business had been his worst trade. He then moved the business into the insurance sector, and, in 1985, the last of the mills that had been the core business of Berkshire Hathaway was sold. Buffett wrote in his letter: "... unless it appears that circumstances have changed (under some conditions added capital would improve results) or unless new partners can bring some asset to the partnership other than simply capital, I intend to admit no additional partners to BPL."

In a second letter, Buffett announced his first investment in a private business â€" Hochschild, Kohn and Co, a privately owned Baltimore department store. In 1967, Berkshire paid out its first and only dividend of 10 cents. In 1969, following his most successful year, Buffett liquidated the partnership and transferred their assets to his partners. Among the assets paid out were shares of Berkshire Hathaway. In 1970, Buffett began writing his now-famous annual letters to shareholders. However, he lived solely on his salary of $50,000 per year and his outside investment income. In 1979, Berkshire began the year trading at $775 per share, and ended at $1,310. Buffett's net worth reached $620 million.

In 1973, Berkshire began to acquire stock in the Washington Post Company. Buffett became close friends with Katharine Graham, who controlled the company and its flagship newspaper, and joined its board. In 1974, the SEC opened a formal investigation into Buffett and Berkshire's acquisition of Wesco Financial, due to possible conflict of interest. No charges were brought. In 1977, Berkshire indirectly purchased the Buffalo Evening News for $32.5 million. Antitrust charges started, instigated by its rival, the Buffalo Courier-Express. Both papers lost money, until the Courier-Express folded in 1982.

In 1979, Berkshire began to acquire stock in ABC. Capital Cities announced a $3.5 billion purchase of ABC on March 18, 1985 surprising the media industry, as ABC was four times bigger than Capital Cities at the time. Buffett helped finance the deal in return for a 25% stake in the combined company. The newly merged company, known as Capital Cities/ABC (or CapCities/ABC), was forced to sell some stations due to U.S. Federal Communications Commission ownership rules. The two companies also owned several radio stations in the same markets.

In 1987, Berkshire Hathaway purchased a 12% stake in Salomon Inc., making it the largest shareholder and Buffett a director. In 1990, a scandal involving John Gutfreund (former CEO of Salomon Brothers) surfaced. A rogue trader, Paul Mozer, was submitting bids in excess of what was allowed by Treasury rules. When this was brought to Gutfreund's attention, he did not immediately suspend the rogue trader. Gutfreund left the company in August 1991. Buffett became Chairman of Salomon until the crisis passed.

In 1988, Buffett began buying The Coca-Cola Company stock, eventually purchasing up to 7% of the company for $1.02 billion. It would turn out to be one of Berkshire's most lucrative investments, and one which it still holds.

As a billionaire

Buffett became a paper billionaire when Berkshire Hathaway began selling class A shares on May 29, 1990, with the market closing at US$7,175 a share. In 1998 he acquired General Re (Gen Re) as a subsidiary in a deal that presented difficultiesâ€"according to the Rational Walk investment website, "underwriting standards proved to be inadequate," while a "problematic derivatives book" was resolved after numerous years and a significant loss. Gen Re later provided reinsurance after Buffett became involved with Maurice R. Greenberg at AIG in 2002.

During a 2005 investigation of an accounting fraud case involving AIG, Gen Re executives became implicated. On March 15, 2005, the AIG board forced Greenberg to resign from his post as Chairman and CEO after New York state regulators claimed that AIG had engaged in questionable transactions and improper accounting. On February 9, 2006, AIG agreed to pay a US$1.6 billion fine. In 2010 the U.S. government agreed to a US$92 million settlement with Gen Re, allowing the Berkshire Hathaway subsidiary to avoid prosecution in the AIG case. Gen Re also made a commitment to implement "corporate governance concessions," which required Berkshire Hathaway’s Chief Financial Officer to attend General Re’s audit committee meetings and mandated the appointment of an independent director.

In 2002, Buffett entered in US$11 billion worth of forward contracts to deliver U.S. dollars against other currencies. By April 2006, his total gain on these contracts was over US$2 billion. In 2006, Buffett announced in June that he gradually would give away 85% of his Berkshire holdings to five foundations in annual gifts of stock, starting in July 2006â€"the largest contribution would go to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

In 2007, in a letter to shareholders, Buffett announced that he was looking for a younger successor, or perhaps successors, to run his investment business. Buffett had previously selected Lou Simpson, who runs investments at Geico, to fill the role; however, Simpson is only six years younger than Buffett.

2007-08 financial crisis

Buffett ran into criticism during the subprime crisis of 2007â€"2008, part of the recession that started in 2007, that he had allocated capital too early resulting in suboptimal deals. "Buy American. I am." he wrote for an opinion piece published in the New York Times in 2008. Buffett called the downturn in the financial sector that started in 2007 "poetic justice". Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway suffered a 77% drop in earnings during Q3 2008 and several of his later deals suffered large mark-to-market losses.

Berkshire Hathaway acquired 10% perpetual preferred stock of Goldman Sachs. Some of Buffett's put options (European exercise at expiry only) that he wrote (sold) were running at around $6.73 billion mark-to-market losses as of late 2008. The scale of the potential loss prompted the SEC to demand that Berkshire produce, "a more robust disclosure" of factors used to value the contracts. Buffett also helped Dow Chemical pay for its $18.8 billion takeover of Rohm & Haas. He thus became the single largest shareholder in the enlarged group with his Berkshire Hathaway, which provided $3 billion, underlining his instrumental role during the crisis in debt and equity markets.

In 2008, Buffett became the richest person in the world, with a total net worth estimated at $62 billion by Forbes and at $58 billion by Yahoo, overtaking Bill Gates, who had been number one on the Forbes list for 13 consecutive years. In 2009, Gates regained the top position on the Forbes list, with Buffett shifted to second place. Both of the men's values dropped, to $40 billion and $37 billion respectivelyâ€"according to Forbes, Buffett lost $25 billion over a 12-month period during 2008/2009.

In October 2008, the media reported that Buffett had agreed to buy General Electric (GE) preferred stock. The operation included special incentives: He received an option to buy three billion shares of GE stock, at $22.25, over the five years following the agreement, and Buffett also received a 10% dividend (callable within three years). In February 2009, Buffett sold some Procter & Gamble Co. and Johnson & Johnson shares from his personal portfolio.

In addition to suggestions of mistiming, the wisdom in keeping some of Berkshire's major holdings, including The Coca-Cola Company, which in 1998 peaked at $86, raised questions. Buffett discussed the difficulties of knowing when to sell in the company's 2004 annual report:

That may seem easy to do when one looks through an always-clean, rear-view mirror. Unfortunately, however, it's the windshield through which investors must peer, and that glass is invariably fogged.

In March 2009, Buffett said in a cable television interview that the economy had "fallen off a cliff ... Not only has the economy slowed down a lot, but people have really changed their habits like I haven't seen". Additionally, Buffett feared that inflation levels that occurred in the 1970sâ€"which led to years of painful stagflationâ€"might re-emerge.

A capitalized Berkshire

On August 14, 2014, the price of Berkshire Hathaway's shares hit US$200,000 a share for the first time, capitalizing the company at US$328 billion. While Buffett had given away much of his stock to charities by this time, he still held 321,000 shares worth US$64.2 billion. On August 20, 2014, Berkshire Hathaway was fined $896,000 for failing to report December 9, 2013 purchase of shares in USG Corporation as required.

In 2009, Buffett invested $2.6 billion as a part of Swiss Re's campaign to raise equity capital. Berkshire Hathaway already owned a 3% stake, with rights to own more than 20%. Also in 2009, Buffett acquired Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp. for $34 billion in cash and stock. Alice Schroeder, author of Snowball, said that a key reason for the purchase was to diversify Berkshire Hathaway from the financial industry. Measured by market capitalization in the Financial Times Global 500, Berkshire Hathaway was the eighteenth largest corporation in the world as of June 2009.

In 2009, Buffett divested his failed investment in ConocoPhillips, saying to his Berkshire investors,

I bought a large amount of ConocoPhillips stock when oil and gas prices were near their peak. I in no way anticipated the dramatic fall in energy prices that occurred in the last half of the year. I still believe the odds are good that oil sells far higher in the future than the current $40â€"$50 price. But so far I have been dead wrong. Even if prices should rise, moreover, the terrible timing of my purchase has cost Berkshire several billion dollars.

The merger with the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) closed upon BNSF shareholder approval in 1Q2010. This deal was valued at approximately $34 billion and represented an increase of the previously existing stake of 22%.

In June 2010, Buffett defended the credit-rating agencies for their role in the US financial crisis, claiming:

Very, very few people could appreciate the bubble. That's the nature of bubbles â€" they're mass delusions.

On March 18, 2011, Goldman Sachs was given Federal Reserve approval to buy back Berkshire's preferred stock in Goldman. Buffett had been reluctant to give up the stock, which averaged $1.4 million in dividends per day, saying:

I'm going to be the Osama bin Laden of capitalism. I'm on my way to an unknown destination in Asia where I'm going to look for a cave. If the U.S. Armed forces can't find Osama bin Laden in 10 years, let Goldman Sachs try to find me.

In November 2011, it was announced that over the course of the previous eight months, Buffett had bought 64 million shares of International Business Machine Corp (IBM) stock, worth around $11 billion. This unanticipated investment raised his stake in the company to around 5.5 percentâ€"the largest stake in IBM alongside that of State Street Global Advisors. Buffett had said on numerous prior occasions that he would not invest in technology because he did not fully understand it, so the move came as a surprise to many investors and observers. During the interview, in which he revealed the investment to the public, Buffett stated that he was impressed by the company's ability to retain corporate clients and said, "I don't know of any large company that really has been as specific on what they intend to do and how they intend to do it as IBM."

In May 2012, Buffett's acquisition of Media General, consisting of 63 newspapers in the south-eastern U.S., was announced. The company was the second news print purchase made by Buffett in one year.

Interim publisher James W. Hopson announced on July 18, 2013 that the Press of Atlantic City would be sold to Buffett’s BH Media Group by ABARTA, a private holding company based in Pittsburgh, U.S. At the Berkshire shareholders meeting in May 2013, Buffett explained that he did not expect to "move the needle" at Berkshire with newspaper acquisitions, but he anticipates an annual return of 10 percent. The Press of Atlantic City became Berkshire's 30th daily newspaper, following other purchases such as Virginia, U.S.' Roanoke Times and The Tulsa World in Oklahoma, U.S.

During a presentation to Georgetown University students in Washington, D.C. in late September 2013, Buffett compared the U.S. Federal Reserve to a hedge fund and stated that the bank is generating "$80 billion or $90 billion a year probably" in revenue for the U.S. government. Buffett also advocated further on the issue of wealth equality in society:

We have learned to turn out lots of goods and services, but we haven’t learned as well how to have everybody share in the bounty. The obligation of a society as prosperous as ours is to figure out how nobody gets left too far behind.

After the difficulties of the economic crisis, Buffett managed to bring its company back to its pre-recession standards: in Q2 2014, Berkshire Hathaway made $6.4 billion in net profit, the most it had ever made in a three-month period.

Investment philosophy

Warren Buffett's writings include his annual reports and various articles. Buffett is recognized by communicators as a great story-teller, as evidenced by his annual letters to shareholders. He warned about the pernicious effects of inflation:

The arithmetic makes it plain that inflation is a far more devastating tax than anything that has been enacted by our legislatures. The inflation tax has a fantastic ability to simply consume capital. It makes no difference to a widow with her savings in a 5 percent passbook account whether she pays 100 percent income tax on her interest income during a period of zero inflation, or pays no income taxes during years of 5 percent inflation.

In his article "The Superinvestors of Graham-and-Doddsville", Buffett rebutted the academic efficient-market hypothesis, that beating the S&P 500 was "pure chance", by highlighting the results achieved by a number of students of the Graham and Dodd value investing school of thought. In addition to himself, Buffett named Walter J. Schloss, Tom Knapp, Ed Anderson (Tweedy, Browne LLC), William J. Ruane (Sequoia Fund, Inc.), Charles Munger (Buffett's own business partner at Berkshire), Rick Guerin (Pacific Partners, Ltd.), and Stan Perlmeter (Perlmeter Investments). In his November 1999 Fortune article, he warned of investors' unrealistic expectations:

Let me summarize what I've been saying about the stock market: I think it's very hard to come up with a persuasive case that equities will over the next 17 years perform anything likeâ€"anything likeâ€"they've performed in the past 17. If I had to pick the most probable return, from appreciation and dividends combined, that investors in aggregateâ€"repeat, aggregateâ€"would earn in a world of constant interest rates, 2% inflation, and those ever hurtful frictional costs, it would be 6%!

Index funds and active management

Towards his later life, particularly following the global financial crisis of 2007-8, Buffett became an increasingly vocal critic of active management, i.e., mutual funds and hedge funds. Buffett is skeptical that active management and stock-picking can outperform the market in the long run, and has advised both individual and institutional investors to move their money to low-cost index funds that track broad, diversified stock market indices. Buffett said in one of his letters to shareholders that "when trillions of dollars are managed by Wall Streeters charging high fees, it will usually be the managers who reap outsized profits, not the clients." In 2007, Buffett made a bet with numerous managers that a simple S&P 500 index fund will outperform hedge funds that charge exorbitant fees. By 2017, the index fund was outperforming every hedge fund that had made the bet against Buffett by a significant margin.

Personal life

In 1949, Buffett was infatuated by a young woman whose current boyfriend had a ukulele. In an attempt to compete, he bought one of the diminutive instruments and has been playing it ever since. Though the attempt was unsuccessful, his music interest was a key part of his becoming a part of Susan Thompson's life and led to their marriage. Buffett often plays the instrument at stock holder meetings and other opportunities. His love of the instrument led to the commissioning of two custom Dairy Queen ukuleles by Dave Talsma, one of which was auctioned for charity.

Buffett married Susan Buffett (née Thompson) in 1952. They had three children, Susie, Howard and Peter. The couple began living separately in 1977, although they remained married until Susan Buffett's death in July 2004. Their daughter, Susie, lives in Omaha, is a national board member of Girls, Inc., and does charitable work through the Susan A. Buffett Foundation.

In 2006, on his 76th birthday, Buffett married his longtime companion, Astrid Menks, who was then 60 years oldâ€"she had lived with him since his wife's departure to San Francisco in 1977. Susan had arranged for the two to meet before she left Omaha to pursue her singing career. All three were close and Christmas cards to friends were signed "Warren, Susie and Astrid". Susan briefly discussed this relationship in an interview on the Charlie Rose Show shortly before her death, in a rare glimpse into Buffett's personal life.

Buffett disowned his son Peter's adopted daughter, Nicole, in 2006 after she participated in the Jamie Johnson documentary The One Percent about the growing economic inequality between the wealthy and the average citizen in the United States. Although his first wife referred to Nicole as one of her "adored grandchildren", Buffett wrote her a letter stating, "I have not emotionally or legally adopted you as a grandchild, nor have the rest of my family adopted you as a niece or a cousin."

His 2006 annual salary was about US$100,000, which is small compared to senior executive remuneration in comparable companies. In 2008, he earned a total compensation of $175,000, which included a base salary of just $100,000. He continued to live in the same house in the central Dundee neighborhood of Omaha that he bought in 1958 for $31,500, a fraction of today's value. He also owns a $4 million house in Laguna Beach, California. In 1989, after spending nearly $6.7 million of Berkshire's funds on a private jet, Buffett named it "The Indefensible". This act was a break from his past condemnation of extravagant purchases by other CEOs and his history of using more public transportation.

Buffett is an avid bridge player, which he plays with fellow fan Gatesâ€"he allegedly spends 12 hours a week playing the game. In 2006, he sponsored a bridge match for the Buffett Cup. Modeled on the Ryder Cup in golfâ€"held immediately before it in the same cityâ€"the teams are chosen by invitation, with a female team and five male teams provided by each country.

He is a dedicated, lifelong follower of Nebraska football, and attends as many games as his schedule permits. He supported the hire of Bo Pelini, following the 2007 season, stating, "It was getting kind of desperate around here". He watched the 2009 game against Oklahoma from the Nebraska sideline, after being named an honorary assistant coach.

Buffett worked with Christopher Webber on an animated series called "Secret Millionaires Club" with chief Andy Heyward of DiC Entertainment. The series features Buffett and Munger, and teaches children healthy financial habits.

Buffett was raised as a Presbyterian, but has since described himself as agnostic. In December 2006, it was reported that Buffett does not carry a mobile phone, does not have a computer at his desk, and drives his own automobile, a Cadillac DTS. In 2013 he had an old Nokia flip phone and had sent one email in his entire life. Buffett reads five newspapers every day, beginning with the Omaha World Herald, which his company acquired in 2011.

A September 2014 Fast Company article featured Buffett's “avoid at all cost” practice, used to prioritize personal goals. Buffett advises people to first create a list of the top 25 accomplishments that they would like to complete over the next few years of their life, and to then pick the five most-important list items. Buffett stated that people need to “avoid at all cost” the initial, longer list, as it would hinder the achievement of the top-five.

Buffett's speeches are known for mixing business discussions with humor. Each year, Buffett presides over Berkshire Hathaway's annual shareholder meeting in the Qwest Center in Omaha, Nebraska, an event drawing over 20,000 visitors from both United States and abroad, giving it the nickname "Woodstock of Capitalism". Berkshire's annual reports and letters to shareholders, prepared by Buffett, frequently receive coverage by the financial media. Buffett's writings are known for containing quotations from sources as varied as the Bible and Mae West, as well as advice in a folksy Midwestern style and numerous jokes.

Health

On April 11, 2012, Buffett was diagnosed with stage I prostate cancer during a routine test. He announced he would begin two months of daily radiation treatment from mid-July; however, in a letter to shareholders, Buffett said he felt "great - as if I were in my normal excellent health - and my energy level is 100 percent". On September 15, 2012, Buffett announced that he had completed the full 44-day radiation treatment cycle, saying "it's a great day for me" and "I am so glad to say that's over".

Wealth and philanthropy

In 2008 he was ranked by Forbes as the richest person in the world with an estimated net worth of approximately US$62 billion. In 2009, after donating billions of dollars to charity, Buffett was ranked as the second richest man in the United States with a net worth of US$37 billion with only Bill Gates ranked higher than Buffett. His net worth had risen to $58.5 billion as of September 2013.

In 1999, Buffett was named the top money manager of the Twentieth Century in a survey by the Carson Group, ahead of Peter Lynch and John Templeton. In 2007, he was listed among Time's 100 Most Influential People in the world. In 2011, President Barack Obama awarded him the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Most recently, Buffett, along with Bill Gates, was named the most influential global thinker in Foreign Policy's 2010 report.

Buffett has written several times of his belief that, in a market economy, the rich earn outsized rewards for their talents. His children will not inherit a significant proportion of his wealth. He once commented, "I want to give my kids just enough so that they would feel that they could do anything, but not so much that they would feel like doing nothing".

Buffett had long stated his intention to give away his fortune to charity, and in June 2006, he announced a new plan to give 83% of it to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. He pledged about the equivalent of 10 million Berkshire Hathaway Class B shares to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (worth approximately US$30.7 billion as of June 23, 2006), making it the largest charitable donation in history, and Buffett one of the leaders of philanthrocapitalism. The foundation will receive 5% of the total each July, beginning in 2006. (The pledge is conditional upon the foundation's giving away each year, beginning in 2009, an amount that is at least equal to the value of the entire previous year's gift from Buffett, in addition to 5% of the foundation's net assets.) Buffett joined the Gates Foundation's board, but did not plan to be actively involved in the foundation's investments.

This represented a significant shift from Buffett's previous statements, to the effect that most of his fortune would pass to his Buffett Foundation. The bulk of the estate of his wife, valued at $2.6 billion, went there when she died in 2004. He also pledged $50 million to the Nuclear Threat Initiative, in Washington, where he began serving as an adviser in 2002.

In 2006, he auctioned his 2001 Lincoln Town Car on eBay to raise money for Girls, Inc. In 2007, he auctioned a luncheon with himself that raised a final bid of $650,100 for the Glide Foundation. Later auctions raised $2,110,100, $1.68 million and $3,456,789. The winners traditionally dine with Buffett at New York's Smith and Wollensky steak house. The restaurant donates at least $10,000 to Glide each year to host the meal.

On December 9, 2010, Buffett, Bill Gates, and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg signed a promise they called the "Gates-Buffett Giving Pledge", in which they promise to donate to charity at least half of their wealth, and invite other wealthy people to follow suit.

Political and economic views

In addition to political contributions over the years, Buffett endorsed and made campaign contributions to Barack Obama's presidential campaign. On July 2, 2008, Buffett attended a $28,500 per plate fundraiser for Obama's campaign in Chicago. Buffett intimated that John McCain's views on social justice were so far from his own that McCain would need a "lobotomy" for Buffett to change his endorsement. During the second 2008 U.S. presidential debate, McCain and Obama, after being asked first by presidential debate mediator Tom Brokaw, both mentioned Buffett as a possible future Secretary of the Treasury. Later, in the third and final presidential debate, Obama mentioned Buffett as a potential economic advisor. Buffett was also finance advisor to California Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger during his 2003 election campaign.

On December 16, 2015, Buffett endorsed Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton for president. On August 1, 2016, Buffett challenged Donald Trump to release his tax returns. On October 10, 2016, after another reference to him in the 2nd 2016 presidential debate, Buffett released his own tax return. He said he had paid $1.85 million in federal income taxes in 2015 on an adjusted gross income of $11.6 million, meaning he had an effective federal income tax rate of around 16 percent. Buffett also said he had made more than $2.8 billion worth of donations last year. Buffett said, "I have been audited by the IRS multiple times and am currently being audited. I have no problem in releasing my tax information while under audit. Neither would Mr. Trump -- at least he would have no legal problem." This was a measured response to Trump saying he was unable to release his tax information due to being under audit.

Health care

Buffett described the health care reform under President Barack Obama as insufficient to deal with the costs of health care in the US, though he supports its aim of expanding health insurance coverage. Buffett compared health care costs to a tapeworm, saying that they compromise US economic competitiveness by increasing manufacturing costs. Buffett thinks health care costs should head towards 13 to 14% of GDP. (Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the CMS actuary has projected health care costs will reach almost 20% of GDP by 2020.) Buffett said "If you want the very best, I mean if you want to spend a million dollars to prolong your life 3 months in a coma or something then the US is probably the best", but he also said that other countries spend much less and receive much more in health care value (visits, hospital beds, doctors and nurses per capita).

Buffett faults the incentives in the United States medical industry, that payers reimburse doctors for procedures (fee-for-service) leading to unnecessary care (overutilization), instead of paying for results. He cited Atul Gawande's 2009 article in the New Yorker as a useful consideration of US health care, with its documentation of unwarranted variation in Medicare expenditures between McAllen, Texas and El Paso, Texas. Buffett raised the problem of lobbying by the medical industry, saying that they are very focused on maintaining their income.

Taxes

Buffett stated that he only paid 19% of his income for 2006 ($48.1 million) in total federal taxes (due to their source as dividends and capital gains, although the figure excluded the taxes on that income paid by the corporations that provided it), while his employees paid 33% of theirs, despite making much less money. “How can this be fair?” Buffett asked, regarding how little he pays in taxes compared to his employees. "How can this be right?" He also added, "There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning." After Donald Trump accused him of taking "massive deductions," Buffett countered, "I have copies of all 72 of my returns and none uses a carryforward."

Buffett favors the inheritance tax, saying that repealing it would be like "choosing the 2020 Olympic team by picking the eldest sons of the gold-medal winners in the 2000 Olympics". In 2007, Buffett testified before the Senate and urged them to preserve the estate tax so as to avoid a plutocracy. Some critics argued that Buffett (through Berkshire Hathaway) has a personal interest in the continuation of the estate tax, since Berkshire Hathaway benefited from the estate tax in past business dealings and had developed and marketed insurance policies to protect policy holders against future estate tax payments. Buffett believes government should not be in the business of gambling, or legalizing casinos, calling it a tax on ignorance.

Trade deficit

Buffett viewed the United States' expanding trade deficit as a trend that will devalue the US dollar and US assets. He predicted that the US dollar will lose value in the long run, as a result of putting a larger portion of ownership of US assets in the hands of foreigners. In his letter to shareholders in March 2005, he predicted that in another ten years' time the net ownership of the U.S. by outsiders would amount to $11 trillion.

Americans ... would chafe at the idea of perpetually paying tribute to their creditors and owners abroad. A country that is now aspiring to an 'ownership society' will not find happiness in â€" and I'll use hyperbole here for emphasis â€" a 'sharecropping society’.

Dollar and gold

The trade deficit induced Buffett to enter the foreign currency market for the first time in 2002. He substantially reduced his stake in 2005 as changing interest rates increased the costs of holding currency contracts. Buffett remained bearish on the dollar, stating that he was looking to acquire companies with substantial foreign revenues. Buffett emphasized the non-productive aspect of a gold standard for the United States dollar in 1998 at Harvard:

It gets dug out of the ground in Africa, or someplace. Then we melt it down, dig another hole, bury it again and pay people to stand around guarding it. It has no utility. Anyone watching from Mars would be scratching their head.

In 1977, about stocks, gold, farmland and inflation, he stated:

Stocks are probably still the best of all the poor alternatives in an era of inflation â€" at least they are if you buy in at appropriate prices.

China

Buffett invested in PetroChina Company Limited and in a rare move, posted a commentary on Berkshire Hathaway's website stating why he would not divest over its connection with the Sudanese civil war that caused Harvard to divest. He sold this stake soon afterwards, sparing him the billions of dollars he would have lost had he held on to the company in the midst of the steep drop in oil prices beginning in the summer of 2008.

In October 2008, Buffett invested $230 million for 10% of battery maker BYD Company (SEHK: 1211), which runs a subsidiary of electric automobile manufacturer BYD Auto. In less than one year, the investment reaped over 500% return.

Tobacco

During the RJR Nabisco, Inc. hostile takeover fight in 1987, Buffett was quoted as telling John Gutfreund:

I'll tell you why I like the cigarette business. It costs a penny to make. Sell it for a dollar. It's addictive. And there's fantastic brand loyalty.

Speaking at Berkshire Hathaway Inc.'s 1994 annual meeting, Buffett said investments in tobacco are:

fraught with questions that relate to societal attitudes and those of the present administration. I would not like to have a significant percentage of my net worth invested in tobacco businesses. The economy of the business may be fine, but that doesn't mean it has a bright future.

Coal

In 2007, Buffett's PacifiCorp, a subsidiary of his MidAmerican Energy Company, canceled six proposed coal-fired power plants. These included Utah's Intermountain Power Project Unit 3, Jim Bridger Unit 5, and four proposed plants previously included in PacifiCorp's Integrated Resource Plan. The cancellations came in the wake of pressure from regulators and citizen groups.

Renewable energy

American Indian tribes and salmon fishermen sought to win support from Buffett for a proposal to remove four hydroelectric dams from the Klamath River. David Sokol responded on Buffett's behalf, stating that the FERC would decide the question.

In December 2011, Buffett's MidAmerican Energy Holdings agreed to buy a $2 billion solar energy project under development in California and a 49 percent stake in a $1.8 billion plant in Arizona, his first investments in solar power. He already owned wind farms.

Expensing of stock options

He has been a strong proponent of stock option expensing on corporate Income Statements. At the 2004 annual meeting, he lambasted a bill before the United States Congress that would consider only some company-issued stock options compensation as an expense, likening the bill to one that was almost passed by the Indiana House of Representatives to change the value of Pi from 3.14159 to 3.2 through legislative fiat.

When a company gives something of value to its employees in return for their services, it is clearly a compensation expense. And if expenses don't belong in the earnings statement, where in the world do they belong?

Technology

In May 2012, Buffett said he had avoided buying stock in new social media companies such as Facebook and Google because it is hard to estimate future value. He also stated that initial public offering (IPO) of stock are almost always bad investments. Investors should be looking to companies that will have good value in ten years.

Learn more »