The Legal Issues Surrounding the TAAS Case

Abstract

This article provides an overview of the legal claims made by plaintiffs challenging the State’s required passage of the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS) exit-level test for graduation in GI Forum et al. v. Texas Education Agency et al. The plaintiffs filed their case alleging that the State’s graduation requirement violated minority students’ equal protection and due process rights as well as Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Educational Opportunity Act. Part 1 of the article summarizes the plaintiffs’ initial complaint and the effect of the court’s pretrial orders on the plaintiffs’ ability to introduce crucial expert evidence to support a pattern of discriminatory State educational policies. Part 2 of the article describes the role of the expert testimony provided at trial for the plaintiffs’ claims and also provides lessons for future litigation.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 2510 (1986).

Bernal, E. M. (2000). Psychometric inadequacies of the TAAS. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 22, 481-507.

Castañeda v. Pickard, 648 F. 2d 989 (5th Cir. 1981).

Civil Right Act, 42 U.S.C. §2000D et seq. (1964).

Cureton v. NCAA, 37 F. Supp.2d 687 (E.D. Pa. 1999), rev’d on other grounds, 198 F. 3d 107 (3d Cir. 1999).

Debra P. v. Turlington, 644 F. 2d 397 (5th Cir. 1981).

Department of Education Title VI Implementing Regulations, 34 C.F.R. §100.3.

Edgewood v. Kirby, 777 S.W. 2d 391 (Tex. 1989).

Edgewood v. Kirby, 804 S.W. 2d 491 (Tex. 1991).

10.

Equal Educational Opportunity Act, 20 U.S.C. §1703(f).

11.

Fassold, M. (2000). Disparate impact analyses of TAAS scores and school quality. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 22(4), 460-480.

12.

GI Forum et al. v. Texas Education Agency et al., 87 F. Supp.2d 667 (W. D. Tex. 2000).

13.

Groves v. Ala. Bd. of Educ., 776 F. Supp. 1518 (M. D. Ala. 1991).

14.

Guardians Ass’n v. Civil Service Comm’n of New York City, 463 U.S. 582 (1983).

15.

Haney, W. M. (1999, July). Expert report (supplementary). Submitted to plaintiffs’ counsel, Albert H. Kauffman. GI Forum et al. v. Texas Education Agency et al., 87 F. Supp.2d 667 (W. D. Tex. 2000).

16.

Haney, W. M. (2000). The myth of the Texas miracle in education. The Education Policy Analysis Archives [Online serial]. Available: http://epaa.asu.edu

17.

Larry P. v. Riles, 793 F. 2d 969 (9th Cir. 1984).

18.

McNeil, L. M. (2000). Sameness, bureaucracy, and the myth of educational equity: The TAAS system of testing in Texas public schools. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 22, 508-523.

19.

Richardson v. Lamar County Bd. of Educ., 729 F. Supp. 806 (M. D. Ala. 1989).

20.

Schrag, P. (2000). Too good to be true. The American Prospect, 11. Available: http://www.propsect.org/archives/V11-4/schrag-p.html

21.

Sharif v. New York State Ed. Dept., 709 F. Supp. 345 (S. D. N.Y. 1989).

22.

U.S. v. Texas, 321 F. Supp. 1043 (E. D. Tex. 1971), aff’d, 447 F. 2d 441 (5th Cir. 1972).

23.

U.S. v. Texas, 330 F. Supp. 235 (E. D. Tex. 1970), aff’d F. 2d 441 (5th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 1016 (1974).

24.

Valencia, R. R. (2000). Inequalities and the schooling of minority students in Texas: Historical and contemporary conditions. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 22, 445-459.

25.

Valencia, R. R. , & Bernal, E. M. (2000). An overview of conflicting opinions in the TAAS case. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 22, 423-444.

26.

Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 97 S. Ct. 555 (1977).

27.

Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 96 S. Ct. 2040 (1976).

28.

Weisman, J. (2000a, March 28). Texas miracle boosts test scores, but some are unimpressed. Baltimore Sun, p. A1-A1.

29.

Weisman, J. (2000b, April 10). The Texas education myth: Only a test. The New Republic Online. Available: http://www.thenewrepublic.com/041000/weisman041000.html