In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

High-Stakes Testing 299 impact against the plaintiffs, but he also found that the use of the TAAS exam to deny student diplomas was not illegal because it served an educational necessity for Texas’s accountability system. In sum, Judge Prado ruled in favor of the defendants—the State.102 Next is a brief discussion of how the court came to its ruling. Regarding the plaintiffs’ due process claim, the court noted that it must first find that a protected interest of plaintiffs (either property or liberty) exists and that the State seeks to limit or deny it.103 Based on the Texas Education Code104 and Debra P. v. Turlington (1981), Judge Prado found that the State of Texas has created a protected interest in a student’s receipt of a high school diploma. Citing the Fifth Circuit’s ruling in Debra P. v. Turlington (1981), Judge Prado noted that the appellate court held that a state cannot prescribe a standardized test as a requirement for graduation without providing students procedural protection (i.e., adequate notice). Furthermore, the Fifth Circuit brought to bear the substantive component of students’ rights. That is, it is illegal for a state to impose a graduation exam when the “imposition is arbitrary and capricious or frustrates a legitimate state interest or is fundamentally unfair, in that it encroaches upon concepts of justice lying at the basis of our civil and political institutions .”105 Judge Prado found that the use of the TAAS exit-level exam does not violate the due process rights of the students (minority or White).106 Judge Prado found that the exam was sufficiently reliable, that it meets acceptable standards for curricular validity, that all students have reasonable opportunity to learn the material on which they will be tested, and that the state offers remediation for those students who fail the test. In sum, the court ruled that the TAAS exit-level exam is fair.107 With respect to the plaintiffs’ claim that the defendants violated the implementing regulations of Title VI, the court ruled on the three allegations : disparate impact, educational necessity of the TAAS exit-level exam, and whether less discriminatory and equally efficient alternatives can be shown. Disparate impact. Fassold (1998, 2000), plaintiffs’ statistical expert, conducted a comprehensive analysis on the TAAS exit-level exam of adverse impact using the 80-percent rule108 and three other statistical measures.109 Judge Prado determined that plaintiffs had established a prima facie case of disparate impact. He credited Fassold’s testimony and found that There is sufficient evidence that, on first-time administration of the exitlevel test, a legally significant adverse impact exists. While an examination 300 High-Stakes Testing of cumulative pass scores in more recent years does not evince adverse impact under the Four-Fifths Rule, the disparity there, too, is sufficient to give rise to legitimate concern.110 It was a major outcome for the plaintiffs to prevail on the disparate-impact claim. As a result, the burden of proof shifted to the State regarding the linchpin of the implementing regulations of a Title VI claim: Did the State sufficiently argue that the requirement of passing the TAAS exitlevel exam is educationally necessary? Educational necessity. At this point in Judge Prado’s ruling, he began with a caveat, noting, The word “necessity,” as an initial matter, is somewhat misleading; the law does not place so stringent a burden on the defendant as that word’s common usage might suggest. Instead, an educational necessity exists where the challenged practice serves the legitimate educational goals of the institution.111 Or, as Saucedo (2000) notes, all the State needs to do is demonstrate that the practice is manifestly related to a legitimate educational goal of the State. Judge Prado found that the TEA had met its burden. He asserted that the TEA’s articulated goals of the TAAS exit-level exam requirement —to hold students, teachers, and schools accountable for education and to ensure that all students receive equal educational opportunity—are “within the legitimate exercise of the State’s power over public education .”112 Also, he ruled that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a causal relation between the TAAS exit-level test and increased minority dropout and retention rates113 and that the exit-level-test graduation requirement “guarantees that students will be motivated to learn.”114 Less discriminatory and equally efficient alternatives. Judge Prado ruled that the plaintiffs’ suggestions for implementing less discriminatory and equally efficacious alternatives to the TAAS exit...

Share