The verdict in the case of GI Forum et al. v. Texas Education Agency et al. is examined for the ways in which it undermines the concept of equitable access to education by the acceptance of “sameness” as a standard for equity. The implied comparability in a state testing system masks the educational inequities behind the test scores. The verdict also undermines equity as a legal standard by excluding from admissible testimony empirical evidence of those bureaucratic processes that create new inequities: the test prep and the artificial manipulation of students’ grade level designations that produce school-level test scores to the detriment of the quality of education provided to Latino and African American students.
References
1.
Barrera, M.
(1997). A theory of racial inequality. In A. Darder, R. D. Torres, & H. Gutiérrez (Eds.), Latinos and education (pp. 4-44). New York: Routledge.
2.
Berliner, D. C.
, & Biddle, B. J. (1995). The manufactured crisis: Myths, fraud, and the attack on America’s public schools. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
3.
Edelman, M.
(1971). Politics as symbolic action. New York: Markham Press.
4.
Fassold, M.
(2000). Disparate impact analyses of TAAS scores and school quality. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 22, 460-480.
5.
García, H.D.C.
, & Noble, M. (1988, April). Equity, equality, excellence and empowerment: Their significance for language minority children. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
6.
GI Forum et al. v. Texas Education Agency et al., 87 F. Supp.2d 667 (W. D. Tex. 2000).
7.
Haney, W. M. (1999). Trial testimony. GI Forum et al. v. Texas Education Agency et al., 87 F. Supp.2d 667 (W D. Tex. 2000)
8.
Haney, W. M.
(2000). The myth of the Texas miracle in education. The Education Policy Analysis Archives [Online serial]. Available: http://epaa.asu.edu
9.
Heubert, J. P.
, & Hauser, R. M. (Eds.). (1999). High stakes: Testing for tracking, promotion, and graduation. Committee on Appropriate Test Use, Board on Testing and Assessment, Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, National Research Council. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
10.
Kauffman, A. (1999). Plaintiff’s post-trial brief. GI Forum et al .v. Texas Educational Agency et al., 87 F. Supp.2d 667 (W. D. Tex. 2000).
11.
McNeil, L. M.
(2000). Contradictions of school reform: Educational costs of standardized testing. New York: Routledge.
12.
McNeil, L. M.
, & Valenzuela, A. (in press). The harmful effects of the TAAS system of testing: Beneath the accountability rhetoric. In M. Kornhaber & G. Orfield (Eds.), Raising standards or raising barriers? Inequality and high-stakes testing in public education. New York: The Century Foundation.
13.
Minow, M.
(1990). Making all the difference: Inclusion, exclusion and American law. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
14.
Orfield, G.
(1999). Conservative advocates and the rush toward resegregation. In J. P. Heubert, (Ed.), Law and school reform: Six strategies for promoting educational equity (pp. 39-87). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
15.
Phillips, S. E. (1999, January). Expert report. Submitted to defendants’ counsel, Geoffrey Amsel. GI Forum et al. v. Texas Education Agency et al., 87 F. Supp.2d 667 (W. D. Tex. 2000).
16.
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.
17.
Valencia, R. R.
, & Bernal, E. M. (2000). An overview of conflicting opinions in the TAAS case. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 22, 423-444.
18.
Valenzuela, A.
(2000). The significance of the TAAS test for Mexican immigrant and Mexican American adolescents: A case study. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 22, 524-539.
19.
Weckstein, P.
(1999). School reform and enforceable rights to quality in education. In J. P. Heubert (Ed.), Law and school reform: Six strategies for promoting educational equity (pp. 306-389). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
