Coachella Valley Unified Sch. Dist. v. Calif., No. 05-505334 (Cal. Super. Ct. May 25, 2007)
A California state trial court has ruled that the State of California is not required to provide standardized assessment tests in the native languages of limited English proficiency (LEP) students in order the comply with the No Child Left Behind Act’s (NCLB) requirement that states establish and administer tests in core academic subjects that are valid and reliable for all students. A coalition of school districts, bilingual education advocates, civil rights groups, parents, teachers, and students filed suit seeking to compel the state, through the legal procedure of a writ of mandamus, to allow LEP students to take standardized tests in their native languages. The court, noting that a writ of mandamus could only be issued if NCLB creates ministerial duties for the state to carry out, concluded that it could not say that NCLB creates such duties that would be subject to the writ. While states choosing to participate in NCLB are required to "submit a locally developed plan … for approval" by the U.S. Department of Education (ED), once the plan is approved the "focus of the program is on local administration … with great discretion and flexibility as to how the assessment, reporting, accountability and remediation characteristics of the program are accomplished." As a result, the court found that California‘s general authority under NCLB is not merely ministerial in nature.
The court came to same conclusion as to NCLB’s specific provisions relating to assessments. While NCLB created the generalized goal of "valid and reliable testing," the court observed that the law does not specify how that goal is to be accomplished. Citing California case law, the court found that a writ of mandamus could not be issued directing the state to meet a generalized goal. The court rejected the coalition’s assertion that the phrase "to the extent practicable" in NCLB’s requirement for testing in native languages creates a ministerial duty, as well as the coalition’s claim that even if the state responsibility for administering student assessments under NCLB involves discretionary authority, a writ of mandamus still should be granted because the state’s decision to give standardized tests only in English constitutes an abuse of discretion. There could only be an abuse of discretion if the state actions were arbitrary, capricious, entirely lacking in evidentiary support, or unlawful or procedurally unfair, the court noted. However, the court identified three reasons why there was no abuse of discretion in this case: (1) the assessment plan was subject to public input and thorough scrutiny by ED before it was approved, and the court could not say that the process by which assessments were adopted was arbitrary and capricious; (2) if the coalition is correct that English only tests do not accurately reflect the academic achievement of LEP students, then the problem will show up and trigger NCLB’s extensive extensive evaluation mechanisms; and (3) the court may not substitute its judgment for that of the state’s educational agency and must defer to the state’s action "unless it is palpably unreasonable as to show an abuse of discretion as a matter of law." With respect to this third determination, the court pointed out that the linguistic variety among California’s student presented an "obvious educational challenge" that voters dealt with by passing Proposition 227, which mandates, with limited exceptions, that students be taught in English. While conceding that the question of how NCLB assessments should be conducted might present different issues from those dealt with by Prop 227, the court concluded that it could not find the decision to assess all students in English is arbitrary and capricious, given that they are taught largely in English. The court could not conclude that it is arbitrary or capricious for California to determine that translation and evaluation of assessments in so many languages is impracticable.
Coachella Valley Unified Sch. Dist. v. Calif., No. 05-505334 (Cal. Super. Ct. May 25, 2007)
[Full opinion]
[Editor’s Note: Due the website limitations, the link above only allows the reader to view the opinion one page at a time. Background on the suit is posted below.]
[NSBA School Law pages on Coachella Valley Unified Sch. Dist. v. Calif.]
American School Board Journal
By Naomi Dillon
[Full story]