Coachella lawsuit

[George Sheridan <learn@jps.net>]

Mary Hernandez, lead attorney in the Coachella lawsuit regarding testing of 
English Language Learners, spoke to the CTA Hispanic Issues Conference on 
April 8, 2006. She gave a very clear explanation of the suit. I'll be 
getting a copy of her PowerPoint. Meanwhile, here's a summary of my notes.

The lawsuit alleges two causes of action. One is state constitutional 
grounds, which would require a showing of harm. The other is a writ of 
mandate, charging that state officials have failed in their duty to obey 
the provisions of federal law. The writ hearing could bring results fairly 
quickly, whereas the suit on constitutional grounds may take years. The 
state will argue that the accountability system causes no harm, or that any 
harm results from the actions or omissions of individual teachers or districts.

The suit says California's accountability system violates the Elementary 
and Secondary Education Act. The violation is the result of a deliberate 
choice by state officials.

ESEA requires districts to help English Learners
   * Learn English
   * Learn challenging academic content
There is no such thing as English math or English science. Until English 
proficiency is achieved, states must provide assessments in the language 
and form that will most likely yield accurate data on what students know 
and can do. Since CAHSEE is used to determine AYP for ESEA purposes, the 
state must comply with ESEA and give the test in Spanish.

Under the state's plan, when Spanish-language tests are ready next year for 
primary grades, they will not be counted in the accountability systems.

SB 385 (Ducheny) addressed almost all the remedies sought in the lawsuit. 
Schwarzenegger vetoed it. SB 1580, now pending, contains the following 
provisions:
   * Tests in Spanish at all grade levels within two years;
   * Tests modified to reduce linguistic barriers;
   * No double testing (whichever test is most reliable would be used for 
accountability).


Most of the accommodations allowed for English Learners were adapted from 
special education. There is no research to show that they are appropriate 
for English Learners. Students are allowed to use glossaries and teachers 
are permitted to translate directions, to the extent that these 
accommodations are used in the regular instructional program. Ms. Hernandez 
suggested that it should be the state's job to prepare glossaries and give 
them to students.

She also suggested that the current scores for English Learners are 
meaningless because no one can tell what they are measuring. But, she 
alleged (citing a remark by the former president of the State Board of 
Education), state officials would rather have a testing system that is not 
valid than a testing system that might somehow encourage bilingual education.


George Sheridan
Northside School
Cool, California 95614