Teresa P. v. Berkeley Unified School Dist.
724 F. Supp. 698, 1989 WL 134938 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Equal Educational Opportunities Act (EEOA), a school district's language remediation program for limited English proficient (LEP) students is considered "appropriate action" if it is based on a sound educational theory, is reasonably implemented with adequate resources and personnel, and produces results demonstrating that students are overcoming language barriers.
Facts:
- The Berkeley Unified School District (BUSD) enrolled approximately 571 Limited English Proficient (LEP) students who spoke around 38 different languages, with Spanish being the largest group.
- The District had a long-standing educational commitment to integration, aiming to avoid segregation of students by race, national origin, or language.
- To identify LEP students, BUSD used a Home Language Survey followed by a series of English proficiency tests.
- BUSD offered two types of language programs: a Spanish bilingual program for grades K-6, and an English as a Second Language (ESL) program for all other LEP students.
- The ESL program involved 'pull-out' instruction, tutors, and Individual Learning Plans (ILPs) at the elementary level, and specialized 'Sheltered English' academic courses at the secondary level.
- Due to a statewide shortage of specially credentialed teachers, the District developed its own local criteria to designate teachers as qualified for ESL instruction, which included in-service training and an objective exam.
- A District-commissioned survey of LEP parents showed that while Hispanic parents generally preferred the bilingual program, Asian and other parents tended to prefer the ESL program.
- The District had experienced a severe financial crisis in 1986, resulting in a state loan and oversight by a state-appointed trustee, which constrained its available resources.
Procedural Posture:
- A class of Limited English Proficient (LEP) students, represented by their next friends, filed a lawsuit against the Berkeley Unified School District and its officials in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
- The plaintiffs alleged violations of the Equal Educational Opportunities Act (EEOA) and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
- On May 4, 1988, the court certified the plaintiffs as a class.
- The case was tried before the court without a jury.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a school district's program for Limited English Proficient (LEP) students, which primarily utilizes English as a Second Language (ESL) and Sheltered English instruction rather than extensive native-tongue instruction, constitute a failure to take 'appropriate action' to overcome language barriers under the Equal Educational Opportunities Act (EEOA)?
Opinions:
Majority - Jensen, District Judge
No. The Berkeley Unified School District's language remediation program does not constitute a failure to take 'appropriate action' under the EEOA. To determine whether a district has taken 'appropriate action,' courts apply a three-part test: the program must be based on a sound educational theory, be implemented effectively, and produce positive results. First, the court found that BUSD's ESL and Sheltered English programs are based on educational theories recognized as sound by experts, and the EEOA does not mandate one specific approach, such as bilingual education. Second, the court determined that the program was reasonably implemented; the District made 'genuine and good faith efforts' to hire qualified staff and provide training, consistent with its limited resources and the reality of teacher shortages. Third, the court concluded that the program produced successful results, as evidenced by standardized test scores (CTBS and CAP), grades, and attendance records, which showed that BUSD's LEP students were learning English and performing as well as, or better than, their peers in other districts.
Analysis:
This case provides a key application of the Castaneda test, establishing that the 'appropriate action' standard under the EEOA is flexible and does not mandate a specific educational methodology like bilingual instruction. The decision gives significant deference to local school districts in choosing their programs, provided the choice is theoretically sound, implemented in good faith with available resources, and demonstrably effective. It solidifies the principle that program results are the ultimate measure of compliance, allowing districts with diverse student populations and resource constraints to adopt English-focused models if they can prove those models work in practice.
