Equal Opportunity in Education
Equal opportunity in education is an issue that has been as controversial as equal opportunity in employment. The court cases in part 1 deal with tracking within school based on standardized test scores. The court cases in part 2 examine issues confronting quotas and affirmative action programs in colleges and universities and in the work force. More specifically, we briefly look at California's policies and provide alternative sites to visit regarding their controversial actions against affirmative action.

Summaries and/or Implications of:

Tracking and Placement Within Schools Based on Tests
Self-fulfilling Prophecy Argument
Rosenthal and Jacobson, in their 1966 study on the effects of teacher expectancies, found results that place an enormous emphasis on the role of a teacher. The following is a brief summary of their study and results as published with their work:

Within each of eighteen classrooms, an average of 20% of the children were reported to classroom teachers as showing unusual potential for intellectual gains. Eight months later these "unusual" children (who had actually been selected at random) showed significantly greater gains in IQ than did the remaining children in the control group. These effects of teacher expectancies operated primarily among the younger children. (Rosenthal and Jacobson 1966, 115-118)

The implications of this study are overwhelming. For one, it clearly argues for the nurture side of the Nature/Nurture Debate. Perhaps more significantly, however, it raises question of whether or not the tests are valid. Is an IQ test measuring what it is intended to measure? Thirdly, it implies that the child's environment, specifically a teacher's expectancy and interaction with a child in a tracked classroom, can truly affect test scores. From this point, it is important to consider special education classes where children are placed based on test scores.

The following court cases grapple with the same issues. For the first time in history, the validity of standardized tests is questioned in Hobsen v Hansen, which opens the door for further cases. The effects of tracking are brought into question as well in all four cases. Most importantly, consider the idea that a teacher's expectancy has real effects on a child's academic success. If a child is misplaced in a tracked classroom because of an invalid test, how might those expectancies hinder his or her academic growth and success? Some of these cases deal with this very issue. Children like Larry P., discussed below, were labeled retarded based on test scores, and misplaced in a tracked classroom. Disability trackings are extreme cases, but it is important to consider the possibility of similar situations on a less severe scale based on studies like the one done by Rosenthal and Jacobson.

Hobsen v Hansen (1967)

Following this decision from Brown v Board of Education in 1954, there was a tremendous amount of resistance to integrate. Unfortunately standardized test scores became a vehicle in some schools for de facto segregation. Discrepancy in test scores served as "proof" that African Americans were inferior to white Americans. Hobsen v Hansen was the first case to examine the validity of these tests in 1967.

The case dealt with the placement of children in tracks at school. Although Brown declared segregated schools unconstitutional, segregated classes on the basis of test scores was questionable. Hobsen was the father of two African American boys who had been placed in the basic track at the District of Columbia School District. The school divided classes into four tracks: honors, regular, general, and basic. Honors classes were college preparatory and basic classes focused on skills for the work force. Placement in the classes was determined solely by standardized psychological tests. There was a disproportionate number of whites in the honors track and blacks in the basic track. The court found that the tests were discriminatory. The judge argued that the test scores reflected cultural experiences, toward which the dominant culture had an unfair advantage. The tests were allowing whites an unfair admission into honors tracks, thereby setting the groundwork for better jobs. This case is significant in that it is the first to question the validity and so-called objectivity of standardized tests.

Larry P. v Wilson Riles (1979)

The decision in Hobsen v Hansen opened the door for question of the use of standardized tests for placement in EMR classes (classes for the educable mentally retarded). EMR classes were usually considered "dead end" tracks. Main goals for these students excluded reading and writing, and focused more on personal skills such as hygiene, communication skills, and social and emotional adjustment. Larry P. was one of six African American children in a California elementary school who had been placed in an EMR class based on IQ score. The attorney for Larry P. argued that there was a disproportionate number of African Americans represented in these classes, and that the use of IQ tests as a means to track these children violated the California constitution as well as the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. The court's opinion was:

This court enjoined the use of standardized intelligence tests ("IQ tests") for the identification and placement of African-American school children into classes for the "educable mentally retarded" (EMR), or their substantial equivalent. (Crawford v Honig, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13677)

The Department of Education interpreted this to mean that African Americans could still be tested. If a child fell into the EMR range, an alternative form of placement testing had to be administered before a child could be tracked in an EMR class. Also, the court anticipated the elimination of the EMR program, so "...the court directed that the injunction would apply to any educational category that is the substantial equivalent of EMR and to any special class serving 'substantially the same function'" (1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13677).

By 1986 the EMR program had been completely eliminated from the California school system. The court approved a "stipulated modification" to the original injunction stating that IQ tests could not be used to determine whether or not an African American child is learning disabled. Although the courts anticipated the elimination of the EMR program, they had not defined its "substantial equivalent" very clearly, which sets the stage for Crawford v Honig.

Crawford v Honig (1992)

In 1992 the Crawford plaintiffs challenged the 1986 "stipulated modification" (described above) of the Larry P. v Riles decision. They argued that the expansion was unsupported and that it violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. They argued that, in the court's attempt to eliminate what seemed like a discriminatory procedure, they had denied some African Americans the opportunity and Constitutional right to take intelligence tests based solely on race. The result was an abandonment of the 1986 stipulation, but the decision from Larry P v Riles still stands. The courts is still seeking to define the "substantial equivalent" of the now non-existent EMR program.

Parents in Action on Special Education v Hannon (1980)

A case similar to Larry P. v Riles occurred in Illinois in 1980. Two African American children had been placed in special education classes for the educable mentally handicapped (EMH) based on IQ scores. The plaintiffs, relying heavily on the decision of Larry P. v Riles, argued that the tests were racially biased, and thereby violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Surprisingly, the judge did not rule in accordance with the Larry P. decision. He found that the disputable items only comprised a small portion of the test, and that the remaining items would have been equally foreign to all children. Test items including arithmetic and object assembly were not considered biased in any way. It is interesting to compare this case and its decision with Larry P. v Riles. The judges came to completely opposing decisions when confronted with almost identical cases within a few years of each other. These two cases seem to be a microcosm of the very debate over test bias.

In light of the studies done by psychologists such as Rosenthal and Jacobson, one begins to understand the effects that tracking may have on students. It has been argued that a child only achieves as high as he or she is expected to achieve. This labeling theory is commonly referred to as the self-fulfilling prophecy (sfp). In other words, whether it is intentional or not, teachers, parents, and peers place expectations on students, and these expectations have limits. If a child is placed in the regular track, there is a level of expectancy that generally accompanies this track. Hence, if children are being tracked, as early as elementary school, based on tests that may be biased, doesn't the possibility exist that they are being denied equal opportunity to succeed to their full potential. Tracking becomes even more crucial, as seen in the above cases, when tracking into disability classes. Generally, the problem has been resolved by using more than one placing agent. In other words, several tests are administered and performance in school is taken into account.

College Admission Policies Based on Tests

Guaranteeing equal opportunity within can be challenged by tracking and placement policies when considering labeling theories and the arguments about teacher expectancies. Admission policies into colleges and universities face similar challenges in the face of equal opportunity. Colleges are often torn between two interests. On one hand, they want to create a diverse campus. On the other hand, they are faced with the fact that African Americans, in general, score consistently lower on placement exams such as the SAT than white Americans and Asian Americans. As a means to remedy the problem, many schools began to implement affirmative action and/or set quotas. Attempts to remedy past discrimination, however, often come in conflict with Constitutional issues. Racial classifications are always subject to "strict scrutiny" under the law, meaning they must be "narrowly tailored to a compelling state interest." Devices such as quotas and affirmative action are subject to the same strict scrutiny. Deciding whether or not they are "narrowly tailored to a compelling state interest" is an issue that has found its way into the courts in Regents of University of California v Bakke and Richmond v Croson.

(Quotas and affirmative action policies also involve gender. This site only attempts to examine racial issues. For more information on gender issues, see Gender Equity)

Affirmative Action vs Quotas
Quota:

Quotas fall under a position that specifically recognize racial differences. A quota is when a college or university specifically sets aside a number of acceptances to be designated to minority applicants. In other words, if Hamilton College, before even viewing the applications, decided that 30% of all students in the next incoming class would be African American, that would be setting a quota. Hamilton College would have been designating an inflexible number of positions to students from one race group. This device is the most at odds with the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Rulings on the use of quotas can be found in Regents of University of California v Bakke.

Affirmative Action:

Affirmative Action is a policy that pays attention to race, but does not predetermine a set number of admittances. In other words, under affirmative action, an African American student may get a "plus" for being African American, but that averages into a total "formula." It is similar to a "plus" that a student may get for being an athlete or musician. The college or university considers race under affirmative action, but not at the exclusion of all the other factors that go into the formula, including standardized test scores.

Court Cases:
Regents of University of California v Bakke (1978)

In 1978, the University of California-Davis Medical school reserved 16 out of 100 spots for disadvantaged minority students, including African Americans, Chicanos, and Asian Americans. Alan Bakke, a white American, filed suit against the school. He claimed that their admissions policy violated the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

This case was extremely controversial, mirrored by the fact that even the nine justices on the Supreme Court wrote six separate opinions on the case. The court finally ruled, however, that a university should be permitted to take race into account, but that a racial quota was unconstitutional. The University of California-Davis' admissions policy did not stand up to strict scrutiny. The goal of diversifying a campus was said not to be of compelling state interest because the court believed that this goal could be accomplished in an alternative way, namely through affirmative action.

This case is also significant because it is one of the first involving "reverse discrimination." Many universities, in attempt to either diversify a campus or rectify past practices of discrimination, adopted either affirmative action or quota policies. Unfortunately, while trying to help minorities, some of these universities violated the rights of white Americans under the 14th Amendment.

Richmond v J.A. Croson Co. (1989)

Richmond, Virginia enacted a Minority Business Utilization Plan. Under this plan, construction contractors were required to sub-contract at least 30% of the money from a contract to a Minority Business Enterprise (MBE). In order to be considered an MBE, the business had to be at least 51% owned by minority group members. The purpose of this plan was to remedy the effects of past discrimination. The plaintiff, Croson, was a prime contractor who claimed that he was unable to find an MBE who could do 30% of the work for his contract at an acceptable cost. It sued the city under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

The court ruled that any race-based affirmative action plan, even supposedly remedial ones, must be subject to strict scrutiny. This is consistent with the Bakke decision. It is significant in that it is the first time the Supreme Court has come to a majority decision regarding race classifications.

Adarand Constructors Inc. v Pena, Secretary of Transportation et. al. (1995)

This case involves Adarand Constructors which was in competitions for a subcontract from the federal government. Until 1995, the government had acted to give incentives to contractors to hire minority and economically disadvantaged subcontractors. Adarand Constructors submitted the low bid, yet was denied the contract to a smaller minority business. Adarand sued under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court found that they were in violation of the 14th Amendment. They found, in concordance with Bakke and Croson, that all race based classifications are subject to strict scrutiny. This means that racial classifications are only constitutional if they are narrowly tailored to meet compelling state interest.

Justice Scalia, one of the concurring justices states, "government can never have a 'compelling interest' in discriminating on the basis of race in order to 'make up' for past racial discrimination in the opposite direction" (U.S. 115 S.Ct. 2097, 1995). Another judge in concordance with Justice O'Connor argues that affirmative action serves to perpetuate a stereotype. He says, "These programs stamp minorities with a badge of inferiority and may cause them to develop dependencies or to adopt an attitude that they are "entitled" to preferences" (115 U.S. 2097, 1995). Although these statements do not come from the chief justice, they are significant in that they seem to foreshadow the backlash movement against affirmative action.

In fact, in 1995 the Regents of the University of California voted to end affirmative action programs in the university. They suggested that race not be considered at all in selection procedures. I would say that we probably have not yet seen the full impact of this decision. This may be the start of an entire movement away from affirmative action.

* For more information on California and policies involving their recent controversies over affirmative action, please visit the following sites:

The adoption of affirmative action and/or quotas in schools and the work force has had both positive and negative effects. Many argue that these policies are necessary to remedy past practices of discrimination. Others say that race is often inseparable from a lower socioeconomic status, and that the only way to raise them out of that position is through affirmative action programs or through quotas. Still others argue that standardized tests are biased, thereby placing African Americans in a more difficult position to succeed. On the other side, however, some argue that by setting different standards we only perpetuate the same problem by reinforcing a stereotype. For example, it might be said that an African American student at Harvard is "only there because of affirmative action," rather than accrediting that student for his or her intelligence.

Now, we seem to be faced with yet another challenge. In the attempt to offer African Americans "equal opportunity," cases of reverse discrimination have found their way to the courts. Whites and Asians are beginning to argue that now they are being discriminated against by these policies. This seems to be the start of a backlash against affirmative action. What is the answer? Do we practice a completely "color blind" policy and hire/accept the best applicant regardless? Should we predetermine a set number of slots as in quotas, thereby setting different standards? Or do we try to do a little of both, as in affirmative action, and allow race to tip the proverbial scale in admissions or hiring? This question has bounced around in the courts for at least twenty years, and there still is no satisfactory answer. Recently, we seem to be moving away from affirmative action policies, but the true effects of this movement are yet to be seen.
Government 375: Educational Reform and Ideology