Justice analysis of historical ELL court case in Texas
Castañeda v. Pickard (1981)
Background
The case of Castañeda v. Pickard (1981) began in the Raymondville Independent School District (RISD) close to the Mexican-American border in southern Texas. The family of Roy Castañeda filed the original case against Mrs. Pickard, the president of RISD. The case was presented before the US District Court for the Southern District of Texas in 1978. This case was later appealed to the 5th Circuit Court of the United States Court of Appeals in 1981 (Castañeda v. Pickard, 1981).
The judges presiding over the case were Thornberry, Randall, and Tate. The plaintiffs included a group of Mexican-American parents and their children in a class action lawsuit against RISD, the Secretary of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW), and the Texas Education Agency (TEA). Each of these entities fell under scrutiny of the court as the plaintiff’s filed violations of the 14th amendment, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Educational Opportunities Act from 1974. The plaintiff’s arguments included the school district’s discriminatory practices towards Mexican-American students and staff, as well as an insufficient bilingual education program (Castañeda v. Pickard, 1981).
The plaintiffs first argued the ability grouping employed by the district as discriminatory due to the racial segregation that resulted. They argued the ratio of Mexican-American teaching staff was unbalanced due to the low percentages of teaching staff of Hispanic origin or descent. Additionally, the plaintiffs argued Hispanic staff members were not being promoted fairly. The plaintiffs cited Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563, 94 S. Ct. 786, 39 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1974) in their argument, contending the Lau Remedies were being violated due to the districts overemphasis on ELL students learning English as quickly as possible, even at the expense of their general cognitive development (Castañeda v. Pickard, 1981).
The plaintiffs also argued the Secretary of HEW was culpable in its lack of action to ensure RISD’s compliance with Title VI and in its misappropriation of federal funds for a public school district. The plaintiffs argued TEA was at fault for allowing discriminatory practices to be carried out with federal funds. The Secretary of HEW was not a part of the appeal process due to actions taken, working in conjunction with the Office for Civil Rights (OCR); however TEA and RISD continued as the defendants for the appeal case (Castañeda v. Pickard, 1981).
Decision of the Court
The first case was decided in 1978 and the judges ruled in favor of the defendants. The second case was decided in 1981; Chief Justice Randall wrote the opinion and the decision was unanimous; therefore no concurrent opinion or dissent was given by either Justice Thornberry or Justice Tate. The judges affirmed the previous courts decisions regarding RISD’s bilingual education program. The court held that RISD’s bilingual education program was not in violation of Title VI stating, “We agree with the district court that RISD's program does not violate Title VI.” (Castañeda v. Pickard, 1981).
The judges reversed the other decisions made by the district court and remanded the other issues back to the lower court for further investigation. “Thus, in a case where the ability grouping practices of a school system are challenged, the court must always consider the history of the school system involved.” (Castañeda v. Pickard, 1981). This mandated action to determine if RISD had a history of discrimination against Mexican-Americans, and if those effects had yet been rectified. This research would help the court determine if the ability grouping and employment practices used by the district could be deemed as unconstitutional. The RISD was also ordered to identify the areas of language deficiency within their students and teachers, followed with implementing a plan to help address these issues. Additionally, RISD was ordered to obtain credible Spanish language assessments for students in their bilingual program (Castañeda v. Pickard, 1981).
As a result of the courts decisions, bilingual education programs must now be based on sound educational theory, although the effects may be skewed by the lack of highly qualified bilingual classroom teachers. The court adds that bilingual programs should be monitored for ineffectiveness and changed as necessary to reflect the needs of the students. Finally the court ensures the school district is aware of its duty to not only implement an effective bilingual education program, but also hire the necessary staff and provide the resources needed for the program’s success (Castañeda v. Pickard, 1981).
Personal Opinion
This was a difficult case to analyze due to the extensive background information provided in the case brief, which was lengthy due to its appeal to the Supreme Court. In regards to the validity of the RISD school district’s bilingual education program, I would agree with the court that it is not unconstitutional. On the other hand, I would strongly recommend expanding the bilingual education program for grades K-5, given current research supporting the increased success rates for long-term bilingual education programs.
I concur with the other mandates given by the court including Spanish language assessments and addressing language area deficiencies in both teachers and students. This translates to many policies currently in place for ELL students in the state of Texas. The STAAR assessments are available in Spanish in third through fifth grade, and there are linguistically accommodated versions of the tests available for some subject areas. My recommendation would be to expand the grade levels in which Spanish testing is available. Students who are immigrating to the United States in the later primary years are forced to take assessments in English; although they could probably meet the state standards for testing in their native language if given the opportunity. Additionally, bilingual education teachers much be highly qualified; passing rigorous examinations in reading, writing, listening, and speaking before obtaining a teaching certificate, along with required professional development in order to renew the certificate.
References
Castañeda v. Pickard, 648 F.2d 989 (U.S. App 1981).