The legal issues surrounding the TAAS case

Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences

Volumn 22, Issue 4, 2000, Pages 411-422

  Saucedo, Leticia M ^a  

^a Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0034345015     PISSN: 07399863     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0739986300224003     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 2510 (1986).
2. Bemal, E. M. (2000). Psychometric inadequacies of the TAAS. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 22, 481-507.
3. Castañeda v. Pickard, 648 F. 2d 989 (5th Cir. 1981).
4. Civil Right Act, 42 U.S.C. §2000D et seq. (1964).
5. Cureton v. NCAA, 37 F. Supp.2d 687 (E.D. Pa. 1999), rev'd on other grounds, 198 F. 3d 107 (3d Cir. 1999).
6. Debra P. v. Turlington, 644 F. 2d 397 (5th Cir. 1981).
7. Department of Education Title VI Implementing Regulations, 34 C.F.R. §100.3.
8. Edgewood v. Kirby, 777 S.W. 2d 391 (Tex. 1989).
9. Edgewood v. Kirby, 804 S.W. 2d 491 (Tex. 1991).
10. Equal Educational Opportunity Act, 20 U.S.C. §1703(f).
11. Fassold, M. (2000). Disparate impact analyses of TAAS scores and school quality. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 22(4), 460-480.
12. GI Forum et al. v. Texas Education Agency et al., 87 F. Supp.2d 667 (W. D. Tex. 2000).
13. Groves v. Ala. Bd. of Educ., 776 F. Supp. 1518 (M. D. Ala. 1991).
14. Guardians Ass'n v. Civil Service Comm'n of New York City, 463 U.S. 582 (1983).
15. Haney, W. M. (1999, July). Expert report (supplementary). Submitted to plaintiffs' counsel, Albert H. Kauffman. GI Forum et al. v. Texas Education Agency et al., 87 F. Supp.2d 667 (W. D. Tex. 2000).
16. Haney, W. M. (2000). The myth of the Texas miracle in education. The Education Policy Analysis Archives [Online serial]. Available: http://epaa.asu.edu
17. Larry P. v. Riles, 793 F. 2d 969 (9th Cir. 1984).
18. McNeil, L. M. (2000). Sameness, bureaucracy, and the myth of educational equity: The TAAS system of testing in Texas public schools. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 22, 508-523.
19. Richardson v. Lamar County Bd. of Educ., 729 F. Supp. 806 (M. D. Ala. 1989).
20. Schrag, P. (2000). Too good to be true. The American Prospect, II. Available: http://www. propsect.org/archives/V11-4/schrag-p.html
21. Sharif v. New York State Ed. Dept., 709 F. Supp. 345 (S. D. N.Y. 1989).
22. U.S. v. Texas, 321 F. Supp. 1043 (E. D. Tex. 1971), aff'd, 447 F. 2d 441 (5th Cir. 1972).
23. U.S. v. Texas, 330 F. Supp. 235 (E. D. Tex. 1970), aff'd F. 2d 441 (5th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 1016 (1974).
24. Valencia, R. R. (2000). Inequalities and the schooling of minority students in Texas: Historical and contemporary conditions. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 22, 445-459.
25. Valencia, R. R., & Beinal, E. M. (2000). An overview of conflicting opinions in the TAAS case. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 22, 423-444.
26. Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 97 S. Ct. 555 (1977).
27. Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 96 S. Ct. 2040 (1976).
28. Weisman, J. (2000a, March 28). Texas miracle boosts test scores, but some are unimpressed. Baltimore Sun, p. A1.
29. Weisman, J. (2000b, April 10). The Texas education myth: Only a test. The New Republic Online. Available: http://www.thenewrepublic.com/041000/weisman041000.html