Friday, April 18, 2014
YOLO COUNTY NEWS
99 CENTS

Dubious legal advice drove GATE lottery decision

By Carlton Larson

When the Board of Trustees of the Davis school district voted to implement a lottery for GATE admissions, it relied heavily on the legal advice provided by the board’s counsel, who contended that the current method of GATE selection exposed the district to the risk of a lawsuit. As several board members suggested, the lottery seemed to be the only legally permissible option.

The underlying problem is that the number of students deemed GATE-qualified exceeds the number of GATE seats. GATE-qualified students are all students scoring in the 96th percentile or higher on a standardized test, as well as students with one “risk factor” who score at the 95th percentile and students with two risk factors who qualify at the 94th percentile.

The district defines risk factors as economic disadvantage, environmental disadvantage, health problems, language or cultural disadvantage, and social and emotional problems.

Under the prior placement policy, GATE classrooms were filled first with students scoring at the 99th percentile, then the 98th and so on down the line. Because the students with two risk factors and a 94th percentile score always came last, they were more likely not to be placed in a GATE classroom.

The board has refused to release any formal opinions prepared by its counsel, so my understanding of her legal objection to this procedure is based on what she publicly presented to the board. The argument appears to be this: The existing selection procedure risked a disparate impact on what the counsel termed “protected classes.” The students who qualified in part because of risk factors were less likely to secure GATE placement than those students who did not. According to the counsel, this consequence was unlawful, and the only solution was to implement a placement lottery from among all GATE-qualified students.

Unfortunately, this advice is almost certainly wrong. I approach this issue not as a GATE parent (I have no children in the Davis school system), but as a professor at the UC Davis School of Law, where I teach and write about, among other things, equal access to public education.

As I listened to the counsel’s presentation to the board, I could not believe what I was hearing. Four other UC Davis law school professors, including some of the nation’s most distinguished anti-discrimination scholars, were with me in the audience and they all agreed that the counsel had offered highly dubious advice.

There is obviously no explicit discrimination against students with risk factors, since many will score in the 96th to 99th percentiles. Indeed, promising students with risk factors are specifically sought out to be retested with a separate, non-verbal test called the TONI.

Approximately one-third of the students who ultimately qualify for GATE do so by scoring in the 96th to 99th percentiles on the TONI. Moreover, few, if any, of the risk factors constitute “protected classes” under federal or state law.

But even if they were protected classes, the counsel’s argument still would fail for the simple reason that it proves too much. If standardized test scores are an impermissible basis for GATE placement, surely they also must be impermissible for GATE qualification.

If counsel is correct, choosing a threshold of 94 percent with risk factors rather than 92 percent with risk factors also would be illegal, because of the disparate impact on students with risk factors. So would choosing 90 percent rather than 92 percent, and so on. The whole program would seemingly be invalid. But not just GATE — the use of the SAT in college admissions and the use of Advanced Placement tests to award college credit would be equally unlawful.

I often instruct my students not to leave their common sense behind when analyzing legal issues. If a line of argument leads to absurd results, it probably is flawed. The counsel’s analysis logically extends to any school program that has a limited number of seats. There could be tryouts for a school orchestra, but a lottery would be necessary to determine which violinist sat in the first chair. There could be tryouts for the varsity football team, but the selection of the starting quarterback would need to be made by lottery from among all qualified quarterbacks.

Counsel was asked about this specific example during the hearing, and although the answer was garbled, she seemed to say that in certain circumstances a lottery would be required for filling positions on a sports team. If this is the logical consequence of her argument, then the analysis has gone seriously off the rails.

One would expect that advice to drastically change the district’s placement policy would be backed up by some substantial legal authority, or even the experience of other school districts. But there is nothing in the United States Constitution, in federal statutory law, or in state law that requires or even suggests that an admissions lottery is required in the circumstances in which Davis finds itself.

No published judicial decision has ever held that a lottery is required to ensure non-discriminatory access to a gifted program. We like to think of ourselves as special in Davis, but it is surprising indeed to discover that the laws themselves operate differently here.

The whole issue arose from a complaint filed by a parent alleging differing treatment of two standardized tests (an easy problem to fix). It did not seek a lottery. The agreement by which that complaint was settled did not require a lottery either. Yet somehow the lottery emerged as a legal mandate to fend off potential litigation. Perversely, the lottery “solution” will generate precisely the opposite result — lawsuits filed by parents of children rejected by the lottery.

As an educator, I am also deeply concerned by the policy consequences of the board’s decision, which include the real possibility that the highest-scoring students will be excluded from GATE classrooms entirely. The use of percentiles generally obscures the very significant differences in performance among the highest scorers on standardized tests.

The 2012 LSAT, which is used in law school admissions, is a good example. The test had 101 questions. Fifteen correct answers separated a student at the 26.1 percentile (45 correct) from a student at the 59.7 percentile (60 correct). But 15 correct answers also separated the 94.6 percentile (81 correct) from the 99.9 percentile (96 correct).

For elementary students, there is similarly a very real difference between reading two grades above grade level and reading 10 grades above grade level. The former student might benefit from GATE, but for the latter student, GATE is critical. The alternatives for that child are either intense classroom disengagement or skipping several grades, resulting in a classroom placement where she may lag socially and physically behind her classmates.

Under the old placement regime, this child would have been guaranteed admission to GATE; under the lottery, she may well be excluded entirely. It is inconceivable to me why any school system would exclude its most precocious students from its most challenging curriculum. It is not just educational malpractice; it is, quite simply, cruel.

There are serious and legitimate issues currently being debated about the size, scope and structure of the current GATE program. But the lottery issue is not difficult. It is not required by any sensible interpretation of the law, has significant harmful effects and should be abolished immediately.

— Carlton Larson is a professor at the UC Davis School of Law.

Special to The Enterprise

LEAVE A COMMENT

Discussion | 2 comments

The Davis Enterprise does not necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy

  • Richard EstesMay 19, 2013 - 12:35 pm

    "It is inconceivable to me why any school system would exclude its most precocious students from its most challenging curriculum. It is not just educational malpractice; it is, quite simply, cruel." Cruelty is defining the educational potential of students through standardized testing, which is precisely what the Davis GATE program does. Indeed, it goes to the extreme of deciding that children with higher scores and fewer "risk factors" , whatever they are, have greater potential, and deserve privileged access over others with marginally lower scores and higher risk factors. It is, of course, preposterous on its face. I would suggest that Professor Larson, and the other UCD professors who were present at the board meeting (dare one suggest that they, unlike Larson, have children in the program, and have drafted him for service in their support?), subject this to legal and social examination instead of the legal opinion of the school board's counsel. It is yet another UC Davis Law School intervention, quite literally, in this instance, in support of the 1%, just as the Dean and many professors did so in support of Professor Katehi after the pepper spray incident. My response has been to inform the law school to stop mailing me solicitations, and this action by Larson and the professors associated with him persuades me that I definitely made the right decision. --Richard Estes Class of 1986

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • richard BlohmMay 19, 2013 - 4:31 pm

    The legal issue here is irrelevant! GATE is a Segregation program of children at an early age. The "gifted" child will do well in a class with "average " Kids and may serve him/her well to mingle with Others of many backgrounds /abilities. In regards to comparing to LSAT, we have to many Lawyers, their only function is to be a parasite off the economy In general

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Recent Posts

  • Enter your email address to subscribe to this newspaper and receive notifications of new articles by email.

  • .

    News

    Going green at church, school, everywhere

    By Special to The Enterprise | From Page: A1 | Gallery

     
    Former caretaker convicted of murder, elder abuse

    By Lauren Keene | From Page: A1, 4 Comments | Gallery

    Old friend helps Brad and others find kidneys

    By Dave Jones | From Page: A1 | Gallery

     
    Chuck Rairdan joins school board race

    By Jeff Hudson | From Page: A1, 2 Comments

     
    Ukraine insurgents reject call to quit buildings

    By The Associated Press | From Page: A2, 3 Comments

     
    For the record

    By Enterprise staff | From Page: A2

    UCD to host Global Health Day event

    By Cory Golden | From Page: A2

     
    Need a new best friend?

    By Enterprise staff | From Page: A3 | Gallery

     
    ‘Hitchhiking’ dog looking for new home

    By Lauren Keene | From Page: A3 | Gallery

     
    Online K-12 school holds info night

    By Enterprise staff | From Page: A4

    Volkssporting Club plans North Davis walks

    By Enterprise staff | From Page: A4

     
    Schwenger lawn signs available

    By Anne Ternus-Bellamy | From Page: A4

    Volunteers needed for Grad Night

    By Enterprise staff | From Page: A4

     
    Davis grad makes rain collection a business

    By Jason McAlister | From Page: A4 | Gallery

    A few spots left on history tour

    By Enterprise staff | From Page: A4

     
    Chipotle fundraiser boosts Emerson tech upgrade

    By Enterprise staff | From Page: A4

    Event to provide nature scholarship

    By Enterprise staff | From Page: A4

     
    Students have new options on leasing front

    By Enterprise staff | From Page: A5 | Gallery

    Groups join for a day of service

    By Special to The Enterprise | From Page: A7

     
    NAMI backers walk in Sacramento

    By Special to The Enterprise | From Page: A8

     
    Food for the hungry

    By Enterprise staff | From Page: A10

    .

    Forum

    Dad makes mom look bad

    By Special to The Enterprise | From Page: B5

     
    Early help is a great investment

    By Letters to the Editor | From Page: A6

    More tax money? Answer the question

    By Rich Rifkin | From Page: A6, 4 Comments

     
    UCD IS responsible for students

    By Letters to the Editor | From Page: A6, 4 Comments

     
    Tom Meyer cartoon

    By Debbie Davis | From Page: A6

    In search of great ideas

    By Letters to the Editor | From Page: A6, 1 Comment

     
    Please keep the nursery open

    By Letters to the Editor | From Page: A6

    .

    Sports

    Sharks double up Kings in Game 1

    By The Associated Press | From Page: B1

     
    Aggies lose a slugfest in opener at Riverside

    By Enterprise staff | From Page: B1

    Fox coming to UCD; Riffle heads to Florida

    By Bruce Gallaudet | From Page: B1

     
    DHS’ Golston goes full-bore on the diamond

    By Thomas Oide | From Page: B1 | Gallery

    Devils show more life in loss to Mitty

    By Enterprise staff | From Page: B1

     
    DYSA roundup: Intensity has big week; 10U games dominate schedule

    By Enterprise staff | From Page: B2 | Gallery

    Sports briefs: Aggies set the academic bar high

    By Enterprise staff | From Page: B8 | Gallery

     
    Pro baseball roundup: Susac sends Sacramento to a rare loss

    By The Associated Press | From Page: B8

    .

    Features

    .

    Arts

    ‘Transcendence’: A whole new level of tedium

    By Derrick Bang | From Page: A11 | Gallery

     
    ‘The Bloom’ paves way for Whole Earth Festival

    By Enterprise staff | From Page: A11

    DHS tribute to Tony Fields slated for April 25-26

    By Enterprise staff | From Page: A11

     
    UCD, city team up for Music on the Green

    By Enterprise staff | From Page: A11

    .

    Business

    Ford turns its Focus to domestic market

    By Ali Arsham | From Page: B3 | Gallery

     
    .

    Obituaries

    .

    Comics

    Comics: Friday, April 18, 2014

    By Creator | From Page: A9

     
    .

    Real Estate Review

    Featured Listing

    By Zack Snow | From Page: RER1

    Professional Services Directory

    By Zack Snow | From Page: RER2

    Lyon Real Estate

    By Zack Snow | From Page: RER3

    Yolo FCU

    By Zack Snow | From Page: RER4

    Acacia at Huntington Square

    By Zack Snow | From Page: RER4

    Jamie Madison

    By Zack Snow | From Page: RER4

    Travis Credit Union

    By Zack Snow | From Page: RER5

    Kim Eichorn

    By Zack Snow | From Page: RER6

    Suzanne Kimmel

    By Zack Snow | From Page: RER6

    Lynne Wegner

    By Zack Snow | From Page: RER7

    Kim Merrel Lamb

    By Zack Snow | From Page: RER7

    Patricia Echevarria

    By Zack Snow | From Page: RER8

    Chris Snow

    By Zack Snow | From Page: RER8

    Andrew Dowling

    By Zack Snow | From Page: RER9

    Sheryl Patterson

    By Zack Snow | From Page: RER9

    Don Guthrie

    By Zack Snow | From Page: RER9

    Coldwell Banker

    By Zack Snow | From Page: RER10

    Coldwell Banker

    By Zack Snow | From Page: RER11

    Heather Barnes

    By Zack Snow | From Page: RER12

    Julie Partain & Dick Partain

    By Zack Snow | From Page: RER12

    Malek Baroody

    By Zack Snow | From Page: RER13

    Willowbank Park

    By Zack Snow | From Page: RER14

    Karen Waggoner

    By Zack Snow | From Page: RER14

    Team Traverso

    By Zack Snow | From Page: RER15

    Julie Leonard

    By Zack Snow | From Page: RER15

    Tim Harrison

    By Zack Snow | From Page: RER15

    Tracy Harris

    By Zack Snow | From Page: RER16

    Lori Prizmich

    By Zack Snow | From Page: RER16

    Raul Zamora

    By Zack Snow | From Page: RER17

    Joe Kaplan

    By Zack Snow | From Page: RER17

    Coldwell Banker

    By Zack Snow | From Page: RER18

    Open House Map

    By Zack Snow | From Page: RER19

    F1rst Street Real Estate

    By Zack Snow | From Page: RER20