## Facts

- Limited-English-proficient (LEP) students in the Berkeley Unified School District (BUSD) brought a certified class action alleging barriers to equal participation in district educational programs due to language.
- BUSD served roughly 8,000 students and operated multiple language-remediation services for LEP students speaking various home languages.
- At the elementary level, BUSD offered a Spanish bilingual program staffed with fully credentialed bilingual teachers.
- BUSD also operated English-as-a-Second-Language (ESL) and “sheltered English” approaches for LEP students not in the bilingual program, with additional training and higher certification requirements for ESL teachers and use of native-language tutors as support.
- Plaintiffs claimed BUSD failed to take “appropriate action” to overcome language barriers, citing allegedly unqualified staff, insufficient resources, weak monitoring, and flawed identification, placement, and exit procedures.
- BUSD responded that its programs rested on accepted educational approaches, were implemented in good faith within fiscal constraints, and were effective as indicated by LEP students’ academic progress and standardized test results.
- The case proceeded to a bench trial in federal district court, with extensive witness testimony and documentary evidence; plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief.

## Issues

1. Whether BUSD violated EEOA § 1703(f) by failing to take appropriate action to overcome language barriers impeding LEP students’ equal participation.
2. Whether BUSD’s language programs violated Title VI through discriminatory intent or unlawful discriminatory effects based on national origin.

## Decision

- The court entered judgment for defendants and denied declaratory and injunctive relief.
- The court held plaintiffs failed to prove a violation of EEOA § 1703(f).
- The court held plaintiffs failed to prove a Title VI violation, finding no discriminatory intent and insufficient proof of discriminatory effects.
- The court found BUSD’s bilingual, ESL, and sheltered English programs were grounded in sound educational theory, reasonably implemented, and showed results indicating language barriers were being overcome.

## Legal Principles

- Compliance with EEOA § 1703(f) is commonly evaluated by asking whether (1) the program is based on a sound educational theory, (2) it is implemented effectively with adequate resources and personnel, and (3) it produces results showing language barriers are actually being overcome after a sufficient trial period.
- The EEOA does not require a particular instructional model (including mandatory bilingual education) if the district takes appropriate, theory-based, reasonably implemented steps to address language barriers.
- Courts give school authorities substantial latitude under the EEOA; program imperfections do not establish liability absent proof that the district’s approach is unsound, unreasonably implemented, or ineffective in overcoming language barriers.
- Title VI liability requires proof of intentional discrimination, and claims based on effects require evidence that challenged practices impose an adverse disparate impact tied to protected status.

## Conclusion

The court rejected class claims under the EEOA and Title VI, concluding that BUSD’s combination of bilingual, ESL, and sheltered English services was supported by accepted educational theory, implemented with genuine staffing and resource efforts, and associated with academic outcomes indicating LEP students were overcoming language barriers rather than being denied equal participation.


Teresa P. v. Berkeley Unified Sch. Dist., 724 F. Supp. 698 (N.D. Cal. 1989)