1. Diana v. State Board of
Education: Assessing Children
Who are Linguistically Diverse
Sherwood Best, Ph.D.
Professor
CSULA
1

2. • It has been argued that standardized testing
has functioned as a method of social
control
• Most cases have been based on the specific
circumstances of the case (ability tracking,
placement in special education, test
disclosure, etc.)
2

3. Diana
v.
State Board of Education
(1970)
3

4. Terms
• EMR – Educably Mentally Retarded. A
term used by school districts to assign
students with IQ scores in the borderland-
mild range to special classes. Not a federal
category.
4

5. Background
• Diana attended school in the Soledad Unified
School District in central California. She
experienced academic difficulty in his classes. As
per the district policy at that time, she was
assessed by a school psychologist using the
Stanford Binet Intelligence Test. The results of
this test indicated that Diane had mild mental
retardation & she was subsequently placed in an
EMR class.
5

6. Background
• Placement into EMR classes began with referral
from general education, followed by assessment
& recommendation by a school psychologist.
• California’s EMR classes of the 1970’s were
designed to teach social & functional skills, with
little alignment with academic curricula.
6

7. Background
• A class action lawsuit was brought on behalf of 9
Mexican-American children, ages 8-13,
challenging the use of certain IQ tests to place
students into EMR classes. The complaint was
filed in federal district court against:
– Soledad Unified School District
– State Superintendent Wilson Riles
– Members of the California State Board of Education
7

8. Issues
• Were Mexican-American students being labeled
as EMR based on individualized IQ tests written
& administered in English?
• If so, did their placement in EMR classes
constitute discrimination?
• Were the 14th Amendment rights of the Mexican-
American students violated?
8

9. Applicable Law
• The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th
Amendment of the US Constitution
9

10. Arguments - Plaintiffs
• The children were unable to comprehend
the materials on the test for no other reason
than language difference; low IQ scores
were not a valid measure of their
intelligence.
10

11. Arguments - Defendants
• Statutory requirements approved
intelligence testing for EMR placement.
• All other children were so tested for EMR
placement consideration, so there was no
equal protection violation.
11

12. Holding
• Violation of Equal Protection Clause of
U.S. Constitution was established in that
the children were not afforded equal
protection if they could not comprehend
the test materials.
• The case was settled by consent decree.
12

13. Dictum
• When allowed to take an IQ test in
Spanish, Mexican-American gained an
average of 15 IQ points (one standard
deviation)
13

14. Court’s Orders
• Stipulations of the consent decree:
– Children whose primary language was not English
were to be tested in their primary language in addition
to English
– Mexican-American and Chinese-American children in
EMR classes were to be re-tested
– LEAs had to submit a plan for assisting for re-entry of
EMR students back into general education.
– LEAs must explain disproportionate representation of
Mexican-American children in special education
– Re-norming of assessments undertaken
14

15. California’s Legislative Response
• California responded to Diana by enacting
legislation in which test scores used for
placement be substantiated through an
evaluation of the child’s developmental
history, cultural background, and academic
achievement
15

16. Implications - Special Education
• Elimination of the IQ test as the sole
measure of assessment for special education
placement
• EAHCA mandate of non-discriminatory
assessment.
• Increased focus on special needs children
who are culturally/linguistically diverse.
16