TABLE 1


TABLE A
Race1 Percent of 17-year-olds able to search for specific information, interrelate ideas and make generalizations about literature, science and social studies materials2
1980 1992
White86.988.0
Hispanic62.269.2
Black44.061.4

1The Department of Education does not report NAEP test results for Asians.

2NAEP test data are reported at various “proficiency” levels. The level presented in Table A is the midpoint of the five defined levels. The other proficiency levels are defined as follows:

1.  ̀Able to follow brief written directions and carry out simple, discrete reading tasks.

2.  ̀Able to understand, combine ideas, and make inferences based on short, uncomplicated passages about specific or sequentially related information.

3.  ̀[Described in table above.]

4.  ̀Able to find, understand, summarize, and explain relatively complicated literary and informational material.

5.  ̀Able to understand the links between ideas even when those links are not explicitly stated and to make appropriate generalizations even when the text lacks clear introductions or explanations.

Source: Digest of Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement (1994).

















TABLE 2


TABLE B
Race Reading Writing Math
White297217310
Hispanic275198289
Black267194284

Source: Statistical Abstract of the United States, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census (1994).

















TABLE 3


TABLE C
%ile 1980 Scores 1992 Scores
White Hispanic Black White Hispanic Black
25th267225217268235235
50th294253244294263263
75th320279270319289289
95th357321307354339339

Source: The Condition of Education, U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement (1994).

















TABLE 4


TABLE D
Race Average SAT Verbal Score 1980-81 Average SAT Verbal Score 1992-93
White442444
Asian397415
Hispanic373374
Black332353

Source: Digest of Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement (1994).

















TABLE 5


TABLE E
The Torrance Complaint The Garland Complaint
  9. The defendants have pursued and continue to pursue policies and practices that have discriminated against blacks, Hispanics and Asians and that have deprived or tended to deprive blacks, Hispanics and Asians of employment opportunities on the basis of race and/or national origin.9. Defendant has pursued and continues to pursue policies and practices that have discriminated against Blacks and Hispanics and that have deprived or tended to deprive Blacks and Hispanics of employment opportunities on the basis of race and/or national origin.
17. The defendants .  .  . have implemented these policies and practices in the Police Department, among other ways, as follows:10. Defendant has implemented these policies and practices in its Police and Fire Departments, among other ways, as follows:
a. by failing or refusing to hire black, Hispanic and Asian applicants for police officer [and firefighter] positions on the same basis as Anglo-Americans;a. by failing or refusing to recruit and/or hire Blacks and Hispanics for entry-level police officer and fire fighter positions on the same basis as whites;
b. by using selection devices and procedures, including but not limited to written examinations, for entry-level police officer [and firefighter] positions that have disproportionately excluded blacks, Hispanics and Asians from employment, although these selection devices and procedures have not been shown to be job-related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity;b. by using hiring procedures for entry-level police officer and fire fighter positions that disproportionately exclude Blacks and Hispanics from employment, although these procedures have not been shown to be job-related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity;
c. by not hiring probationary police officers who are not Anglo-Americans into permanent police officer positions and, instead, terminating them before the completion of their probationary periods because of their race or national origin;c. by providing Black and Hispanic employees with terms, conditions or privileges of employment less favorable than those provided to white employees; and
d. by allowing a racially hostile environment for black employees to exist, as for example when some Anglo-American supervisors have used, and other employees have been heard to use, terms such as “nigger” and “N.I.T.,” which stands for “Nigger in Torrance,” to refer to black individuals; andd. by failing or refusing to take appropriate action to eliminate the discriminatory policies and practices and to correct the present effects of those policies and practices.
e. by failing or refusing to take appropriate action to eliminate the discriminatory policies and practices and to correct the present effects of those polices and practices.
20. The policies and practices of the defendants .  .  . constitute a pattern or practice of resistance to the full enjoyment by blacks, Hispanics and Asians of their right to equal employment opportunities without discrimination based on race or national origin. The pattern or practice is of such a nature that it is intended to deny the full exercise of the rights secured by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. Unless restrained by order of this Court, the defendants will continue to pursue policies and practices that are the same as or similar to those alleged in this Complaint.12. The policies and practices of Defendant .  .  . constitute a pattern or practice of resistance to the full enjoyment by Blacks and Hispanics of their right to equal employment opportunities without discrimination based on race or national origin. The pattern or practice is of such a nature that it is intended to deny the full exercise of the rights secured by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.
13. Unless restrained by order of this Court, Defendant will continue to pursue policies and practices that are the same as or similar to those alleged in this Complaint.


















TABLE 6


Test Developer Test Series Date
TCLEOSEBApril 23, 1988
TCLEOSECMay 13, 1989
IPMAA-2April 7, 1990
IPMAA-2May 19, 1990
IPMAA-2October 30, 1990
WOLLACKALERTNovember 2, 1991
WOLLACKALERTJuly 18,1992
WOLLACKALERTMay 21, 1993
WOLLACKALERTJuly 8, 1994
WOLLACKALERTOctober 6, 1995


















TABLE 7


Test Developer Test Series Date
IPMAB-3December, 1990
WOLLACKALARMApril 11, 1992
WOLLACKALARMMarch 4, 1994
WOLLACKALARMAugust 18, 1995