Luz Becerra felt fortunate that her son, who uses a wheelchair, was able to attend Pasadena’s Roosevelt Elementary School, near their home. It was among the few schools in the Pasadena Unified School District able to fully accommodate students with disabilities, and its proximity meant her son could attend his weekly physical therapy sessions without missing classes.

But Roosevelt was one of three Pasadena elementary schools officials shuttered in 2019 to address the district’s declining enrollment and mounting budget woes.

However, rather than undertake a fulsome and transparent process, school officials rushed through a discriminatory plan that disproportionately affected Latino students, some of whom are disabled and many of whom are from low-income families. Parents primarily learned through word of mouth of the closures a week before school officials cast their final vote.

The closures did not take into account transportation to help students like Becerra’s son get to his new school. He was transferred to a campus more than five miles from Roosevelt, that has inadequate accommodations for disabled students. Because Becerra does not drive, her son began missing classes to attend his therapy sessions, and he soon fell behind academically.

Like Becerra’s son, hundreds of Latino elementary school students now find themselves forced to shoulder the burden of the district’s discriminatory school closure plan.

That’s why Becerra and six other parents are challenging Pasadena’s school closure plan in state court. With help from MALDEF (Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund), these families are asking the court to declare the plan unlawful because of its disparate impact on Latino children, and order the district to develop a new plan that provides equal educational opportunities for all students, as required by state law.

Put simply, Pasadena’s plan resulted almost exclusively in Latino children being transferred to schools, some of which became overcrowded. At the new schools some students lost access to programs such as STEM (Science Technology Engineering and Math) and Spanish Dual Language Immersion.

Schools in the district’s eastern section, with a higher enrollment of White students, did not experience the same academic disruption.

In 2019, Latino students were 58% of enrollment in Pasadena’s 17 elementary schools, prompting some to argue that any school closure would inevitably, disproportionately impact Latinos.

Such arguments, however, ignore the facts and state law. Even majority populations can face disproportionate harm. Enrollment at Franklin, Jefferson and Roosevelt, the three schools selected for closure, was 76%, 86% and 88% Latino, respectively — far more than the district’s average in 2019.

So why does this matter? Because studies, including a 2017 report by Stanford’s Center for Research on Education Outcomes, show that schools with higher concentrations of Black or Latino students are more likely to be considered for closure, and those students are left to struggle academically in schools with fewer resources.

Pasadena district officials have a choice. They can recognize the current school closure plan discriminates against Latino students and take the necessary steps to devise a new plan. Or they can continue to defend a plan that promotes a two-tier system of education.

District officials would be wise to remember the California Supreme Court’s 1971 ruling in Serrano v. Priest, a case that established the fundamental right to education in our state. In its opinion, the justices wrote that “public schools of this state are the bright hope for entry of the poor and oppressed into the mainstream of American society.”

Latino children deserve better and need their bright hope.

Erika Cervantes is a staff attorney at MALDEF’s Los Angeles office.