BERKELEY, Calif. – A number of recent lawsuits questioning student assignment policies in K-12 schools has thrust the issue of race-based policies into the spotlight and could affect the way courts interpret anti-affirmative action legislation.

Opponents say the policies violate Proposition 209, a 1996 California law banning racial preferences in public education.

The Berkeley Unified School District and the Los Angeles Unified School District both face pending lawsuits by the Pacific Legal Foundation, which contends their school assignment policies grant racial preferences.

The Berkeley placement policy assigns students to elementary schools and academic programs according to a formula that accounts for parental educational attainment, parental income level and whether the students are considered “of color.”

Berkeley District Superintendent Michele Lawrence defended the system against the allegations, calling it “a blind assignment policy.”

Berkeley High School teachers said the current assignment policy is very popular among teachers and students, who recognize its value to the district.

“If we regress to a system banning integration, we’re not keeping the status quo, but making problems worse,” said Berkeley High School teacher Alan Miller. “You’ll see a situation like UC Berkeley, where diversity has been weeded out.”

The Pacific Legal Foundation has been an outspoken proponent of Proposition 209, suing school districts for what they consider racially biased assignment policies.

“We’re the only legal team in California defending Proposition 209 and one of the nation’s leading opponents of racial preferencing in schools,” said Pacific Legal Foundation Attorney Harold Johnson.

The Capistrano Unified School District settled with the Pacific Legal Foundation on Monday, and will revise their assignment policy to eliminate racial factors, Johnson said.

But Alameda County Superior Court Judge James Richman sided with the Berkeley district in a 2004 suit filed by the foundation challenging the legality of its then-more extensively race-based policy.

Richman ruled that Proposition 209 does not indicate that race-conscious school assignment plans are a form of preferential treatment or discrimination.

To promote diversity, a school assignment policy based on socioeconomic factors would be “more valid and not in violation of Proposition 209,” said Pacific Legal Foundation attorney John Findley.

But many educators said eliminating racial considerations would limit the effectiveness of programs promoting diversity.

“A socioeconomic policy can only achieve indirectly what we can do explicitly with racially based policies,” said University of California at Berkeley law professor Rachel Moran. “If the schools cannot be integrated, then racial and socioeconomic isolation are likely to entrench the achievement gap. The result will be a dual school system in California, which is a frightening prospect.”

Pending lawsuits in California coincide with two current U.S. Supreme Court cases from Louisville, Ky., and Seattle addressing the use of race in assigning students to programs. The court will hear arguments on Dec. 4.

Attorneys and legal experts said the two cases may indirectly affect the various similar lawsuits in California.

“If the court rules against assignments based on race, as people think it will now that (Chief Justice John) Roberts has replaced (William) Rehnquist, it could make California courts interpret Prop. 209 more strictly,” said Vikram Amar, a Boalt Hall School of Law alumnus and professor at UC Hastings College of the Law, when the Berkeley district was sued in October.