Funds Could Leave No Bilingual Child Behind

Hellcat

Registered
6

March 29, 2004

VENTURA COUNTY
Funds Could Leave No Bilingual Child Behind
Once excluded from federal dollars, districts with limited-English learners are applying for money to improve literacy for students in grades K-3.


By Fred Alvarez, Times Staff Writer


The way Denis O'Leary saw it, California's Reading First program was leaving too many children behind --mostly poor and immigrant students, those who would benefit most from the federally funded literacy campaign.

So the Oxnard-area teacher and school board trustee lent his name last year to a lawsuit that has helped reshape the reading program, ensuring that
children in some of the state's poorest districts have access to millions of dollars once largely cut off from bilingual classrooms.


As a result of a settlement in the lawsuit and a new stat

e la
w, bilingual classrooms in California now have prio
rity to tap $13.6 million in Reading First funds, money that will be used to boost reading achievement for limited English speakers from Sacramento to San Ysidro.

Just last week in the Oxnard School District, where O'Leary sits on the school board, trustees unanimously voted to apply for at least $1.6 million a year in Reading First money, more than half of which would be earmarked for students in bilingual settings.

"That's money that would not have been available to them before," said O'Leary, a bilingual teacher in a neighboring district. "Finally, we are able to offer equal access to education to all children in the state."

Oxnard is not alone. In the Los Angeles Unified School Distr
ict, officials have applied for $2.2 million a year to bring the Spanish-language version of Reading First to thousands of bilingual students. And in San Diego County, officials in the San Ysid
ro S
chool Distri
ct have asked to add 34 bilingual classrooms to the district's annual Reading
First grant.

A chief component of the Bush administration's No Child Left Behind Act, Reading First was launched in 2002 with a nationwide goal of pushing every child to reading proficiency by the end of the third grade.

The program showers nearly $1 billion a year on schools across the country to run programs that use proven curricula and teaching methods to support and improve reading instruction in grades K-3. The money is used to pay for materials, professional development, literacy coaches and student assessments.

In California, where the first two years of funding totaled about $280 million, state education officials earmarked the money for high-poverty schools with low rea
ding performance.

But they mandated that funding go only to classrooms using state-adopted English-language materials. That move, advocates said, effectively excluded bilingual progra
ms, wher
e teachers do initia
l reading instruction in Spanish.

The decision prompted the lawsuit aimed at forcin
g a funding change. And it spurred legislation, signed into law in October, prohibiting the exclusion of those programs from the Reading First campaign.

The law --written by Assembly members Marco Firebaugh, Jackie Goldberg and Leland Yee --required the California Department of Education to amend its Reading First plan to allow bilingual classrooms to use Spanish-language translations of approved materials.

"The entire education community was opposed to this policy," said Shelly Spiegel-Coleman, president of Californians Together, the statewide coalition that spearheaded the suit. "After two years of exclusion, the children who need help learning to read the most are finally
going to get the help they deserve."

Karen Steentofte, chief counsel for the state Board of Education, said there was no intent to exclude bilingual classrooms from the
federal prog
ram.

Rather, she said
, officials had set out to ensure that participating school districts complied with California's feder
ally approved Reading First plan, which called for the use of state-adopted instruction materials. Those materials had been available only in English when the state crafted its Reading First plan, Steentofte said.

"There was never an outright prohibition against bilingual classrooms," Steentofte said. "Any classroom [where teachers] used the materials in English for 2 1/2 hours a day could be funded, and some bilingual programs did that."

But bilingual education advocates said most programs did not.

Nearly 1,500 schools across the state operate bilingual classrooms despite passage in 1998 of a voter initiative that mandated English instruction
and sharply limited bilingual programs.

The initiative, Proposition 227, allows students to learn in their native languages only when their parents ask for waivers f
rom the law.


Last year, nearly 150,000 waiver
s were granted in California, which means thousands of classrooms continue to offer bilingual instruction. Advocates said teachers i
n many school districts refused to alter their bilingual curriculum just to qualify for Reading First grants.

Mary Hernandez, an education rights attorney who helped bring the lawsuit, said she believed education officials had been pressing a political agenda when they restricted the funding.

"To me, it was very obvious that they thought this would be a good occasion to try to press their political preference for English-only classrooms," Hernandez said.

Steentofte said such allegations were baseless.

Conservative activist Steve Frank, who helped lead the statewide charge for Proposition 227, said he had no problem w
ith the federal money going to bilingual programs --even if he disagreed that those programs were effective.

"Proposition 227 did allow for some forms of
bilingual education
by choice of the parent," Frank said. &
quot;That is the law, and as long as the law exists you need to fund those portions of education mandated by" the proposition.

In the Los Angeles Unifie
d School District, officials wasted no time applying for funding for 300 bilingual classrooms now eligible for Reading First grants.

The district received initial Reading First funding last year of $45 million for 189 schools, said Jim Morris, the district's assistant superintendent for elementary instruction. Most bilingual classrooms were not eligible for that money. Morris said the district has applied for an additional $2.2 million, which it expects to receive by June 30.

"We're very excited, not because it's going to allow us to do something different, but because it's
going to allow us to deepen the work we've already started," said Morris, noting that the district funded its own professional development program for
bilingual teachers in l
ieu of the Reading First grant.

In the Pomo
na Unified School District, officials this school year started receiving an annual Reading First grant of about $2 million to launch the program in 14 schools. But the district didn't
start spending the money right away, having requested funding even for those classrooms that use bilingual instruction.

Now that the lawsuit has been settled and the new law has been passed, the Pomona district has started tapping those funds, said Thelma Melendez, the district's chief academic officer.

"We felt there was no way we could exclude bilingual classes," Melendez said. "It just didn't make sense."

In the Oxnard School District, officials rejected Reading First funding last school year, in part because schools would have been fo
rced to exclude the district's 200 bilingual classrooms.

District officials said they have been told that Oxnard schools would be among those
first in line for funding.


O'Leary, the Oxnard school board trustee, said
the money is much needed in a district where nearly half the students are English-language learners and reading scores lag below state averages.

"We need to start realizing it's to the betterment of our state and our nation to
give these kids an equal education," said O'Leary, who joined the lawsuit not as a teacher or school board member, but as the father of three children educated in bilingual classrooms. "We can't have separate but equal. This is the only fair thing to do."

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-bi...ines-california
 
Ecclesiastes 1:9 everything old is new again
SCOTUSblog. An old case is new again, this huge case that if won will set a precedence, the
grievance industry is in full swing in USA and will continue to suck this country dry. The kid now 24, wants lots of money.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/01/...ent-who-was-denied-sign-language-interpreter/

Justices will consider reviving lawsuit from deaf student who was denied sign-language interpreter​


By Amy Howe
on Jan 14, 2023 at 3:31 pm

Citation: Amy Howe, Justices will consider reviving lawsuit from deaf student who was denied sign-language interpreter, SCOTUSblog (Jan. 14, 2023, 3:31 PM), https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/01/...ent-who-was-denied-sign-language-interpreter/


Sturgis High School, the public school attended by Miguel Perez that is now at the center of a dispute being heard by the Supreme Court. (Sturgis Public Schools)
On Wednesday, in Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools, the court will take up the case of Miguel Perez, a deaf student who says that a Michigan school district failed for years to provide him with a qualified sign language interpreter, leaving him an “academic and social outcast.” The justices will decide whether and when federal education law required him to fully pursue his claims against the school district in administrative proceedings before seeking relief in federal court.


Perez, who is now 24, entered the Sturgis Public Schools when he was nine, after emigrating from Mexico. He never received a qualified interpreter; instead, his school assigned him a classroom aide who lacked any training in working with deaf students and did not know sign language. Just a few months before Perez – who had consistently been named to the honor roll – expected to graduate from high school in 2016, the school district told him for the first time that he would not receive a diploma and qualified only for a “certificate of completion.”


Perez filed an administrative complaint against the school district with the Michigan Department of Education. He alleged that the district had violated both the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which requires school districts to provide students with disabilities with a free appropriate public education, and the Americans with Disabilities Act, which (among other things) bars discrimination against children with disabilities in public schools. A state administrative judge dismissed the ADA claim, on the ground that he lacked the power to hear it, and the school board eventually settled Perez’s IDEA claim by agreeing to pay for him to attend the Michigan School for the Deaf.


Perez then went to federal court, where he argued that the school district’s failure to give him the resources to fully participate in class violated the ADA. But the district court dismissed Perez’s case. Because Perez’s federal lawsuit “[a]t its core” sought the same relief that is available under the IDEA, U.S. District Judge Paul Maloney explained, Perez could only file his lawsuit after “exhausting” his claims – that is, going through the entire administrative process available under the IDEA, which includes a hearing and, if necessary, an appeal. Because Perez had settled his IDEA claim before his hearing, Maloney reasoned, he had not “exhausted” his claims.


After the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit upheld Maloney’s ruling, Perez went to the Supreme Court, which in October agreed to weigh in.


In his brief on the merits, Perez tells the justices that the IDEA requires plaintiffs to exhaust their claims before going to federal court only when their lawsuit is seeking the same relief that would be available under the IDEA. Here, Perez insists, he was not obligated to exhaust his claims because his lawsuit under the ADA seeks money damages for the harms that he suffered as a result of the school district’s actions – a remedy, he says, that would not be available under the IDEA.


But even if the IDEA does require Perez to exhaust the IDEA process, he continued, he did exactly that by settling his IDEA claim; doing anything else would be pointless. If the lower court’s interpretation were correct, Perez explained, families like his would be required to “reject reasonable IDEA settlements – and the promise of immediate educational relief – in order to preserve their meritorious claims under” other laws. Such a result, Perez concluded, would be directly at odds with the IDEA’s encouragement of settlements.


The school district insists that Perez is asking the wrong question. The focus of the IDEA, the school said, is ensuring that each student receives a “free appropriate public education.” And the IDEA’s exhaustion requirement focuses on the right that a plaintiff is seeking to enforce – the right to an education – rather than the remedy that he is seeking. The exhaustion rule, the school district posited, “channels grievances, not remedies, through the administrative process.” Therefore, when a plaintiff files a lawsuit under a law like the ADA to enforce his right to an education, the school contends, he is seeking relief that is available under the IDEA, and he must complete all of the available administrative procedures, even when he is seeking a remedy that may not be available under the IDEA.


If Perez prevails, the school district cautions, plaintiffs could circumvent the procedures that the IDEA requires simply by making a request for damages. Indeed, the school district continued, parents “could shift the focus of the dispute to recovering money damages” instead of obtaining a free appropriate public education for their child as soon as possible through administrative procedures. As a result, the district concluded, “some students might never receive” the education that the IDEA guarantees.


This article was originally published at Howe on the Court.
 
Back
Top