Limited English skill met, DPS says

Court filing responds to Hispanics' motion

The Denver Public Schools are meeting the needs of students with limited English proficiency, attorneys for the district said in a federal court filing yesterday.

The document was DPS’ response to a late October motion by the Congress of Hispanic Educators that the district be cited for civil contempt for failing to provide adequate bilingual education under a 1984 court decree. The Hispanic educators have filed as intervenors in the Denver school-desegregation case.

In its response, DPS said it was somewhat surprised by the request that it be cited for contempt.

Bias suit by black parents

Chief U.S. District Judge Richard Matsch is considering a proposal to end a quarter century of federal court supervision of the DPS, stemming from a racial-desegregation lawsuit filed by several black families.

The Hispanic group has opposed ending the court’s role, alleging that Spanish-speaking children are being discriminated against and bilingual education needs aren’t being met.

The Hispanic group cites figures that show only 13 percent of the students in so-called accelerated course are Hispanic and only 15 percent are black.

“Since the entry of the Limited English Proficient decree,” said the DPS response, “the school district believes that it has fully and faithfully carried out its obligations with respect to the educational programs for Limited English Proficient students, and is prepared to participate fully in a hearing on that issue.”

‘Deficient on its face’

The Hispanic group’s motion for contempt “appears deficient on its face,” DPS said, because the motion is not supported by affidavits and merely makes “declaratory or accusatory statements which are not reflective of the program for Limited English Proficient students currently in place in the Denver Public Schools.”

A number of the violations alleged in the contempt motion “are, in fact, matters that the parties had agreed on,” the DPS response said.

Also, the DPS filing said, the allegations in the contempt motion “do not readily lend themselves to an admission or denial form of response.”

“Many of the alleged ‘violations’ are actions that the parties agreed to and it comes as a surprise that the plaintiff-intervenors now assert these agreements as a motion for ‘contempt,”‘ DPS said.



Comments are closed.