Pittsburg Schools Criticized

Non-English speakers neglected, report says

State education officials are siding with Pittsburg parents who say their schools are failing to serve students who do not speak English.

Based on an investigation in May, the state Department of Education has issued a report that concludes that the Pittsburg Unified School District is neglecting its English language learners. The report orders the district to make several changes within 45 days.

Pittsburg school board member Maureen Tully said that she had not seen the report but that she feels Pittsburg is being singled out.

“I think if you check with other districts in terms of how they’re meeting the needs of limited-English-speaking students, I don’t think you’re going to find anything different,” Tully said. “I think you’re going to find us way ahead.”

According to the report, the district failed to:

— Properly assess students’ language abilities and notify parents of test results.

— Form state-required committees of parents to advise schools on policies affecting students learning English.

— Provide enough instructional materials for English learners.

— Properly notify parents about their rights to enroll their children in alternative programs.

The state ordered the district to begin assessing students according to requirements and revise a parent notification form alerting parents how students tested. It must also prepare a plan to determine what instructional materials each school needs and set deadlines for purchasing them.

The district is also under investigation by the federal Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights. The federal government has not released its report but is negotiating with the school district about the time line for complying with federal law.

Parent Carlos Munoz filed the complaints with both agencies and said the report validates the concerns of more than 100 members of the Pro-Education Committee, which was formed in 1998 to oppose attempts to ban bilingual education through the statewide ballot measure Proposition 227.

Parents say Pittsburg school leaders used Proposition 227 as an excuse to abandon their 1,700 English-language learners, even though a number of state laws still require school districts to offer the students a variety of services.

Munoz said he is skeptical that the state report will bring meaningful changes.

“Knowing by experience how this district and this school board works, they are going around and around and I don’t think they will do anything,” Munoz said. “I get the impression they don’t know what they’re doing.”

Alicia Romero, the district’s English language development coordinator, said she received the report Monday and is not ready to comment on how the district will respond.

Last fall, Romero said, the district took steps to better serve English-language learners. She said it has assessed all elementary and middle school students, purchased textbooks and worked hard to find parents to serve on English Learners Advisory Committees at its schools.

But parent Ruben Rosalez said some teachers did not understand how to properly assess students, and some parents still have not been notified about how their children performed. He said teachers have not been trained to use their new text books, and some are not using them.

Rosalez also questioned the district’s attempts at establishing parent advisory committees. He said Stoneman Elementary School held its first committee meeting March 7 at 10 a.m., when most parents are working. Only two parents showed up, he said, including his brother, who had to take time off work to attend.

Attorney Deborah Escobedo, who works for the public interest law group Multicultural Education, Training and Advocacy, said she will monitor the school district’s progress and the state’s enforcement of its orders.

“The frustrating thing about this entire process is it’s taken way too long,” Escobedo said.

The state did not meet its guidelines for issuing the report, which indicates it should have been released 60 days after Munoz filed an appeal on March 7, 1999. Howie DeLane, who prepared the state report, said the Department of Education was delayed because the agency had many other cases to investigate.



Comments are closed.