Congress Hispanic Edv. Sen. District No. 1
• • • PI ) • • • • • • • • • I H I It • • • • I I • • • • • • • • • • # «IHI IIHP
OT-CO-001-001 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Chief Judge Richard P. Matsch
Civil Action No. 95-M-2313
CONGRESS OF HISPANIC EDUCATORS, Plaintiff,
v. SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,DENVER, COLORADO,
Defendant.

ORDER FOR SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

This court having separated the issues concerning the language rights order of August

7,1984, from allother issues in Keyes v. School District No. 1, Denver, Colorado, Civil ActionNo.

C-1499, which action has now been dismissed, and there being statutory issues to be considered

concerning the District's motion to modify the language rights order of August 7, 1984, which

motion was filed on March 3, 1995,and to which the now plaintiff, Congress of Hispanic

Educators responded on March 24, 1995, it is now

ORDERED that a scheduling conference will be convened on November 2,1995, at 4:00

p.m. in the Conference Room, Second Floor, the Byron White United States Courthouse, 18th

and Stout Streets, Denver, Colorado.

Dated: September 12. 1995

BY THE COURT:

Richaro P. Matsch, Chief Judge

Case Number: 95-M-2313
I certify that I mailed a copy of ORDER FOR SCHEDUUNG CONFERENCE entered by Chief Judge Richard P. Matsch on September 12,1995, to the following:
J Dated: « ^ a Z . /Z ,
JAMES R. MANSPEAKERMCLERK
By: Jacob Qilmofe, Deputy Clerk Oleni'ia DiaKe, Ooonrtaty
Peter Roos 524 Union St. San Francisco, CA 94133
Michael H. Jackson Semple & Jackson 1120 Lincoln St. #1603 Denver, CO 80203
Phil C. Neal Neal Gerber & Eisenberg 2 N. LaSalle St. Chicago, IL 60602
William E. Thro Assistant Attorney General 1525 Sherman St., 5th Floor Denver, CO 80203
Albert H. Kauffman MALDEF 140 E. Houston St., Suite 300 San Antonio, TX 78205

 
 Congress Hispanic Ed v. Sen. District No. 1

OT-CO-001 -002
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Case No. 95-M-2313
CONGRESS OF HISPANIC EDUCATORS, et al, Plaintiffs-Intervenors,
v.
SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, DENVER, COLORADO, et al., Defendants,
STATUS REPORT

U. •"-
r - j •••-
'% QCT -1 P4 :1O

The parties, in accordance with the provisions of the Scheduling Order of July 16, 1996, submit the following report to the court on the status of their discussions and the need for a hearing in this matter.
The parties have continued their discussions and recently concluded one and one-half days of negotiations in Denver.
The School District has committed to develop a next draft of proposed modifications to the Consent Decree, and it will take some time to both develop those proposed modifications and have them reviewed by the Board of Education.
The parties have agreed that the School District will provide additional data to the Plaintiffs on or before Friday, October 18, 1996, and the District has committed to provide a next draft of proposed modifications by Monday, November 4, 1996.
At present, the parties believe that continued negotiations would be beneficial and see no need to schedule a hearing at this time.

a

Plaintiffs have authorized the undersigned to represent to the court that they have agreed to the representations made herein.
Respectfully submitted,
Phil C. Neal NEAL, GERBER & EISENBERG Two North LaSalle Street Suite 2300 Chicago, Illinois 60602 (312) 269-8000
Michael H. Jackson SEMPLE & JACKSON, P.C. The Chancery, Suite 1603 1120 Lincoln Street Denver, Colorado 80203 (303) 595-0941
Attorneys for Defendant School District No. 1, Denver, Colorado
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing STATUS REPORT was mailed, postage prepaid, on this / £f" day of October, 1996, addressed to:
Roger L. Rice, Esq. Jane E. Lopez, Esq. MULTICULTURAL EDUCATION, TRAINING
AND ADVOCACY, INC. 240A Elm Street, Suite 22 Somerville, Massachusetts 02144

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO CHIEF JUDGE RICHARD P. MATSCH

COURT MINUTES

Deputy Clerk: Katherine Hasfjord

CASE NO.

ECR Operator: Kathy Terasaki

Date: September 12, 1997

PLAINTIFF(S): Congress of Hispanic Educators
vs. DEFENDANT(S): School District No. 1, Denver, CO

COUNSEL: Peter Roos Jane Lopez
COUNSEL: Michael Jackson Julie Riege

COURTROOM MINUTES
HEARING/TRIAL: Status Conference
Court in Session: 2:15 p.m.
Mr. Roos and M s . Lopez review their_-.concerns and request a day and half hearing o n a possible c_oli£empt motj-oju^ There are two areas of concern:
1. The district use of a p_ajr^iat__gues^t2:o_nnaire (English proficTency^determination).
2. The district program that removes Spanish speaking children" trom the bilingual classrooinjndplace them in a] t-ftrnat-.isEe—classes and -Lhen mainstream them. They are being pulled out of the sheltered environment too soon.
Mr. Jackson and Ms. Riege respond.
Mr. Jackson will get from the administration a copy of the questionnaire that is currently being used.
Counsel will find out what is happening at the district level now and how does it relate to the consent decree. Counsel will work on a schedule for filing motions for contempt and to modify the consent decree.
. . . . ?.onRr.!ss H i s P a n i c Ed v. Sch. District No. 1
OT-CO-001-003

Counsel will report back to the court at a later time (no deadline set). Counsel was informed by the court that if a hearing is held this year, it would probably be held on a Saturday.
Recess 3:05 p.m.

 
 Congress Hispanic Ed v. Sen. District No. 1

OT-CO-001-004

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS TP;!

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Chief Judge Richard P. Matsch

.QQ -eg

•I COURT

Civil Action No. 95-M-2313

CONGRESS OF HISPANIC EDUCATORS,

r*j> d

Plaintiffs,

SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, DENVER, COLORADO,
Defendant.
STATUS REPORT
Defendant, School District No. 1, by and through its attorney, Michael H. Jackson, submits this status report as directed.
The parties have been actively engaged in negotiations since the last status conference which have rgsmlt^_in_th£. Hp.vp:iQpmgnt_of_a_new_English Language Acquisition Program. These discussions included representatives from the Civil Rights Division of the U. S. Department of Justice.
On February 4, 1999 the Board of Education unanimously directed that counsel for the DjjdjjxvLlom with counsel for the Plaintiffs and the United States in submitting the ^ngjjshj^jiguage AcquisitionJPrograrn^to the Court seeking authority to implement ^sJjKOSXanLiDJhe._! 999-2000 school year.
Counsel believe that interests of judicial efficiency and time will be served if the Court would schedule a status conference at which time the method of proceeding and scheduling could be established.
Counsel for the Plaintiffs and the United States have authorized the undersigned to represent to the Court that they concur and join in this request.

Wherefore, the parties request that the Court set a status conference as soon as reasonably practicable.

M
Michael H. Jackson, Esq. Attorney For School Distric 900 Grant Street, Suite 704 Denver, Colorado 80203 (303) 764-3393

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I mailed via United States mail, a true and correct copy of the STATUS REPORT on February 25, 1999 to the parties as addressed below:

Roger L. Rice, Esq. META, Inc. Multicultural Education, Training
& Advocacy 240 A. Elm Street, Suite 22 Somerville, Massachusetts 02144
Peter Roos, Esq. META, Inc. Multicultural Education, Training
& Advocacy 785 Market Street, Suite 420 San Francisco, CA 94103

Jeremiah Glassman, Esq. Deputy Chief, Education Section Civil Rights Division Department of Justice Tenth Street & Constitution Ave.NW Washington, D.C. 20530

Venice L. Martinez 7 Legal Secretary

 
 Congress Hispanic Ed v. Sch. District No. 1

OT-CO-001-005
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT o! S ~ FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Chief Judge Richard P. Matsch

Civil Action No. 95-M-2313 CONGRESS OF HISPANIC EDUCATORS,

IA M L

L I-'.

Plaintiffs,

V.
SCHOOL DISTRICT NO 1, DENVER, COLORADO,

Defendant.

SUBMISSION OF PROPOSAL TO SETTLE CLASS ACTION

The parties, by and through their attorneys, submit the attached Proposal to Settle Class Action for the Court's consideration. The dates for filing objections to the proposed settlement and for hearing on the proposal have not been established.
The suggested scjigdulejbrjjiiblicatioa of the notice of proposed settlement and for reviewing the proposal extends into the lajrt weetin-May. At the recent status conference the Court suggested that the hearing be set on a Thursday. Counsel are available on Thursday June 3, 1999 and on succeeding Thursdays thereafter during June.
Counsel for Plaintiffs and for the proposed intervenor have authorized counsel for the Defendant School District to file this submission on behalf of all parties.
Respectfully submitted,

MichaeHL Jackson, Esq. Attorney For School Distric 900 Grant Street, Suite 704 Denver, Colorado 80203 (303) 764-3393

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I mailed via United States mail, a true and correct copy of the SUBMISSION OF PROPOSAL TO SETTLE CLASS ACTION on April , 1999 to the parties as addressed below:

Roger L. Rice, Esq. META, Inc. Multicultural Education, Training
& Advocacy 240 A. Elm Street, Suite 22 Somerville, Massachusetts 02144
Peter Roos, Esq META, Inc. Multicultural Education, Training
& Advocacy 785 Market Street, Suite 420 San Francisco, CA 94103
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

Jeremiah Glassman, Esq. Deputy Chief, Education Section Civil Rights Division Department of Justice Tenth Street & Constitution Ave.NW Washington, D C . 20530
ATTORNEY FOR PROPOSED INTERVENOR

IJ•'/njf f M
/Gienice L. Martinez T
Legal Secretary

nO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Chief Judge Richard P. Matsch

Civil Action No. 95-M-2313 CONGRESS OF HISPANIC EDUCATORS,
Plaintiffs, v. SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, DENVER, COLORADO,
Defendant.

' •' R4DO
ADD o fl 1QQQ

""

" ^L^""J

PROPOSAL TO SETTLE CLASS ACTION PURSUANT TO RULE 23(e)

I

Preamble

On December 30, 1983, the court found the defendant School District No. 1 (hereafter

"D.P.S.") in violation ofJO U.S.C. 1703(f)) Thereafter, the parties negotiated a remedy to the

violations identified by the court, which remedy ("the Decree") was approved by the court on

August 17, 1984, after a Rule 23(e) fairness hearing. That decree, embodied in a document

denominated 'TJejiyesJ^uJjh^Sj^hod^A^

Students," has

remained in effect since that time.

On October 24, 1994, the plaintiffs filed a motion for civiLcontempt, alleging that the

D.P.S. was not in compliance with certain aspects of the Decree. Subsequently, on Marchj5,

1995,JheJ).RLS. filed _a motionJojnodify the Decree. On July 31, 1997, the U.S. Department of

T - "1 "I

Education ("U.S.D.O.E.") found the D P S . in violation of certain statutes and regulations with respect to its services to English language learners. The U.S.D.O.E. referred the matter to the U.S. Department of Justice ("Justice") for enforcement.
As a result of the filings and referral described in the previous paragraph, the plaintiffs, the D P S . , and the United States commenced negotiations in January, 1998, to resolve aill of the concerns represented by the filings. After lengthy negotiations, the parties have resolved all outstanding issues by agreeing to submit two (2) documents to the court for its approval. The first document, "English Language Acquisition Program,^setsjbjthjhe^bstajrtjve obligation of the D.P.S. toward English language learners and includes certain reporting obligations. This is denominated "Joint Exhibit A." The second document, entitled^ "Mgnjtoring,"jisreates a position of monitor which will oversee implementation of the decree for a period of three beginning in 1999-2000. The parties have agreed, with court approval, that Dr. Ernest House will serve in that position. A copy of the document entitled "Monitor," with Dr. House's vita attached, is denominated "Joint Exhibit B." Combined, these documents will replace the documents approved by the court on August 17, 1984, and will serve as the court order until further order of the court.
As this court certified a class of limited English proficient (LEP) students in the D.P.S., it is now necessary to provide class members with notice of the proposed settlement and an opportunity to be heard. Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules also requires the court to approve the "manner" of providing notice and opportunity; to this end, the parties request the court to approve the procedure set forth in the following section, which procedure incorporates the letter which is attached hereto as Exhibit #1, and notice attached as Exhibit #2.
-2-

II Procedures under Rule 23(e) A. On or before April 23, 1999, the DPS will send a letter to the parents of each student who has been identified as LEP during the 1998-99 school year. Parents of students who are in the twelfth grade and are scheduled during the 1998-1999 school year, or for whom the D.P.S. has received written evidence of withdrawal, need not be sent the letter. 1. The letter, attached hereto as Exhibit #1, shall inform the parents of the procedure for viewing the settlement agreement^ which shall be available in English and Spanish, and for filing objections to its content. 2. The letter shall be in the following languages: Spanish, Vietnamese, Khmer, Russian, and English (the "designated languages"). Parents of students identified by the first four languages shall receive the letter in their home language. All others shall receive the letter in English. B. The noticejittached hereto as Exhibit #2 shall be translated into Spanishby the D.P.S., which shall cause it to be published in LaJVoz^A_E[Seminario each week beginning April 26, 1999, and continuing until and through the week beginning May 17, 1999. C. Copies of the notice attached hereto as Exhibit #2 shall be sent to organizations which represent Asian and Hispanic interests in the Denverjtrea, This shall be done after consultation with the Asian Lay Advisory Committee and the Hispanicj^ay^Advisory Committee, and shall occur no later than April 21, 1999. D. Beginning on April 26 and continuing until May 21, 1999, the D.P.S. will place a cgj)y of the proposed agreement (Joint Exhibits A and B) in theprincjgal^offic^of each school
-3-
T

in the district and in Room 105 of the General Administrative Office, 900 Grant Street, in Denver.

These will be available in English and Spanish for viewing during ordinary business hours.

E. The D.P.S. will maintain a list of persons who speak the designated languages

other than Spanish and will make that list available to persons who request it.

F. Any person may obtain a copy of the Joint Exhibits at Room 105 of the D.P.S.

District Office, 900 Grant Street, Denver, during ordinary business hours, for a cost of $3.00.

Any classmember who wishes to object to any term of the settlement, may do so by filing

with the clerk of the court and sending to the parties his objections so that they are received no

later than two (2) days before the hearing. A hearing will be held on

,

at 9:30 a.m., for the purpose of determining whether to approve the settlement. No objecting

classmember will be heard at such time unless he has filed a timely written objection or can

otherwise document that his failure was not the result of lack of diligence.

Respectfully submitted,

Date:

Peter D. Roos for Plaintiff-Intervenor

Date: Date:

MicnSel Jackson for Defendants
iah Glassman for •oposed Intervenor
-4-

T

1 1

ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION PROGRAM TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 3
Chapter 4
Chapter 5

DEFINITIONS

1

INTRODUCTION

4

Section I Section II

English Language Acquisition Program

4

Mainstream English Language Instructional Program....5

PARENT COMMUNICATION, STUDENT SCREENING, AND

ASSESSMENT FOR ELIGIBILITY

6

Section I Instructional Services Advisory Team

6

Section II Parent Communication

6

Section III Student Screening

6

Section IV Initial Assessment For Students Answering

Yes to Either Screening Question

7

Section V Further Assessment for Students Answering Yes

to the First Screening Question

8

Section VI Further Assessment for Students Answering No

to the First Screening Question and Yes

to the Second Screening Question

8

Section VII Criteria for Selecting Oral Proficiency Tests

9

Section VIII Student Profile

9

CLASSIFICATION AS AN ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNER AND

PARENT PERMISSION FOR PARTICIPATION

10

Section I Section II
Section III Section IV

Classification as an English Language Learner:

Students Answering Yes to First Screening Question.... 10

Classification as an English Language Learner:

Students Answering No to the First Screening

Question and Yes to the Second Screening Question 11

Parent Permission

11

Monitoring the Progress of Students Who Decline

Services

12

EXITING FROM THE PROGRAM

13

Section I Exiting from the Program

13

Section II Progress Toward Instruction in English

14

Section III Monitoring Students Exited from the Program

15

English Language Acquisition Program
T

Table of Contents (continued)

Chapter 6 Chapter 7
Chapter 8
Chapter 9

INSTRUCTIONAL SERVICES ADVISORY TEAM.

17

PERSONNEL AND TRAINING

19

Section I Policy

19

Section II Qualifications

19

Section III Program Teacher Assignments

20

Section IV Teacher Training Program

20

Section V Staff Development for New Program Teachers

21

Section VI Training for Transition Teachers

22

Section VII Instructional Services Advisory Team Training

22

Section VIII Title I Teacher Training

22

Section IX Paraprofessionals

22

Section X Appraisals

23

Section XI Teacher Needs and Recruitment

23

Section XII Counselors

24

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL INSTRUCTIONAL SERVICES

25

Section I Introduction

25

Section II Services

25

Section III Program Placement

27

Section IV Progress in the Program in Schools Offering a

Transitional Native Language Instruction Model

28

Section V Assessment of Progress and Readiness for

Exit

29

Section VI Program Staffing

30

Section VII Curriculum

31

MIDDLE SCHOOL INSTRUCTIONAL SERVICES

32

Section I Introduction

32

Section II Services

32

Section III Program Placement

34

Section IV Progress in the Program in Schools Offering a

Transitional Native Language Instruction Model

35

Section V Assessment of Progress and Readiness for

Exit

36

Section VI Program Staffing

37

Section VII Curriculum

38

English Language Acquisition Program

11

T

1 T

Table of Contents (continued)

Chapter 10

HIGH SCHOOL INSTRUCTIONAL SERVICES

39

Section I Introduction

39

Section II Services

39

Section III Program Placement

41

Section IV Progress in the Program in Schools Offering a

Transitional Native Language Instruction Model

42

Section V Assessment of Progress and Readiness for

, .

Exit

43

Section VI Program Staffing

44

Section VII Curriculum

45

Chapter 11 Chapter 12 Chapter 13

PARENTAL OVERSIGHT

46

Section I Section II Section III

English Language Acquisition Program Parent Advisory

Committees

46

English Language Acquisition Program Districtwide

Advisory Committee

46

Parent Training

47

ACCOUNTABILITY

48

Section I Program Implementation

48

Section II Reporting

49

Section III Review Procedures

50

Section IV Student Progress

50

Considerations Related to Special Education for English

Language Learners

52

Section I Student Proficiency in English and Other

Languages

52

Section II Informed Consent

53

Section III Services

53

English Language Acquisition Program

ill

-7 i

Table of Contents (continued)

Chapter 10

HIGH SCHOOL INSTRUCTIONAL SERVICES

39

Section I Introduction

39

Section II Services

39

Section HI Program Placement

41

Section IV Progress in the Program in Schools Offering a

Transitional Native Language Instruction Model

42

Section V Assessment of Progress and Readiness for

Exit

43

Section VI Program Staffing

44

Section VII Curriculum

45

Chapter 11 Chapter 12 Chapter 13

PARENTAL OVERSIGHT

46

Section I Section II Section III

English Language Acquisition Program Parent Advisory

Committees

46

English Language Acquisition Program Districtwide

Advisory Committee

46

Parent Training

47

ACCOUNTABILITY

48

Section I Program Implementation

48

Section II Reporting

49

Section III Review Procedures

50

Section IV Student Progress

50

Considerations Related to Special Education for English

Language Learners

52

Section I Student Proficiency in English and Other

Languages

52

Section II Informed Consent

53

Section III Services

53

English Language Acquisition Program

in

CHAPTER 1

Definitions

Core subject areas are language arts, social studies, mathematics, and science.

Fully qualified refers to aJuUyc[ualifLeji£SL teacher or & fully qualified ESL/Spanish language^ teacher as defined below.

English as a second language (ESL) is a model for providing services to English language learnersthat includes si^or^dJijigljsAjzantgntJmJlucjipn and Ettglishlanguage^deyelopment^

The English Language Acquisition Program (Program) provides services to English language learners including a transitional native language instructionmodel and an English as a second languageJESLjrw^d^ The goal of the Program is for students to transition to the mainstream English language instructional program. The Program is defined by the provisions of this document.

English language development is the provision of direct instruction in English language usage including: content vocabulary development, survival vocabulary development, oral language development, and the development of reading and writing skills in English.

An English language transition course is offered to students formerly identified as English language learners for the purpose of improving their English and supporting success in the mainstream English language instructional program. This course provides intensive instruction in reading, writing, speaking, and understanding English and is taught by afully qualified ESL or ESL/Spanish language instructor.

An English language learner is a student who participates in the English Language Acquisition Program.

An English proficient student is a student formerly identified as an English language learner who has sufficient English language skills to meaningfully participate in the mainstream English language instructional program.

Afully qualified ESL teacher is one who is state endorsed in teaching the linguistically different or has satisfactorily completed the 150 hours of training provided by the district's Department of English Language Acquisition.

A.fully qualified ESL/Spanish language teacher is one who is (1) state endorsed in teaching the

linguistically different or has satisfactorily completed the 150_hours_of training provided by the

district's Department of English Language Acquisition and (2) demonstrates proficiency in

speaking, understanding, reading, and writing Spanish on_ajest,that meets the criteria in Section

II of Chapter 7.

~~

English Language Acquisition Program
c:\lep\lep2-4.doc
T ir

^

^

is a team that makes recommendations to the

Department of EngTisEXanguageAcqufSTtion regarding Program entry,_e2cit!Land services.

Mainstream English language classrooms are those designed to serve students who speak only English or who have been exited from the Program.

The mainstream English language instructional program is the instructional program designed for students who speak only English or who have been exited from the Program.

(or meaningfully participate) is the ability of English language learners to benefit from the mainstream English language instructional program as their school "and district cohorts do. "Benefir_rnay be documented by growth on curriculum-based measures.

Nqtive language instruction includes the provision of instruction in one or more core subject areas in a student's native language as needed. At the elementary level, development of native language arts includes oral language development, reading, and writing. At the middle and high school levels, development of native language arts may be appropriate in identified situations. The purpose of native language instruction is to provide a foundation for literacy in English and/or provide opportunities for learning in core subject areas until instruction in English is appropriate.

The native language instruction portion of the day includes activities that promote literacy and cognitive development in a student's first language. This serves as the foundation for the development of literacy in English.

The Newcomer Center serves English language learners who are new to the district and identified as very limited in literacy in their native language and English. Identified students are served fpj one to two s^r^
language instruction mndel.

The program provides intensive instruction in reading, writing, speaking, and understanding English. Native language instruction, supported English content instruction, and English language development are provided as appropriate. In addition, the Newcomer Center provides support for a student's sodoj-cultural transition to schools in the United States.

The Newcomer Center has a lo.w student-teacher ratio. Computer-assisted instruction is used extensively in the instructional program. Paraprofessionals provide services to students and communicate with parents in languages spoken by more than 15 students in the school.

A professional judgment is made by a professionally trained educator and is basedj>njactual information,.objective assessment, and a sound model of English language acquisition.

A regular classroom is the classroom in which a student's core subject area instruction is primarily provided.

A resource classroom is where instruction to supplement regular classroom instruction is provided.

English Language Acquisition Program
c:\lep\lep2-4.doc

Supported English content instruction is instruction Jiu;nre^subj£cLar£mAxLShQlXeTed English^ which is the use of specialized strategies to increase the likelihood that content in English will be comprehended by English language learners. When content cannot be adequately explained in English, an explanation or feedback in the student's native language may be given. Transitional native language instruction is a model for providing services to English language learners that includes native language instruction in Spanish, supported English content instruction, and English language development. Transition teachers are core subject area, mainstream English language^classroom teachers who have receivedJjO-Jw>«PS of training that Addresses Ihe academic needs of English language learners"who are transitioning to the mainstream English language instructional program. A zone school is a school that provides services for English language learners and where English language learners from other attendance areas are assigned.
English Language Acquisition Program
c:\lep\lep2-4.doc

CHAPTER 2
Introduction
I English Language Acquisition Program
"The English Language Acquisitionprogram (Program)*serves students who are English language learners. The Progrant'xs transitional inttjat its goal is to use efficient and effective techniques to provide students withlfie:"Engrrsh"language skills they need to meaningfully participate in the district's mainstream English language instructional program.
The district offers a tran^tiqnahmtiyejqnguage instruction mgdel and an English as a second Language (ESLJrmodel. The number of students in a school and the languages spoken determine the model used in each school. Components of the models include native language instructions Spanish {transitional native language instruction model only), supported_Engliskx:ontent instruction, and Englishjanguage development.
jTransition to English begins when a student enters the Program. Students traditionally progress from native language instruction (if provided), to supported English content instruction, to mainstream English language classrooms taught by transition teachers with the opportunity for English language development support and finally, to mainstream English language classrooms. Students in transition or mainstream English language classrooms may receive additional support through English language development or an English language transition course. j Language development in the areas of speaking, understanding, reading, and writing English are measured every nine weeks. This provides a basis for monitoring both student progress and Program effectiveness at each site.
The district recognizes the value of teachers who speak the language of the students that they serve. The district endeavors to hire such teachers, and a preference in the assignment process is provided.
The Department_of_English Language Acquisition, formerly the Department of Bilingual/ESOL Education, rnonitors Program implementation and effectiveness at each site.
'Phrases in italics are defined in Chapter 1.
English Language Acquisition Program
c:\lep\lep2-4.doc

II Mainstream English Language Instructional Program
The district's mainstream English language instructional program has many characteristics that make it effective for students from a wide variety of backgrounds. These characteristics include the following:
A. A challenging curriculum based on district content standards and an instructional program consistent with standards-based education;
"B. "Reading instruction in kindergarten through grade 12 that is based on the development of students' language skills;
C. Numerous opportunities for extra assistance that include Title 1 reading programs, reading programs in all middle and high schools, and mandatory summer school for low achievers in reading in grades 3,5, and 8;
D. Districtwide fall and spring writing samples for the purpose of measuring progress and identifying instructional needs;
E. Districtwide fall, mid-year, and spring tests in reading in grades 2 through 9 to measure progress and identify instructional needs;
F. A large block of time in each elementary school devoted to instruction in reading and writing;
G. Individual learning plans in reading for each student reading below grade level in kindergarten through grade 3;
H. Districtwide testing of kindergarten students on developmental assessments in areas that include language, motor skills, auditory and visual discrimination, and number skills;
I. Districtwide fall and spring tests for first grade students with a reading test that provides information about each student's instructional needs;
J. Reading assistants in each elementary school;
K. English language transition classes in all middle and high schools taught by fully qualified ESL teachers that provide intensive instruction in reading, writing, and oral language skills; and
L. A comprehensive assessment program for grades 10 through 12 based on the skills and knowledge needed for success in a career and/or higher education.
English Language Acquisition Program
c:\lep\lep2-4.doc

CHAPTER 3
Parent Communication, Student Screening, and Assessment for Eligibility

The Denver Public Schools identifies all English language learners who enroll in its schools for the purpose of providing them with access to appropriate educational opportunities.

I Instructional Services Advisory Team

A. Each school has an Instructional Services Advisory Team. As described further in Chapter 6, one of their duties is reviewing the classification of students identified as English language learners. The Instructional Services Advisory Team makes recommendations, which are supported by objective evidence, regarding Program entry, exit, and services to the Department of English Language Acquisition consistent with the guidelines in this Program.
B. Establishment of an Instructional Services Advisory Team in a school provides a foundation for that school's accountability for identifying English language learners.

II Parent Communication

At the time that a student registers to enroll in a Denverjaublic school, the parents are asked to choose the language, from among those spoken by "100 or more^Denver Public Schools students, that they prefer to bejised_whejnj:qntacteci by the school_or_district. Communication with the parents is also provided in other languages to the extent practicable.

Ill Student Screening

A. The parents or guardian of each student (or the^sjjudenLif in grade 9 or ahov,e) are asked the

following screening questions at the time the student registers to enroll in a Denver public

school: (1) Does this student speak a language other than English? and (2) Is a language

other than English regularly used by the student's parents or guardian? These questions are

availajbje in written form in each language spoken by 100

o

i

students and in other languages to the extent practicable.

English Language Acquisition Program
c:\lep\lep2-4.doc

B. The parent or guardian of each student, or the student if in grade 9 or above, for whom the answer to either of the screening questions is Yes is asked to choose a response to the following at the time of registration.

The student (choose one):

«,

1. speaks only another language and no English

2. speaks mostly another language and some English

3. speaks another language and English equally .-,

4. speaks mostly or only English

j

C. A student answering Yes to either screening question and for whom the response is 1 or 2 to the statements in III-B above is provisionally identified as an English language learner. Program services are provided in accordance with provisions of this Program.

Students answering Yes to either screening question and for whom the response is 3 or 4 are provisionally placed in the mainstream English language instructional program, pending the outcome of assessments as described in Sections IV and V of this chapter.

D. Students responding Yes to either screening question are assessed as described in Section IV of this chapter.

IV Initial Assessment For Students Answering Yes to Either Screening Question

A. Each student for whom the answer to either screening question in Section III-A of this

chapter is Fes^is assessed in order to determine his or her English language proficiency.

Assessments are completed wjlJiiiiJJi.sciiaaLdays, except that a student is assessed within^ 10

i^

because of J

student's English proficigncy^ This is determined by the classroom teacher's professional

judgment.

B. Each student for whom the answer to either screening questkm in Section III-A of this chapter is YgsAs given the Language Assessment Scales {LAS) s»r another English oral proficiency test that is consistent with Section VII of this^Kapter. Each such test is administered and interpreted in conformity with the instructions of the test publisher. Additionally, the person administering the test is proficient in English.

English Language Acquisition Program
c:\lep\lep2-4.doc

V Further Assessment For Student's Answering Yes to the First Screening Question
A. If a student in grade 2 or above is detejminedlQjbeLQrally p_roilcle_nlJn_English based on the LAS-0, the student will be further objectively assessed in the areas of reading and writing.
B. Examples of objective assessments described in the section above are as follows:
1• Norm rejerencedjchieyement tests such as the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills,
2. Criterion-referenced tests that have been shown to be reliable and valid measures of reading or writing English;
3. Norm referenced tests,specifically designed to be used with English language learners such as the LAS R/W;
4. Performance measures such as writing samples,if such measures are scored according to objective criteria and have been sfiown to be reliable and valid; and
5. The Student Profile (See Attachment 1).
C. Olh^assessments_of reading, writing, speaking, or understanding English may be administered in addition to the objective assessments described above. Such tests may be used to help determine whether or not a student should be classified as an English language learner in accordance with the criteria listed in Section I of Chapter 4.
D. The classroom teacher's professional judgment of a student's reading, writing, understanding, and speaking skills in English may also be considered. This judgment is based on student work samples or classroom observation. For classroom observation, a written description of the situation and the student's behavior is recorded.
VI Further Assessment for Students Answering No to the First Screening Question and Yes to the Second Screening Question
Students answering yes to the second screening question will be assessedjn.thefall utnmn^slajndardjzedreading assessments and writing samples to identify the student's academic strengths and weaknesses.
English Language Acquisition Program
c:\lep\lep2-4.doc

VII Criteria for Selecting Oral Proficiency Tests The criteriajbr selecting an oral proficiency test are the test's reliability and_yalidity as a measure of the language skills of English languagelearhers. Reliability and validity may be demonstrated by statisticaLevidence_or the opinion^ of experts in educating students whose first language is other than English. .Notice^with supporting materials of a change in the oral proficiency test used by the district is provided to the plaintiffs at least 3<T days prior)to the change.
VIII Student Profile Notice with supporting materials of a change to the Student Profile used by the district is provided to the plaintiffs at least 30 days prior to implementation of such change.
English Language Acquisition Program
c:\lep\lep2-4.doc

CHAPTER 4
Classification as an English Language Learner and Parent Permission for Participation
I Classification as an English Language Learner: Students Answering Yes to the First Screening Question
A. After reviewing the recommendation of the Instructional Services Advisory Team,the Department ofUnglisji Language^ Acquisitipn^deiermines whether a student should be classified as an English language learner.
B. The Department of English Language Acquisition classifies a student as an English language learner if the student is not proficient in speaking or understanding English, as defined by the test publisher on an objective oral proficiency test administered pursuant to Section VII of Chapter 3. Classification decisions are made wjthin_20 school days of enrollment. If the provisional placement appears inappropriate, classification decisions are made within 15 school days of enrollment.
C. If a student in grade 2 or above is proficient in speaking and understanding English, based on an oral proficiency test administered pursuant, to Section IV of Chapter 3, the student is further assessed on one or more measures listed in Section V-B of Chapter 3, including the reading and writing sections of the English Language Development component of the Student Profile (See Attachment 1). The Instructional Services Advisory Team recommends that the student be classified as an English language learner if the student is rated lower than a thjr^eiiiJDeadin^jQOMritiiag on the English Language Development component. This component is completed within the 10 or 15 school day period during which assessments are completed. Attachment 2 illustrates the use of these criteria to make Program placement decisions.
D. If the district chposes another objective measure or utilizes different criteria for classification of a student as an English language learner, notice is provided to the plaintiffs 30 days prior to implementation of such change.

English Language Acquisition Program

10

c:\lep\lep2-4.doc

II Classification as an English Language Learner: Students Answering No to the First Screening Question
and Yes to the Second Screening Question

A. The InstructionajAdyisory Services Team recommends that a student be classified as an English language learner if the student is not proficient in speaking or understanding English, as defined by the test publisher on an objective oral proficiency test administered pursuant to Section IV of Chapter 3.
B. The Department of Rnglish Language Acquisition determines^whether a student should be classified as an English language learner after reviewing the recommendation of the Instructional Services Advisory Team.
C. Students with deficiencies in reading and writing will be provided services that may include, but are not limited to, those identified in Section II of Chapter 2.

Ill Parent Permission

A. Parents choose whether or not to have their child participate in the Program. Parents may withdraw permission to participate at any time. Procedures are established to inform parents about the Program so that they can make informed decisions.
1. All eligible students are placed in the Program.
2. All parents are notified of a student's placement in the Program.
3. The district uses reasonabl^efjortsjo obtain, within 10 school days of enrollment, a parent's orguardian's wntovp^rnii^on tojiave^ student remain in the Program. Reasonable efforts may include written communication, telephone calls, andlidfne visits. In the event that such permission cannot be obtained, the district assigns the student to the most appropriate educational setting in accordance with the provisions of this Program.
4. Parents may wjthdrai^ permission for a child to participate in the Program at any time, or a student may remain in the Program until eligible to exit.
B. A written description of the Program and of the services available in the school and the district is available to parents upon a student's enrollment in languages spoken by 100 or more district students. The information below is also provided to the parents:
1. Upon request of the parents, an interpreter for a language spoken by 100 or more district students, or other languages to the extent practicable, is provided to explain the Program services available.

English Language Acquisition Program

11

c:\lep\lep2-4.doc

2. Parents choose whether or not to have their child participate in the Program. Parents may withdraw permission to participate at any time.
3. To the extent that different Progrgm_components are available for English language learners in a school, including native language instruction in Spanish, parents niay_ choose from among them. (See Section I-A of Chapter 8.)
4. Following established "Choice" procedures, parents may transfer students to other district schools to receive available Program services.
'5. Further concerns or questions may be answered by the Department of English Language Acquisition.
IV Monitoring the Progress of Students Who Decline Services
The district monitors the progress of students who have been assessed as eligible for entry into the Program but who have declined services. Where appropriate, the district informs parents of the opportunity to have their child placed in the Program, even though they initially declined services.

English Language Acquisition Program

12

c:\lep\lep2-4.doc

CHAPTER 5
Exiting From the Program
I Exiting from the Program
A. The Department of English Language Acquisition determines whether a student should be exited from the Program after reviewing the recommendation of the Instructional Services Advisory Team.
B. The Instructional ServicesAdvisory[Team makes recommendations regarding whether students should be exited from the Program. In making its recommendations, the Instructional Services Advisory Team recognizes that speaking, understanding,, reading, and writing in English are skills that are necessary for meaningful participation in the mainstream English language instructional program. Indeed, such skills affect the ability to understand and participate in classroom programs, complete homework assignments, and succeed in classroom and other testing programs. The Instructional Services Advisory Team recognizes that all such skills are not necessarily developed simultaneously. Generally, the development of reading and writing skills necessary to participate in the mainstream English language instructional program will take longer than the development of oral skills. The Instructional Services Advisory Team will consider such factors when making its recommendations and those recommendations will be based on the following guidelines.
1. The student is proficient jn speaking an^ujid^r^tandin^English, as defined by thele_s.t_ publisher on an objective oral prpjiciency test (see Section VII of Chapter 3), and if in grade 2 or above, the student meets criterion 2, 3, or 4 below;
2. The student scores at or above the 30th percentile on both nationally normed readingjmd language tests; or, achieves at or above the "proficient^ level in reading and writing English on tests administered as part of the Colorado Student Assessment Program or a similar state program;'or,^cores at a comparable level on the LAS R/W or a similar assessment;
3. The student sqpres between the 20th and 29th percentiles_on both nationally normed reading and language tests and is rated no jower than a three (3) in reading and writing on the English Language Development component that is part of the Student Profile; ~
4. The student meets criteria a, b, and c or d below:
a. The student's classroom tgacher recommends that the student be exited from the Program and the recommendation is supported by the students grades, attendance. test_scores. andclassroom performance for at least one school year after the student has acEieved~oral_rjroficiency, which indicates that the student can meaningfully participate in the mainstream English language instructional program.

English Language Acquisition Program

13

c:\lep\lep2-4.doc

b. The student scores^atjeast_ajthreeJ3^on the reading component of the Student Profile.
c. At the elementary level, the student scores at least a two-^S^on the-v\qj4ing-camponent of the Student Profile. However, a student may be exited with a lower score in extraordinary circumstances.
d. At the middle and high school levels, the student s^ms writing component of the Student Profile. However, a student may be exited with a lower score in extraordinary circumstances.
Attachment 3 illustrates the use of the above criteria, in the exiting process.
C. The student's parents, and the student, if in grades 9 through 12, are informed whenever it is determined by the Department of English Language Acquisition that the student should be exited from the Program and are given the opportunity to requesOhat the decision be reyiewecl by the Executive Director of the Department of English Language Acquisition. A sj
II Progress Toward Instruction in English
A. An English language learner entering the district in early childhood education or kindergarten is expected to have sufficient proficiency in English to meaningfully participate in supported English content instruction or mainstream English language classrooms by the end of grade 3. An English language learner entering the district in grade 1 or higher is expected to have sufficient proficiency in English to meaningfully participate in supported English content instruction or mainstream English language classrooms within three years of enrollment in the district.
B. For each student notjnegtjng the expectatiornii Section II-A above, the school does the following:
1. Determines the student's currentjperforrnance in the areas of reading, writing, speaking, and understanding English to identify where greater proficiency is needed to enable the student to meaningfully participate in a supported English content instruction class;
2. Identifies the reasons the student has not made sufficient progress to transition to supported English content instruction;
3. SujDmi^a^^laj^orJ^J^ingjhe student improve his/her reading, writing, speaking, and understanding of English, including an expected completion time; and
4. Identifies the assessments to be used to measure the student's progress.

English Language Acquisition Program

14

c:\lep\lep2-4.doc

A report describing each student's progress is sent to the Department of English Language Acquisition each semester until the student is being served only in supported English content instruction and/or mainstream English language classrooms.
C. Section II-A of this chapter notwithstanding, a student may continue to receive native language instruction if hdshejm&^meaningfully participate in a mainstream English language classroom or one where supported English content instruction is provided.

Ill Monitoring Students Exited From the Program

A. The progress of each student who was classified as an English language learner and who has been exited from the Program is rnpnitored_for one year after exiting the Program to ensure that the student has sufficient English language skills to meaningfully participate in the district's mainstream English language instructional program. This monitoring occurs as provided below.

1. During the first nine academic weeks following exit:

a. Classroom teachers at the elementary level or core subject area teachers at the secondary level are informed of students who were previously in the Program and are advised that they may refer such students to the Instructional Services Advisory Team if the student's reading, writing, speaking, or understanding of English is a barrier to meaningful participation in the mainstream English language instructional program. The Instructional Services Advisory Team will make a recommendation regarding the student's continued placement in the mainstream English language instructional program.
b. For each student scoring_below_the 20th percentile in reading or language on a nationally normed test prior to exit, academic progress is reviewed byjhe Instructional Services Advisory Team, which will make a recommendation regarding the stu^eTnY^nTmue^pTacemenf in the mainstream English language instructional program.

2. During the first ninejwe^l^of thejsec^^^

exit, core jsubject area

teachers^ at the secondary level are informed of students who were previously in the

Program and are advised that they may refer such students to the Instructional Services

Advisory Team if the student's reading, writing, speaking, or understanding of English is

a barrier to meaningful participation in the mainstream English language instructional

program. The Instructional Services Advisory Team will make a recommendation

regarding the student's continued placement in the mainstream English language

instructional program.

English Language Acquisition Program

15

c:\lep\lep2-4.doc

3. Prior to_the_end of the school year, academic progress, including standardized test scores, for all students exited during the previous year is reviewed by the Instructional Services Advisory Team, which makes a recommendation to the Department of English Language Acquisition regarding the student's continued placement in the mainstream English language instructional program. A recqrd_gf this review for each student is maintained for two years.
B. Reclassificationdecisions are made byjheJDepartment of English Language Acquisition after reviewing the recommendation of the Instructional Services AdvlsoTyTeam, which are ba^ed_oii_,the_above-xriteria,-and any information provided b^jhejiarent. Decisions are based oh whether the student can meaningfully participate in the mainstream English language instructional program.
C. Section III-A of this chapter notwithstanding, students answeringj^esjo either question one or two of Section III-A of Chapter 3, who are not classified as English language learners, including exited students, may be referred to an Instructional Services Advisory Team at any time, while enrolled in a Denver Public School to determine, if they should be evaluatedTor~~ possible classification as an English language learner.

English Language Acquisition Program

16

c:\lep\lep2-4.doc

CHAPTER 6
Instructional Services Advisory Team
A. An Instructional Services Advisory Team is established in each school that provides Program services.
B. The responsibilities of the Instructional Services Advisory Team include the following:
1. Reviewing student information and making recommendations to the Department of English Language Acquisition regarding the classification and reclassification of students as English language learners; the determination of the Department of English Language Acquisition is final;
2. Reviewing services provided to identified English language learners for consistency with the guidelines included in this Program and for appropriateness;
3. Reviewing the progress of English language learners;
4. Dej/elorjing^educational plans, in conjunction with the classroom teacher, as provided for in Section II-B of Chapter 5; and
5. Reviewing the progress of students exited from the Program and making re^oTrmTeTTdatiorisIcTtHe Department of English Language Acquisition regarding the reclassification of students as English language learners.
C. The Instructional Services Advisory Team makes recommendations basedjon the professional judgment of the team. This judgment is supported by evidence that may include formal and informal assessments, observations, or information provided by the classroom teacher or parent. Assessments include those identified in Sections IV, V and VI of Chapter 3.
D. The members of the Instructional Services Advisory Team include at a minimum the following staff, one of whom must befully qualified as defined in Section II oFCHapter 7.
1. Thej3rincjpa]j)r_jin administrator designated by the principal; and
2. X w 0 certificated staff persons assigned to the school, who serve in positions that require the qualifications set forth in Section II of Chapter 7; priority is given tofully qualified teachers as defined in Section II of Chapter 7. To the extent practicable, staff persons will befully qualified ESL/Spanish language teachers at schools that offer a transitional native language instruction model.

English Language Acquisition Program

17

c:\lep\lep2-4.doc

E. A staff member from the Department of English Language Acquisition will be assigned to each Instructional Services Advisory Team. This individual will provide training and model appropriate decision-making processes and use of data.
F. Training is provided to members of the Instructional Services Advisory Team. (See Section VII of Chapter 7.)

English Language Acquisition Program

18

c:\lep\lep2-4.doc

CHAPTER 7 Personnel and Training

I Policy

A. The district staffs classrooms where services are provided for English language learners with -: -teachers_who artfully qualified, as defined below, to address the special needs of these
students.

B. The district staffs classrooms where instruction in Spanish is provided with teachers who are fully qualified, as defined below, to read, write, speak and understand the Spanish language and English.

C. If th£i£_ar£-jiol^-suffiiu£ivtiiumb£^

language teachers for

identified Program classrooms requiring such qualifications, fully qualified ESL teachers will

be assigned in conformity with Section III-E below.

II Qualifications
A. The Spanishjanguage_ skills of applicants and teachers are assessed by:
1. An interview prior to offering the teacher a contract; and
2. A formal test that meets the criteria in Section II-B below.
B. The district formally assesses oral proficiency and proficiency in reading and writing Spanish with tests that are reliable and valid as demonstratgdjby statistical evidence or the ejidorsemeritQfexperts in the Spanish language and/or bilingual education. Notice with supporting materials of a change in the Spanish language proficiency test usecfbylKe" district is provided to the plaintiffs at least_30_daysj)rior to implementation of such change.
C. Teachers in the Program meet all requirements, including those related to proficiency in English and teacher certification or licensure in Colorado, or they have been granted emergency authorization.
D. A fully qualified ESL teacher is one who is state endorsed in teaching the linguistically different or has satisfactorily completed the 150 hours of training provided by the district's Department of English Language Acquisition.

English Language Acquisition Program

19

c:\lep\lep2-4.doc

E. A fully qualified ESL/Spanish language teacher is one who is (1) state endorsed in teaching the linguistically different or has satisfactorily completed the 150 hours of training provided by the district's Department of English Language Acquisition and (2) demonstrates proficiency in speaking, understanding, reading, and writing Spanish on a test that meets the criteria in Section II-B above.
Ill Program Teacher Assignments
A. All teaching positions in the Program are identified as such. In addition, teaching positions are further identified according to whether proficiency in Spanish is necessary. The district recognizes the value of teachers in the Program who speak a language also spoken byji significant number of the students th£y_serve^JTJ^e district gives a preference to such teachers in the assignment process^
B. A fully qualified ESL teacher is assigned to all teacher positions in the Program unless Spanish language skills are necessary.
C. A fully qualified ESL/Spanish language teacher is assigned to all teacher positions in the Program for which Spanish language skills are necessary.
D. Schools organize and assign teachers so that orily^^^Ma/^e^teachersjnstruct in the Program. To accomplish this, students may be regrouped for instructiojn as necessary.
E. Where there are not a sufficient number of fully qualified ESL/Spanish language teachers for identified Program classrooms requiring such qualifications,/^//^ qualified ESL teachers are assigned. The district also does one or both of the following, to the extent administratively feasible, if thejy^jgjie^Jeachej-jsi_not_p_roficient injSpanish:
1. Assigns a Spanish spgaking_parapiofessional to the classroom during core subject area instruction; and/or
2. Regroups students for instruction through use of such strategies as resource teachers and pairing_ofclassrooms so that core subject area instruction is provided in Spanish, if appropriate, by a teacher qualified in Spanish as defined in Section II-E of this chapter.
IV Teacher Training Program
A. Training will be offered at least annualjjrto teachers who are not state endorsed in teaching the linguistically different or who have not completed the requiredj 50 hours of training. The purpose of the training is to provide the following:

English Language Acquisition Program

20

c:\lep\lep2-4.doc

1. Methods for organizingjjjstruction to meet the needs of English language learners;
2. Methods for providing sj4j?2or^d
3. Methods for teaching English to English language learners;
4. Assessment^knis t<^entify_and_diagnose the educational needs of English language learners;
5. Information about firstjmd second language_acquisition theories;
6. Information about howjto challenge andjrnotivate at-risk English language learners;
7. Foundation infonriationjl^jnchj^^jcnowledge about the cultural background of English language learners and district requirements for educating them;
8. Methods of working withjhe parents of English language learners and methods of improving school-community relations;
9. Use of technology to instruct English language learners;
10. Use of the Student Profile.and other assessment instruments to appropriately identify English language learners.
For this training program, one or more staff members from an institution of higher learning assists in the planning and/or the actual training of teachers.
B. Satisfactory completion of the 150-hour training program is required of all designated teachers of English language learners who do not have a state endorsement for teaching the linguistically different.
V Staff Development for New Program Teachers
Before the opening of each school year and again dujingjhe_jirstjbur_weeks of school, a staff jevgjoprnent programJs conducted to introduce the curriculum, assessment procedures, °~ accountability devices, and other relevant material for the Program. A minimum of six hours of staff development is required of all teachers new to the Program by the end of the first month of school.

English Language Acquisition Program

21

c:\lep\lep2-4.doc

VI Training for Transition Teachers

A. TranMtkmjegchgrij&ceive_^^

identified in Section IV-A of this

chapter. Emphasis is on identifying and assessing the needs of English language learners

and students exited from the Program who are enrolled in the mainstream English language

instructional program, as well as on utilizing appropriate instructional strategies for such

students. Training in the use of the Student Profile is also provided.

VII Instructional Services Advisory Team Training

Members of the Instructional Services Advisory Team in each school receive training in the following areas: "*
A. A comrjreh^nsjvej^view_of the English Language Acquisition Program; B. Roles and responsibilities of the team; C. A description of the types of data that may be provided; and D. Models for usjng_data to make recommendations.

VIII Title I Teacher Training

All Title I resource teachers will have sufficient training in learning theory to assist them in identifying and responding to language barriers to academic achievement. Each such teacher will also have sufficient training to ensure that the teacher can respond to student needs and can recognize when a student ought to be recommended for inclusion in the English Language Acquisition Program.

IX Paraprofessionals

A. Individuals employed as paraprofessionals pursuant to this Program meet mjnimum performance standards on (1) an English orajjanguagg. proficiency test, (2) an English readingand writingjest developed or adopted by the district, ^ncR3) an^assessment oF^

English Language Acquisition Program

22

c:\lep\lep2-4.doc

B. Though important, paraprofessionals are not a substitute for fully qualified teachers in the

Program.

~ "

X Appraisals

A. The appraisal of each teacher_assigned to the Program includes information about the teacher's effectiveness in providing instructional services to students in accordance with this Program.

B.~ The appraisal of each principal whose school provides services to English language learners

includes information about the effectiveness of the school in providing services consistent

with the terms of this Program.

~~~

XI Teacher Needs and Recruitment
A. The district annually^s^esse^jnjwriting the need forfully qualified ESL/Spanish teachers, fully qualifiedESL teachers, and paraprofessionals, at each school to meet the needs of this Program.
B. The district annually develops a written plan to obtain additional sjaffjncluding those who are proficient Vietnamese speakers. The plan Includes ouj-of-state recruitment and advertisements in selected journals if sufficient numbers of qualified teachers are not available. Attachment 4 is an example of a Teacher Recruitment Plan.
C. To the extent that the district has need for additional fully qualified ESL/Spanish language teachers under this Program and to the extent that it is within reasonable means, the district maintains a collaborative arrangement with^one or more institutions ofjiigher education for paraprofessionals who speak languages in demand to complete the requirements for teacher certification and become teachers in the district.
D. Consistent with the district's needs and available resources, the district offers selected teachers the opportunity to improve their Spanish language skills in order to become fully qualified.
E. The district maintains records of its activities related to recruitment of teachers and other staff.

English Language Acquisition Program

23

c:\lep\lep2-4.doc

XII Counselors

A. The district has collaborated with the University of Colorado at Denver to establish a training

program for Spanish speaking counselors.

~

B. At least one counselor who has demonstrated proficiency in Spanish on a test that meets the criteria in Section II-B of this chapter will, be assigned to each high school that offers a transitional native language instruction model, beginning in the 1999-2000 school year.

C. At each middle school where a transitional native language instruction program is offered, student guidance and counseling needs will be addressed by a Spanish-speaking counselor or a Spanish-speaking teacher or administrator who is trained to fulfill the counselor's role in the school.

D. The district will continue to recruit and train qualified individuals in an effort to meet the counseling needs identified in Section B and C above.

English Language Acquisition Program

24

c:\lep\lep2-4.doc

CHAPTER 8 Elementary School Instructional Services

I
Introduction

A. Englishlanguage learnersare provided services through either a transitional native language instruction model oran ESL model. Components ofthe transitional native language instruction model include nativelanguageinstruction in Spanish, supported English content instruction, and English language development. Components of the ESL model include supported Englishcontentinstruction and Englishlanguage development.
B. The district provides services forEnglishlanguage learnersineach school where there are ten or more students_who are eligible to participate and desire services. IrLSchools whejgJ)0 ™jrnctre_ErigU$h language learners who jngak_Spanish are enrolled and desire services, the district offers a transitional native language instruction model.
C. The number of eligible students andthelanguages spoken determine theservices provided, except that such services may be provided for fewer than the stated number of students. Also, different models may be provided in a school. Student numbers, unless otherwise stated, are for kindergarten through grade 5.

II Services

A. An ESL model is provided in schools with between K) and 59 English language learners. The program components, teacher qualifications, staffing, and instructional program organization in such schools are described below.

1. Supported Englishcontentinstruction and Englishlanguage development, primarily in the areas of reading, writing, speaking, and understanding English, are provided in a resourceclassroom byafully qualified ESL teacher, except asprovided inII-A-2 and IIA-3 below. These components are provided fotJ^to^il^aerxejiU^rjw^ours^of the school day depending on the student's skills in English. Time requirements are reduced proportionately for one-half day programs.

2. If L ^ r j n o j ^ r f ^ j ^

resourceclassroom teacher assignedto

instruct Spanish speaking students is one who ^^^

3. Whenever possible, if more thanjj stujgnts_s2gak_ajanguage otherjhan Spanish, the resource classroom teacher assigned to provide instruction to these students is orally proficient in this language.

English Language Acquisition Program

25

c:\lep\lep2-4.doc

4. To the extent practicable, no more than_15__students are instructed at one time in a resource classroom.

5. A miiiimuraj}£4Mie-/k^4iia/$^

position in the Program is designated for

each grade level to serve English language learners in regular classrooms.

6. Paraprofessionals are assigned as outlined in Sections VI-C and Vl-D of this chapter.

B. An ESL model is provided in schools with 60 or more English language learners of whom lesslhaiL60 speak Spanish. The program components, teacher qualifications, staffing, and instructional program organization in each such school are described below.

1. Supported English content instruction and English language development are provided in regular classrooms by fuUyj[imlified_ESLjj£a£heTS.

2. A minimum of one fully qualified ESL teacher position in the Program is designated for each grade \Q\Q\XoTS^^EngTisHlah^uag~ele~arners in regular classrooms.

3. Paraprofessionals are assigned as outlined in Sections VI-C and VI-D of this chapter.

4. One fully qualified ESL teadigLwjlLJ3£.as^gned-ta^^£Aau^rg-.i^a^iZQflJflito provide additional instruction and support effective instruction in regular classrooms for English language learners.

a. If \5 or more of the students speak Spanish, the resource classroom teacher is one who isfully qualified ESL/Spanish language.

b. Whenever possible, if more than 15 students speak a language other than Spanish, the resource classroom teacher assigned is orally proficient in this language.

C. A t&m§itioiiQLngtive_language instruction jnodel is provided in schools with 60 or more Spanish speaking English language learners. The program components, teacher qualifications, staffing, and instructional program organization are described below:

1. Native language instruction, supported English content instruction, and English language development are available at each grade level in regular classrooms staffed by a. fully qualified ESL/Spanishlanguage teacher. A minimum of one such classroom is designated for eachgrade level.. If only supported English content instruction and English language development are provided in a classroom, a fully qualified ESL teacher may be assigned

2. Mainstream English language classrooms staffed with transition teachers_are provided.

English Language Acquisition Program

26

c:\lep\lep2-4.doc

3. Paraprofessionals are assigned as outlined in Sections VI-C and VI-D of this chapter.
4. If fewer than1 O_£nglishjanguqge learners who speak a language other than Spanish_are enrolled in a school^ supported English content instruction and English language developmental^ provided to these students in a regular classroom.
5. If a school has more than 10 English language learners enrolled who speak a language other than Spanish, supported English content instruction and English language development are provided to these students in an ESL resource classroom as described in Section II-A of this chapter.
D. In schools with fewsx^iMJ^jEjlgLisJijQiigugge^le^grtiers, transportation is provided, in accordance with district guidelines, Xo^Torwjchools offering Program services.
E. At each school where the district offers an ejdy_chjIdiiQOjd education -program, the program provides transitional native language instruction if (1) 50 percent or more^f_thej)revious yearlsjdndgrgarten students were identified as S_panishjpgaking English language learners and (2) thejscjiooj_wiH offer a transitional native language instruction modeHbr kindergarten through grade 5 students.
F. Attachment 5 provides an example of the schools that will implement each of the models described in Sections A through C above.
HI Program Placement
A. After students are identified as English language learners, the following factors_are considered in determining the Program components provided:
1. For Spanish language background students, proficiency in speaking and understanding Spanish, which may be determined by a formal assessment;
2. Reading and writing proficiency in a language other than English;
3. Educational history; and
4. Proficiency in reading, writing, understanding, and speaking English.
I
B. The Department of English Language Acquisition and the Department of Special Education determine appropriate Program services for students with disabilities who are identified as English language learners.

English Language Acquisition Program

27

c:\lep\lep2-4.doc

IV Progress in the Program in Schools Offering a Transitional Native Language Instruction Model
A. Transition to English begins when students enter the Program. Students traditionally progress from native language instruction in schools where this Program is offered to supported English content instruction, to mainstream English language classrooms with transition teachers, and finally to mainstream English language classrooms, only.

B. A LAS^l, Spanish speaking student is served in a transitional native language instruction classroom.

C. A LAS-2, Spanish speaking student would not ordinarily be expected to be ready to progress from transitional native language instruction to supported English content instruction. The transitional native language instruction teacher uses a variety of factors to determine when a student has the skills to be moved from the transitional native language component to the supported English content instruction component. The factors to be considered are the ability to understand academic English vocabulary, to engage in classroom conversation in English, and to understand classroom materials in English. Evidence regarding these factors may come from the following sources:

j 1. Classroom performance;

| 2. Tests;

3. Student Profile;

4. Aptitude for given content areas;

5. Attendance; and

6. Classroom behavior
D. Any assignment to a supported English content instruction component of a LAS-2, Spanish speaking student occurs only after the student has been with the teacher in the transitional native language instruction classroom for thre^(3^)j)rjnore_weeks.

E. Nothing herein is designed to preclude the assignment of a LAS^Spanish speaking student to a transitional native language instruction component or a mainstream class component if the JTgftt judgment nf the principal or staff is that such an assignment would be in the best_ interest of the student and is consistent with the provisions of this Program.

F. Ongoing^communication between the transitional native language instruction and supported

English coftfe»T/m7n^77ajj[]gac^^

the~assigninenTTs

appropriate or needs to be reconsidered.

English Language Acquisition Program

28

c:\lep\lep2-4.doc

G. The district agrees to maintain records sufficient to determine the language skills of those students participating in transitional native language instruction and supported English content instruction components. These records represent scores on objective testing instruments at the beginning and end of a school year.
H. The parent is informed of any changes in services provided to the student.
V Assessment of Progress and Readiness for Exit
A. All schools providing Program services assess each student's progress toward achieving proficiency in English. A variety of assessments in reading, writing, speaking, and understanding English are used.
( \yjFormal oral proficiency tests such as the LAS, SOLOM, and Woodcock-Munoz;, one of ^ these tests is administered at least once each_scliQQl year until the student attains oral proficiency;
2. Informal D_ral4>roJiciency measures such as the Language Continuum Checklist;
/<5) Norm-referenced tests such as the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills, LAS-R/W, and Woodcock~/ Mufioz;
4. Assessments c>f^jvocabularyappropriate for each grade level as determined by the district;
5- Content assessments such as ALPAS Language/Reading or standards-based measures;
6. Diagnostic reading inventories or assessments such as the Qualitative Reading Inventory (Q_RJ), Basic Reading Inventory (BRI), cloze tests, informal reading inventories of comprehension, and running records of reading progress;
The Student Profile;
Wiiting_samples and ongoing records of writing progress; and
/ 9.) Classroom t^(^hers\ professionaljudsment of a student's reading, writing, speaking, and understanding skills based on student work samples or classroom observation during identified instructional situations.
Assessments like those listed in 1,3, 7, 8, and 9 above are always considered, while the other measures are examples of additional materials that may be helpful in assessing progress and readiness for reclassification. InjiQj:_yentis_a_student who scores j _ , 2, or 3 onjhe LAS denied the opportunity to receive Program services.

English Language Acquisition Program

29

c:\lep\lep2-4.doc

Based on assessments like those above and the teachers' professional judgment, a record of each student's progress and actual student work is maintained and made available to parents and staff. This record is used to determine transition points to instruction that provides fewer supports for English language comprehension and to the mainstream English language instructional program.
B. At intervals no longer than njrjej&eejcs, parents areinfojrmedjn writm^of each student's progress toward becoming English proficient.
VI Program Staffing
A. Ppogmm-specialisisjaie teachers or administrators who are supervised by and accountable to the Department of English Language Acquisition and are responsible for oversight and coordination of the Program in elementary schools. Program specialists perform the following duties:
1. Coach and mentor teachers working with English language learners, demonstrating appropriate lessons and strategies as needed;
2. Manage^the Program 's assessment system in each school;
3. Serve as a resource for the Instructional Services Advisory Team;
4. Help schools select and purchase quajity materials: and
5. Monitox^xpjanations of the Program provided to parents and parent requests regarding Program services.
B. In selecting surjpjemental staff like the librarian, physical education teacher, and music teacher, consideration is given to hiringqualified staff persons who are proficient in one of the languages spoken by English language learners at the school!

English Language Acquisition Program

30

c:\lep\lep2-4.doc

C. For every 15 English language learners who speak the same language, which is a language otherthaiLSpanish, in a school where Program services are provided for English language learners, sjxjiours of assistance per day by paraprofessionals who speak that language is provided to tutor students and help them in class. A ma^imumjpjfJZ^ hqursjser day of such assistance is provided in each school for a given language ^roup. Implementation of this provision is dependent on the availability of qualified applicants.
D. To the_extent practicable, whenever there are 24 or more Spanish speaking. English language learners in a school and services are provided in that school for English language learners, three hoursLper day of assistance hy paraprojg-ssinnais who speak this language are provided to tutor students and help them in class. For each_addjtional_gight Spanish speaking. English language learners in a school, an_additi_onalJiouLof para^jofessLorial_assislaace is provided.
E. Pamprofe^oiialjiours allocated pursuant to Sections VI-C and VI-D of this chapter may be exchanged for teachers consistent with district guidelines, if the following conditions are met:
1. The teachers serve the English language learners for whom the paraprofessional hours were allocated;
2. The core_subie_ct_oreajteacjiersLarejsrqficjenUin the language spoken by the English language learners that they serve;
3. The overall resources to serve English language learners arejiot othejQ^sj^^mjmshed; and
4. The planned use of the converted paraprofessional hours is approyedjpy the Department of English Language Acquisition.
VII Curriculum
A. The curriculum for English language learners will be the same as that used for the mainstream English language instructional program. Appropriate instructional strategies are used to make the curriculum accessible.
B. The district will have a process for identifying gifted and talentedLsludenls, which will include opportunities for English langug_geJearners_tQ±e_SD identified. In addition, a modified curriculum and instructional strategies in the classroom such as "acceleration" and "expansion" are used, where appropriate, with gifted students.

English Language Acquisition Program

31

c:\lep\lep2-4.doc

CHAPTER 9
Middle School Instructional Services
I Introduction
A. English language learners are provided services through either a transitional native language instruction model or an ESL model. Components of the transitional native language instruction model include native language instruction in Spanish, supported English content instruction, and English language development. Components of the ESL model include supported English content instruction and English language development.
B. The district provides a transitional^native language instruction model for Spanish speaking English language learners in each school where there areT2jQrjnpre_eligible students who desire services. The district provides an ESL model at one or more schools for English language learners who speak a language other than Spanish, depending on the number of students desiring services and space availability. Transportation is provided to these schools in accordance with district policy.
C. The number of eligible students and the languages spoken determine the services provided, except that such services may be provided for fewer than the stated number of students. Also, different models may be offered in a school.
II Services
A. The NewcomerjCenter provides services to students new to the United States who have had limited formal education. Generally, students assigned to the Newcomer Center will transitiorUo an ESL or transitional native language instruction model, as described in Sections II-B and II-C of this chapter, within, one scho_p_Lyear. The Program components, teacher qualifications, staffing, and instructional program organization are described below.
1. Native language instruction (for Spanish speakers), supported English content instruction, and English language development are provided i
2. Paraprofessionals are assigned as outlined in Sections VI-C and VI-D of this chapter.
3. Fully qualified ESL orfully qualified ESL/Spanish language teachers are assigned to each designated for English language learners. If 15 or more
students at the Newcomer Center speak Spjmishj at least one teacher who is proficient in this language is assigned.

English Language Acquisition Program

32

c:\lep\lep2-4.doc

B. An ESLjpnodel is provided for English language learners who speak a language other than Spanish. The model components, teacher qualifications, staffing, and instructional program organization are described below.
1. Core subject area instruction in supported English content instruction is provided in regular classrooms for each^grade level.
2. English language development is provided in regular classrooms for two periods per ,, unle^sjiolJiiihe^eM_edjic^oiiaIinlerests of the student (e.g., a student who is on an ]\ athletic scholarship track and needs to meet NCAA course requirements)
3. To the extent_practicable, class size for supported English content instructionjn core subject areas and English language development is kept to a maxirn^um_of_iS^Students.
4. A mainstream English language,classroom is staffed by a transition teacher at each level in core subject areas.
5. Fully qualified ESL or ESL/Spanish language teachers are assigned to each core subject area course designated for English language learners.
6. Paraprofessionals are assigned as outlined in Sections VI-C and VI-D of this chapter.
7. The numbj^oXsil£s_at which this model is offered is determined by the number of eligible students who wish to participate, their residence areas, and space availability. The district will investigate the reasons why eligible studentsdo not enter this model by surveying parents of eligible English language learners to determine if their children might participate if the program were located on the north or west side of the city. The survey will be completed by March 1, 1999, and results will be shared with the plaintiffs within 30 days.
C. A trqnsitionaljnative language instruction model is provided in schools with Z5_ojLmo_re Spanish speaking. English language learners who desire services consistent with facility capacity considerations. The program components, teacher qualifications, staffing, and instructional program organization in each such school are described below.
1. Core subject area instruction in Spanish (native language instruction), as needed, and supported English content instruction in regular classrooms at each grade level are available.
2. Ejiglish language development is provided in regular classrooms for twcrperiods per day unless not in the best educational interests_of the student (e.g., a student who is on an athletic scholarship track and needs to meet NCAA course requirements).
3. A v^ainstr^mLEnglMLljm^(^e.QlasMOOjn\% staffed by a transition teacher at each grade level in core subject areas.

English Language Acquisition Program

33

c:\lep\lep2-4.doc

4. Paraprofessionals are assigned as outlined in Sections VI-C and VI-D of this chapter.

5. A fully qualified ESL/Spanish language teacher is assigned to eachjx>rejSubjec£greacourse designated for English language learners. A fully qualified ESL teacher may be assigned if only supported English content instruction and English language development are provided, congruent with the conditions set forth in Section IV below.

D. Transportation is provided as follows:

1. In instances where a school has fewer than75Spanish speakingjinglish languqge learners and in the extraordinary circumstances where transitional native language instruction is not provided when 75 or more Spanish speaking students are enrolled in a school, students are transported in accordance with district policy to a zone school . offering a transitional native language instruction model.

2. Transportation is provided to a zone school(s) offering an ESL model in accordance with

district policy.

~

3. Transportation is provided to the Newcomer_C^enter_vci accordance with district policy.

E. An English language transition class will be offered at all middle schools.

F. Attachment 5 provides an example of the schools that will implement each of the models described in Sections A through C above.

Ill Program Placement

A. After students are identified as English language learners, the following factors are

considered in determining the Program components provided:

"~

1. For Spanish language background students, proficiency in speaking and understanding Spanish, which may be determined by a formal assessment;

2. Reading and writing proficiency in a language other than English;

3. Educational history; and

4. Proficiency in reading, writing, understanding, and speaking English.

B. The Department of English Language Agguisition^and the Department of Special Education determine appropriate Program services for students with disabilities who are identified as English language learners.

English Language Acquisition Program

34

c:\lep\Iep2-4.doc

IV Progress in the Program in Schools Offering a Transitional Native Language Instruction Model
A. Transition to English begins when students enter the Program. Students traditionally progress from native language instruction in schools where this Program is offered to supported English content instruction, to mainstream English language classrooms with transition teachers and finally to mainstream English language classrooms, only.
B. A L A S ^ Spanish speaking student is served in a transitional native language instruction classroom.
C. A LAS-2JSpanish speaking student would not ordinarily be expected to be ready to progress from transitional native language instruction to supported English content instruction. The transitional native language instruction teacher uses a variety of factors^ to determine when a student has the skills to be moved from the transitional native language component to the supported English content instruction component. The factors to be considered are the ability to understand academic English vocabulary, to engage in classroom conversation in English, and to understand classroom materials in English. Evidence regarding these factors may come from the following sources:
1. Classroom performance;
2. Tests;
3. Student Profile;
4. Aptitude for given content areas;
5. Attendance; and
| 6. Classroom behavior
D. Any assignment to a supported English content instruction component of a LAS-2, Spanish speaking student shall occur only after the student has been with the teacher in the transitional native language instruction classroom for three_(3_^or more weeks.
E. Nothing herein is designed to preclude the assignment of a LAS^ljSpanish speaking student to a transitional native language instruction component or a mainstream clj^^comrjojient if the best judgment of the principal or stafflilRiOu^lh^assignment would be in the best interest of the student and is consistent with the provisions of this Program.
F. Opening rnrnrnnpiratinn hetwppn the transitional native language instruction and supported English content instruction teachers is maintained to determine whether the assignment is appropriate or needs to be reconsidered.

English Language Acquisition Program

35

c:\lep\lep2-4.doc

G. The district agrees to maintain records sufficient to determine the language skills of those students participating in transitionafnaTive language instruction and supported English content instruction components. These records represent scores on objective testing instruments at the beginning and end of a school year.
H. The parent is informed of any changes in services provided to the student.
V Assessment of Progress and Readiness for Exit
A. All schools providing Program services assess each student's progress toward achieving proficiency in English. A variety of assessments in reading, writing, speaking, and understanding English are used.
t\. )Fojin5LoraLErJ2fi£iency_tests such as the LAS, SOLOM. and Woodcock-Munoz. which / are administered at least once annually until the student attains oral proficiency;
2. Informal oral proficiency measures such as the Language Continuum Checklist;
^ NojTjvreferenced tests such as the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills, LAS-R/W, and WoodcockMunoz;
4. Assessments of vocabulary appropriate for each grade level as determined by the district;
5. Content assessments such as ALPAS Language/Reading or standards-based measures;
6. Diagnostic^rgading inventories or assessments such as the Qualitative Reading Inventory (P_RI), Basic Reading Inventory (BRJ), cloze tests, informal reading inventories of comprehension, and running records of reading progress;
j ) The Student Profile;
Writing samples and ongoing records of writing progress; and
.Classroom teachers' professumaLjudgmenLof a student's reading, writing, speaking, and understanding skills based on student work samples or classroom observation during identified instructional situations.
Assessments like those listed in 1, 3, 7, 8, and 9 above are always considered, while the other measures are examples of additional materials that may be helpful in assessing progress and readiness for reclassification. In no event is a student who scores 1, 2, or 3 on the LAS denied the opportunity to receive Program services.

English Language Acquisition Program

36

c:\lep\lep2-4.doc

Based on assessments like those above and the teachers' professional judgment, a_record_of each student's progress and actual student work is maintained and made available to parents and staff. This record is used to determine transition points to instruction that provides fewer supports for English language comprehension and to the mainstream English language instructional program.
B. At intervals no longer than ninejweeks, parents are informed in writing of each student's progress.
VI Program Staffing
A. Program^eojaiists are teachers or administrators who are supervised by and accountable to the Department of English Language Acquisition and are responsible for oversight and coordination of the Program in middle schools. Program specialists perform the following duties:
1. Coach and mentor teachers working with English language learners, demonstrating appropriate lessons and strategies as needed;
2. Manage^the^Progra/w^'j^assessment^ystem in each school;
3. Serve as a resource for the Instructional Services Advisory Team (ISAT);
4. Help the school select and purchase^ quality materials; and
5. Monitor explanations of the Program provided to parents and parent requests regarding Program services.
B. In selecting staff for such supplemental teacher positions^as the librarian, counselor, and student advisor, consideration is_giyen.Iqhiring qnalified-staff-persons who are proficient in one of the languages^goken by English language learners at the school.
C. For every \5_Ej2gJishJanguage learners who speak the sarnejanguage, which is a language other than Spanish, in a school where Program services are provided for English language learners, six hours of assistance per day by paraprofessionals who speak that language is provided to tutoTstudents and helpthem in class. A maximunTof 24 hoursperjay^of such assistance is provided in each school for a given language group. Implementation of this provision is dependent on the availability of qualified applicants.

English Language Acquisition Program

37

c:\lep\lep2-4.doc

D. To the extent practicable, whenever there are 36 or more Spanish speaking. English language learners in a school and services are provided in that school for English language learners, three hours per day of assistance by paraprofessionals who speak this language are provided to tutor students and help them in class. For each additional 12 Spanish speaking. English language learners in a school, an addilLojialJiour_of paraprofessional assistance is provided.
E. Paraprofessional hours allocated pursuant to Sections VI-C and VI-D of this chapter may be exchanged forjej_chjre_ coji^sjent_with district guidelines, if the following conditions are met:
1. The teachers serve the English language learners for whom the paraprofessional hours were allocated.
2. The core subject area teachers are proficient in the language spoken by the English language learners that they serve.
3. The overall resources to serve English language learners are not otherwise diminished; and
4. The planned use of the converted paraprofessional hours is approved by the Department of English Language Acquisition.
VII Curriculum
The curriculum for English language learners will be the same_as that used for the mainstream English language instructional program. Appropriate instructional strategies are used to make the curriculum accessible.

English Language Acquisition Program

38

c:\lep\lep2-4.doc

CHAPTER 10
High School Instructional Services
I Introduction
A. English language learners are provided services through either a transitional native language instruction model or an ESL model. Components of the transitional native language instruction model include native language instruction in Spanish, supported English content instruction, and English language development. Components of the ESL model include supported English content instruction and English language development.
B. The district provides a transitional native language instruction model for Spanish speaking English language learners in each school where there are 700_or_more eligible students who desire services. The district provides an ESL model for English language learners who speak a language other than Spanish at one or more schools, depending on the number of students desiring services and space availability. Transportation is provided to these schools in accordance with district policy.
C. The number of eligible students and the languages spoken determine the services provided, except that such services may be provided for fewer than the stated number of students. Also different models may be provided in a school.
II Services
A. A Newcomer Center provides services to students new to the United States and who have had limited formal education. The program components, teacher qualifications, staffing, and instructional program organization are described below.
1. Native language instruction (for Spanish speakers), supported English content instruction, and English language development are provided in regular classrooms.
2. Paraprofessionals are assigned as outlined in Sections VI-C and VI-D of this Chapter
3. Fully qualified ESI'•jrrj^Uv_qualified ESL/Spanish language teachers are assigned to each core subject area course designated lor English language learners. If i5_QCjriore students at the Newcomer Center speak Spajoisiij^JeasLorieJeacher who is proficient in this language is assigned.

English Language Acquisition Program

39

c:\lep\lep2-4.doc

B. An ESL model is provided in identified schools for English language learners who speak a language other than Spanish. The model components, teacher qualifications, staffing, and instructional program organization in each such school are described below.

1. Core subject area instruction in supported English content instruction is provided in regular classrooms.

2. English language development is provided in regular classroom^ f°r two periods per day

unless not in the best educational interests of the student (e.g., a student who is on an

7

athletic scholarship track and needs to meet NCAA course requirements).

3. To the extent practicable, class size for supported English content instruction in core subject areas and English language development is kept to a maximum of j_8jtudents.

4. Paraprofessionals are assigned as outlined in Sections VI-C and VI-D of this chapter.

5. Fu]h^gualified_ESL or ESL/Spanish language teachers are assigned to each core subject area course designated for English language learners.

The number of sites at which the Program is offered is determined by the number of eligible students who wish to participate, their residence areas, and space availability.

C. A transitwnal native language instruction model is provided in schools with 200 or more S^amsl^srjeaking, English language learners who desire services consistent with facility capacity considerations. The program components, teacher qualifications, staffing, and instructional program organization are described below.

1. Cjore__sub;ect area instruction is available in Spanish {native language instruction), as needed, and supported English content instruction in regular classrooms at each grade level.

2. English language development is provided in regular classrooms for twcrrjeriods per day -UnJessjiot m the best educational interests of the student (e.g., a student who is on an
athletic scholarship track and needs to meet NCAA course requirements).

3. Paraprofessionals are assigned as outlined in Sections VI-C and VI-D of this chapter.

4. A fully qualified ESL/Spanish language teacher is assigned to each core subject area course designated for English language learners. A fully qualified ESL teacher may be assigned if only supported English content instruction and English language development are provided, congruent with the conditions set forth in Section IV below.

English Language Acquisition Program

40

c:\lep\lep2-4.doc

D. Transportation is provided as follows:
1. In instances where a school has fewejrJhan_200^Spanish speaking English language learners and in the extraordinary circumstances where transitional native language instruction is not provided when 200 or more Spanish speaking students are enrolled in a school, students are transported in accordance with district policy to a zone school offering a transitional native language instruction model.
2. Transportation is provided to a zone school(s) offering an ESL modgljn accordance with district policy.
3. Transportation is provided to thsJ&wcotppr Cpnter in accordance with district policy.
E. An English language transition class will be offered at all high_schools.
F. Attachment 5 provides an example of the schools that will implement each of the models described in Sections A through C above.
Ill Program Placement
A. After students are identified as English language learners, the following factors are considered in determining the Program components provided:
1. For Spanish language background students, proficiency in speaking and understanding Spanish, which may be determined by a formal assessment;
2. Reading and writing proficiency in a language other than English;
3. Educational history; and
4. Proficiency in reading, writing, understanding, and speaking English.
B. The Department of English Language Acquisition andjhe Department of Special Education determine appropriate Program services for students with disabilities who are identified as English language learners.

English Language Acquisition Program

41

c:\lep\lep2-4.doc

IV Progress in the Program in Schools Offering a Transitional Native Language Instruction Model
A. Transition to English begins when students enter the Program. Students traditionally progress from native language instruction in schools where this Program is offered to supported English content instruction, to mainstream English language classrooms with transition teachers and finally to mainstream English language classrooms, only.
B. A LAS-1, Spanish speaking student is served in a transitional native language instruction classroom.
C. A LAS-2, Spanish speaking student would not ordinarily be expected to be ready to progress from transitional native language instruction to supported English content instruction. The transitional native language instruction teacher uses a variety of factors to determine when a student has the skills to be moved from the transitional native language component to the supported English content instruction component. The factorsjo be considered are the ability to understand academic English vocabulary, to engage in classroom conversation in English, and to understand classroom materials in English. Evidence regarding these factors may come from the following sources:
1. Classroom performance;
2. Tests;
3. Student Profile;
4. Aptitude for given content areas;
5. Attendance; and
6. Classroom behavior
D. Any assignment to a supported English content instruction component of a LAS-2, Spanish speaking student shall occur only after the student has been with the teacher in the transitional native language instruction classroom for three (3) or more weeks.
E. Nothing herein is designed to preclude the assignment of a LAS-3, Spanish speaking student to a transitional native language instruction component or a mainstream class component if the best judgment of the principal or staff is that such an assignment would be in the best interest of the student and is consistent with the provisions of this Program.
F. Ongoing_communication between the transitional native language instruction and supported English content instruction teachers is maintained to determine whether the assignment is appropriate or needs to be reconsidered.

English Language Acquisition Program

42

c:\lep\lep2-4.doc

G. The district agrees to maintain records sufficient to determine the language skills of those students participating in transitional native language instruction and supported English content instruction components. These records represent scores on objective testing instruments at the beginning and end of a school year.
H. The parent is informed of any changes in services provided to the student.
V Assessment of Progress and Readiness for Exit
A. All schools providing Program services assess each student's progress toward achieving proficiency in English. A variety of assessments in reading, writing, speaking, and understanding English are used.
1 //Formal oral proficiency tests such as the LAS, SOLOM, and Woodcock-Munoz, which are administered at least once annually until the student attains oral proficiency;
2. Informal oral proficiency measures such as the Language Continuum Checklist;
S Norm-referenced tests^such as the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills, LAS-R/W, and WoodcockMufioz;
4. Assessments of vocabulary appropriate for each grade level as determined by the district;
5. Content assessments sjich^as ALPAS Language/Reading or standards-based measures;
6. Diagnostic reading inventories or assessments such as the Qualitative Reading Inventory (PRO, Basic Reading invenToTTfBftFh cloze tests, informal reading inventories of comprehension, and running records of reading progress;
) The Student Profile;
/ s J Writing samples and_ongoing records of writing progress; and
9)) Classroom \eachzr]sjm)£essional judgment of a student's reading, writing, speaking, and understanding skillsbased on studenFwork samples or classroom observation during identified instructional situations.
Assessments like those listed in 1,3, 7, 8, and 9 above are always considered, while the other measures are examples of additional materials that may be helpful in assessing progress and readiness for reclassification. In no event is a student who scores 1, 2, or 3 on the LAS denied the opportunity to receive Program services.

English Language Acquisition Program

43

c:\lep\lep2-4.doc

Based on assessments like those above and the teachers' professional Judgment, recordjpf each_student's progress and actual student work is maintained and made available to parents and staff. This record is used to determine transition points to instruction that provides fewer supports for English language comprehension and to the mainstream English language instructional program.
B. At intervals no longer than nine weeks, parents are infhrmed_in writing of each student's progress toward becoming English proficient.
VI Program Staffing
A. -Progra/^Lspedalists are teachers or administrators who are supervised by and accountable to the Department of English Language Acquisition and are responsible for oversight and coordination of the Program in high schools. Program specialists perform the following duties:
1. Coach andjrientor_teaehe.rs_WQrking with English language learners, demonstrating appropriate lessons and strategies as needed;
2. Manage the Program 's assessment system jn each school;
3. Serve as a resource for the Instructional Services Advisory Team (ISAT);
4. Help the school select andjmrchasejiuality materials; and
5. Monitor explanations of the Program provided to parents and parent requests regarding Program services.
B. In selecting staff for such supplemental teacher positions as the librarian, counselor, and student advisor, consideration will be given to hiring qualified staff persons who are proficient in one of the languages spoken by English language learners at the school.
C. For every 15 English language, learners who speak the same language, which is a language othgr than Spanish,j n a school where Program services are provided for English language learners, six hours of assistance per day by paraprofessionals who speak that language is provided to tutor students and help thernlrTclass. A maximunToT 24 hours_per day of such assistance is provided in each school for a given language group. Implementation of this provision is dependent on the availability of qualified applicants.
D. To the extent practicable, whenever there are 48 or more Spanish speaking, English language learners in a school and services are provided in that school for English language learners, three hours per day_of assistance by paraprofessionals who speak this language are provided to tutor students and help them in class. For each additional 16 Spanish language^English language learners in a school, an additional hour of paraprofessional assistance is provided.

English Language Acquisition Program

44

c:\lep\lep2-4.doc

E. Paraprofessional hours allocated pursuant to Sections VI-C and VI-D of this chapter may be exchanged for teachers consistent with district guidelines, if the following conditions are met:
1. The teachers serve the English language learners for whom the paraprofessional hours were allocated.
2. The core subject area teachers are proficient in the language spoken by the English language learners that they serve.
3. The overall resources to serve English language learners are not otherwise diminished; and
4. The planned use of the converted paraprofessional hours is approved by the Department of English Language Acquisition.
VII Curriculum
The curriculum for English language learners will be the same as that used for the mainstream English language instructional program. Appropriate instructional strategies are used to make the curriculum accessible.

English Language Acquisition Program

45

c:\lep\lep2-4.doc

CHAPTER 11 Parental Oversight

I English Language Acquisition Program
Parent Advisory Committees

-A. Each school providing services to 20 or more English language learners has a parent advisory committee (formerly called the Bilingual Parent Advisory Committee) chosen by the parents of these students. As an alternative, a subcommittee of an existing school site committee may be established to serve this purpose.
B. The purpose of the committee is to listen to the concerns of parents regarding the Program and review the implementation of the Program.
C. It is expressly understood that the district discharges its obligation under this provision if it makes a good faith effort_to implement it.

II English Language Acquisition Program
Districtwide Advisory Committee

A. A districtwide advisory committee will be established. The committee is reconstituted each year. The committee includes a parent representativeJfrorn_each_school where services^for 20 or more English language learners are provided. The parent representative must have a child in the Program. The representatives, chosen by the parents, choose a chairperson.

B. The committee set forth herein meets at least once every month-during the school year. Translators are made avajjable_to facilitate committee meetings and to assist with the development of required reports.

C. The districtwide advisory committee includes the following among its responsibilities:

1. Reyigw_and comment on annual reports provided to the Board of Education as described in Section II of Chapter 12;

2. Revie^andj^ommejoLQ^

available for each school;

3. Provide input about the district's efforts to increase parental involvement in activities sponsored by the Program and the plan to provjdejan jinnual framing program for parents regarding their rights and responsibilities in connection with this Program;

English Language Acquisition Program

46

c:\lep\lep2-4.doc

4. Qiscuss parental concerns regarding the structure or operation of the committees identified in Section I of this chapter;
5. Provide an opportunity for parents to discuss concerns about the Program; and 6. E£p_QiLalj£ast_once^annually on their activities-to the Board of Education.
Ill Parent Training
The district provides training to parents regarding their rights and responsibilities as provided for in this Program.

English Language Acquisition Program

47

c:\lep\lep2-4.doc

CHAPTER 12
Accountability
I Program Implementation

To support the effective implementation of the Program, the district does the following:

A. Informs principals and CDMs of the provisions in this Program and their responsibility and accountability to implement them;

B. Assigns a staff person from the Department of English Language Acquisition to each Instructional Services Advisory_Team; this person helps ensure that schools have effective teams that can meet the responsibilities set forth in Section B of Chapter 6;
C. Develops standards.jbrthsJtypes of hooks qnii_rxLgigrigJs that should be available in schools; for a school that does not meet these standards develops an improvement plan in coordination with the Department of Elementary or Secondary Education;

D. Reviewsjmnually the effectiveness of alLtraining/skill development programs provided; these evaluations are based, in part, on objective evidence provided by participants and others;

E. jV[ojnitors_slaff.assigned to the Program at each school to ensure that assignments are consistent with this Program;

F. Reyiewsj3eriojiH^^

to_?H English language learners to ensure

that all eligible students who wish to participate are being served in accordance with the

guidelines of this Program;

G. Monitors_the_progre.ss_of English language learners in accordance with established procedures.

H. Identifies individual students who do notjnake_exrjected^ progress and reviews for appropriateness the~services provided to them; changes are ma3e~as needed;

I. Includes in the principal appraisal process a measure of the extent to which effective services for English language learners are provided consistenLwith this Program; and

J. Identifies staff members who are responsible for each of the following:

1. Recruiting teachers;

2. Developing and implementing the 150 hour training program;

English Language Acquisition Program

48

c:\lep\lep2-4.doc

3. Monitoring the availability of materials for Program classrooms;
4. Implementing the English Language Acquisition Program entry and exit procedures in accordance with this Program;
5. Implementing the instructional model described in this Program;
6. Monitoring the curricula taught in English Language Acquisition Program classrooms; and
7. Preparing annual reports to the Board of Education.
II Reporting
A. A report to the Board of Educationjwill be presented by December 15th of each school year that provides the following:
1. Stud£nLd£mi)gi^hjc^mfOjm^tioji, including the number of English language learners in the district, their grade levels, and the languages spoken;
2. The number of English language learners receiving special education services;
3. Program services provided to each student and the relationship of such services to LAS Scores and studenfacHievement; and
4. Teachers assigned to the Program and their qualifications.
B. A report to the Board of Education will be presented by October 1 st of each year that describes Program implementation for the previous school year including the following:
1. Pei^nneljnformation, including the recruiting plan and hiring information;
2. The 150-hour training program and information about participation;
3- Entry and exit procedures and the number of students exited from the program;
4. The number of parents requesting that English Language Acquisition Program services not_be provided to their children;
5. Program semce^royidedJaxacli^ludeiil andlhe_jelationship of such services to LAS scores and student achievement;
6. The curriculum provided to English language learners and the extent to which this curriculum is comparable to that provided to other district students.

English Language Acquisition Program

49

c:\lep\lep2-4.doc

7. Opportunities to_receive training in effective instructional techniques for addressing district content standards;
8. Standards fnr honks and materials that are to be provided in each Program classroom and the availability of such books and materials;
9. The number of monitored students whcrwere reclassified as English language learners; and
10. The Program's eifectiveness^Jncluding evidence of students' progress in acquiring English and levels of student achievement.
Ill Review Procedures
A. Whenever parents believe that their child or children are not being served in accordance with the terms of this, Program, the following procedures are used:
1. The parents discuss the concerns with the principal of the school and attempt to reach satisfactory resolution; and
2. If a satisfactory resolution is not reached with the principal, the parents may ask the Department of English Language_Acquisition_to investigate whether or not the terms of this Program are being implemented as it relates to the services provided to the student. The Department of English Language Acquisition responds orally and in writing to the parents.
B. If parents wish that the situation be further reviewed, they may request that the matter be referred to the appropriate assistant superintendent.
IV Student Progress
A. Student progress toward achieving the district's curricular goals is measured in a variety of ways including, but not limited to, the following:
1. Classroom assessments in each classroom on an ongoing basis;
2. Classroom observation of student performance;
3. Analyses of written classroom work;
4. Performance on fall and spring norm-referenced tests;

English Language Acquisition Program

50

c:\lep\lep2-4.doc

5. Mid-year tests of progress in reading;
6. Fall and spring writing^ample results; and
7. Results of the ColoradoJjygteAssessment Program.
B. Parents receive information_about student performance on a regulaiLhasJS-through report cards, conferences with teachers, and the results of district assessments.
C. The district monitors_pj;ogress in schools and classrooms, and makes changes as appropriate to support high student achievement.

English Language Acquisition Program

51

c:\lep\lep2-4.doc

CHAPTER 13
Considerations Related to Special Education for English Language Learners
District procedures related to the education of children with disabilities are modified to ensure that they are appropriate for English language learners. Modifications are described in the sections that follow and are included in forms, documents, and manuals related to special education.

I Student Proficiency in English and Other Languages

A. Prior to or upon referral for evaluation, testing, or placement in special education, the following information is available for an English language learner, if appropriate:

1. Information frnm objective assessments^-prafLcieor.y in English completed within the past year; and

2. Informatiqnjrom_.ob^^ completed within the past year.

in the student's pjjmary_language

B. Where information identified in Section I-A of this chapter is not provided, the reasons will be noted in writing and maintained along with other records.

C. Wherever pjaelicable^an English language learner will be evaluated in a language in which he or she is proficient by a qualified evaluator who is proficient in language.

D. Written_evaliialiojis include the following information, if applicable:

1. An ana^is_Mlhe_eXfect^!^9ik learning;

on the student's

2. Modifications to test procedures, including the use of translators or interpreters, and their possible impact on the results obtained; and

3. An analysisjifJhelest results in relationship to the student's language proficiency.

E. The process for identifying English language learners who are disabled is outlined in Attachments 6 and 7.

English Language Acquisition Program

52

c:\lep\lep2-4.doc

II Informed Consent

A. Notices, consent forms, and other documents provided to parents will be translated into the language preferred for home-school communication, if such language is spoken by 100 or more district students. Information will be provided in other languages to the extent practicable.
B. Where the language preferred for home-school communication is spoken by fewer than 100 distnctjitudents, documentation will be maintained regarding the mode of communication withthe parents and the efforts made to communicate in the desired language.

Ill Services

A. Special education procedures include a statement that English language learners may concurrently re_ceive_special_ejiucation^services and transitional native language instruction, supported English content instruction, or other services provided to English language learners.

B. Special educjtKm_teachers are trained in ESL and supported English content instruction methodologies, which is consistent with the goal 6rU\Q~EhgTTshTanguage Acquisition Program.

C. To the extent practicable, staff are assigned who speak the language of the students they

serve. "

~~

English Language Acquisition Program

53

c:\lep\lep2-4.doc

Attachments

Attachment 1 Attachment 2 Attachment 3 Attachment 4 Attachment 5 Attachment 6
Attachment 7

The Student Profile
Classification as an English Language Learner: Illustrations Exiting the Program: Illustrations Teacher Recruitment Plan Projected Enrollment and Services—1998-1999
Procedures for Identifying Appropriate Special Education and English Language Acquisition Program Services—Severe/Profound
Procedures for Identifying Appropriate Special Education and English Language Acquisition Program Services—Mild/Moderate

English Language Acquisition Program

54

c:\lep\lep2-4.doc

DENVER PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Attachment 1

Department of English Language Acquisition

Student Profile

The development of an instructional plan for an English language learner is based on the results of thoughtful assessment of varied factors affecting educational success, including the student's socio-cultural characteristics, English language development, and historical record of educational information.

As a basis for analyzing educational progress, the Denver Public Schools has developed the Student Profile which includes the following components:

• Student Data
• Cultural Development
• Socio-cultural Development 1 English Language Development

Teachers consider where a student begins in the developmental process as well as current performance. The Student Profile is a means to assess and monitor progress, and to make appropriate plans for the student's educational development. Classroom teachers and other support staff will use the Student Profile along with objective test results to determine whether a student is transitioned from one level of instruction to another.

Student Profile c :\lep\s tudprof.doc Mav 13, 1998

DENVER PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Department of English Language Acquisition
Student Data
The Student Data component provides a summary of information maintained in the district's data base about the student This includes mobility history, LTBSand La Pueba results, LAS scores, English Language Acquisition Program services, course grades for secondary students, special education services, and Title 1 services. Consideration is being given to expanding the Student Data component for elementary students to include the amount of instruction in Spanish, sheltered English, English language development, and mainstream English. The Student Data component provides invaluable information in monitoring progress and identifying appropriate services. This component-should be updated annually.

OS/08/98 PUPIL ID... :

DENVER PUBLIC SCHOOLS PUPIL PROFILE INFORMATION

CURRENT SCHOOL.: 28S VALVERDE

GRADE LEVEI : 05

ADDRESS SCHOOL.: 285 VALVERDE

ROOM/COUNSELOR: 201

SEX

: M

ETHNIC

: 4

HISPANIC

BIRTH DATE : 10-29-86

DRRfitOUSTATUS.: ACTIVE

£ .....: B Y-Y SPEAKS SOME ENGLISH, MOSTLY ANOTHER

CRNGOAGE

: SPANISH

IMMUNIZATION-..: LV-1 HPB-0 1 0 / 9 1 FULL

PTF SCHOOL

: 41S RISHEL

ST RE STATUS PUPIL ID CD CD DATE

MOBILITY HISTORY DATA SENDING SCHOOL OR
ENROLL/WITHDRAWAL DISTRICT

GR RECEIVING SCHOOL/ LV ENTRY/WD SCHOOL

TR 08-23-94 2S0 KNAPP RC 08-23-94 2S0 KNAPP NP 20 09-11-91 FIRST TIME IN ANY SCHOOL

0 2 2 8 5 VALVERDE 0 2 2 8 5 VALVERDE EC 2 5 0 KNAPP

BILINGUAL DATA

COUNTRY OF ORIGIN

: USA

FUNDED IMMIGRANT YEARS:

LEARNED LANGUAGE BEFORE ENGLISH: Y

OTHER LANGUAGE SPOKEN AT HOME..: Y

U . S . ENTRY DATE:

ELPA YRS

: 93 94

LIMITED ENGLISH PROF

SCH PUPIL ID YEAR

BILINGUAL PROGRAM SERV'ICE

PROGRAM

START

SCHOOL

PROGRAM DATE

END HRS/ L DATE WEEK A

97-98 285 VALVERDE 96-97 285 VALVERDE 95-96 285 VALVERDE 94-95 285 VALVERDE 93-94 250 KNAPP 92-93 250 KNAPP 91-92 250 KNAPP

ES ESOL BI BIL BI BIL BI BIL BI BIL BI BIL BI BIL

09-02-97

10.00 B

08-28-96 06-0S-97

C

08-28-95 06-05-96

C

08-29-94 06-07-95

B

08-25-93 06-02-94

B

08-26-92 06-06-93

B

09-11-91 06-04-92

C

PUPIL ID

SCHOOL

1ANCE OPTION TRANSFER;

ATTENDANCE -- TRACKNG SCH

SCHOOL

OPTION TRANSFER STATUS YEAR

285 VALVERDE

412 MERRILL

APPRVD 05-01-98

W SPEC/MAGNET PRG 1 TRNSF 98-99

05/08/98

DENVER PUBLIC SCHOOLS PUPIL PROFILE INFORMATIONI

Pg 2

PUPIL I D . . . :

"•UPIL ID

SCHOOL OFATTENDANCE
2 8 5 VALVERDE 2 8 5 VALVERDE 2 8 5 VALVERDE 2 8 5 VALVERDE 2 8 5 VALVERDE 2 8 5 VALVERDE 2 8 5 VALVERDE

ITT P M T W T h D V BT"
R DATE

END DATE

DAYS DAYS

1

POSIBL ABSENT1 PRESNT

3 01-27-98 03-27-98 4 2

02

951

2 11-03-97 01-23-98 4 5

04

91t

1 09-02-97 10-31-97 4 3

02

951

4 03-31-97 06-05-97 4 6

02

961

3 01-21-97 03-21-97 4 2

09

79V

2 1 1 - 0 4 - 9 6 01-16-97 4 1

02

951

1 0 8 - 2 8 - 9 6 11-01-96 4 6

01

98V

PUPIL ID
ID

TEST SCHOOL

j.^rvi4 u n i n
TS F GR READING LANGUAGE HATH WAIVR LV MLV NP GE NP GE NP GE

SCHL S NRM YEAR F YR

2 8 5 VALVERDE 2 8 5 VALVERDE 2 8 5 VALVERDE 2 8 5 VALVERDE 2 8 5 VALVERDE 2 5 0 KNAPP 2 5 0 KNAPP

LAU B 11 L 0 5 07 2 . 7

97-98 F 95

10 M 04 1 0 2 . 9 2 1 3 . 5 41 4 . 5 96-97 S 95

10 L 04 OS 2 . 0

96-97 F 95

LAU B 09J 03 2 1 2 . 838 3 . 5 26 3 . 2 95-96 S 88

LAU B 0 8J 02 1 0 1 . 50 2 1 . 3 0 9 1 . 9 94-95 S 88

LAU B 0 7J 0 1 0 1 K . I 0 1 K . 6 - • _ * OS J 0 0 0 1P K . 4 0 8 PK.8 _ * _ •

93-94 s 88 92-93 s 88

/"•Tin p T~I

ENGLISH

SPANISH

t kf crnorc
ENGLISH1

SPANISH

5 JD9-30-92

/ PUPIL ID
f/7

TEST

prorruTTT v —

Kl R*T* T fXtJAL CURVE EQV -

DATE RDG LNG MTH CMP SOC SCI RDG LNGMTH CMP SOC SCI

04-08-97 36 61 69 49

42 5 6 60 49

0 4 - 3 0 - 9 6 32 76 54 4 9 4126 4 0 6 552 4 9 45 36

04-27-95 30

57 3 6 2465 3 9

54 42 3S S8

04-28-94 08

23 11

20

34 24

0 5 - 2 4 - 9 3 SO

70 60

SO

61 SS

DENVER PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Department of English Language Acquisition
Cultural Impact
A student who enters a school system in the United States often brings cultural norms and values that may differ from the mainstream. These differences may impact the way the student interacts with others and behaves in the classroom. The Cultural Impact component of the Student Profile can be used to identify norms/values that may impact student behavior. However, it is important to keep in mind that a student's behavior maybe indicative of personal style and not necessarily a cultural norm/value.
The Cultural Impact component lists five cultural norms/values. The purpose of this component is to identify cultural behaviors that may be misinterpreted and may prevent the student from benefiting from instruction and a successful school experience. Teachers indicate the extent to which the behaviors are:
• Present
• Sometimes present
• Not present
• Not observed
Teachers should observe students in multiple settings to determine the extent to which behaviors are consistent or inconsistent in different physical, social, and academic environments.
In order to complete the Cultural Impact component, the teacher should:
• Observe the student in several settings;
• Note the duration of the behavior;
• Note the context in which the behavior is observed;
• Identify if the behavior is influenced by a cultural value/norm; and
• Note the extent the behavior is consistent or inconsistent in physical, social, and academic environments.

DENVER PUBLIC SCHOOLS Department of English Language Acquisition
Cultural Impact

Student Name:
Cross-cultural Norms/Vnlues Respect lor authority

ID#:
Impact on Behavior May result in more formal relationship; can inhibit rapport

Present

Date of Birth:
Sometimes Present

Nol Present

Nol Observed

Emphasis on group or individual
Fear of shame or loss of face

May mean individuals do not acknowledge their strengths, contributions; student may be misread or assumed to lack confidence
May be less willing to take risks, learn from mistakes

More contextual, less direct communication

May result in miscommunication, unclear expectations; lack of information

Emphasis on harmony; avoidance of conflict

May not tell when there is a problem; not surfacing issues

Other
Other
School: Teacher's Name:
Student Profile c:\lep\attachl.doc May 13, 1998

Grade:

Date:

Years/Semester in Program: yrs. _ Sem.

Comment

DENVER PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Department of English Language Acquisition
Socio-cultural Development
The Socio-cultural Development component may be used to identify factors that may influence academic and linguistic development from a Socio-cultural perspective. Teachers and other educators can use the component as a guide when monitoring English language learners by assessing the factors that are particular to a student and his/her background.
The Socio-cultural Development component lists factors that should be considered for English language learners. A child who falls mainly at one end of the scale will need different services than the child who falls primarily at the other end. Thus, a teacher can also use this component to develop specific guidelines and teaching strategies to facilitate continued academic advancement.
The teacher should observe the student in multiple settings to determine the extent to which the behaviors are consistent or inconsistent in different physical, social, and academic environments.

DENVER PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Department of English Language Acquisition

Socio-cultural Development

Student Name:

ID#:

Date of Birth:

Acculturation level
Classroom behaviors Experiential background bevond classroom Socio-cultural language
Schooling Consistency in schooling, attendance pattern

Appears confused with mainstream culture
Reticent in classroom and/or with peers
Lack of opportunity for experiential learning Speaks only with peers in language other than English; only interacts with peers of same language groups
No previous schooling

Beginning knowledge of mainstream culture
Takes minimum risks in class
Few activities outside of the home Dominant speaker of language other than English, survival/emergent English, readily interacts with peers of same language group, limited interaction with mainstream peers Limited schooling, sporadic attendance

Intermediate knowledge of mainstream culture
Willing to take some risks, needs little encouragement
Some outside experiences with little variety Fundamental command of English skills, occasionally interacts with mainstream peers

Generally understands mainstream cultures
Beginning to take more risks, may need little encouragement Several experiences with variety Higher level understanding of English language, generally Interacts with mainstream peers

Dully interacts with mainstream peers; understands and participates in mainstream cultures Interacts fully with peers; willing class participant
Frequent experiences with great variety Comprehensive use of English, able to interact fully with mainstream cultural peers, can function in monolingual classroom

Interrupted schooling, regular attendance

Mostly continuous schooling, regular attendance

Continuous schooling, consistent attendance

Consistency in language of Received instruction

Received instruction

Received instructions

instruction

primarily in the student's

primarily in the students

inconsistently in two

second language

second language with

languages

some native language

support

Open Ended Questions:

1. How long has the student been in the United States? _

Entry date.

2. How long and lo what extent has the student been exposed to an English-speaking environment in the home and the community?

3. What type of schooling has the student experienced?

Generally received instruction in two languages according to program model

Consistently received instruction in two languages according to program model

School:

Grade:

Date:

Teacher's Name:
Student Profile c:\lep\attachl.doc May 13, 1998

Years/Semester in Program: yrs. Sem.

DENVER PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Department of English Language Acquisition
English Language Development
English language learners enter our school system with different levels of English proficiency and advance through the stages of English language acquisition at varying rates. The purpose of the English Language Development component is to monitor a student's progression through the stages of language acquisition in the areas of speaking, understanding, reading, and writing English. Teachers can document English language learners' progression in the four areas from the date they enter the English Language Acquisition Program until the exit date when these services are no longer necessary.
This component of the Student Profile lists the levels of language acquisition: beginning, intermediate, and advanced. It also lists the stages of language acquisition: pre-production, early production, speech emergent, intermediate, and advanced. Several indicators are listed under each stage that identify a student's proficiency in each area. Each indicator should be applied to the appropriate grade level skill. A student may demonstrate several behaviors under two or more stages simultaneously and may progress at varying rates among the four areas. For example, the student may be at the speech-emergent stage in understanding while at the earlyproduction stage in speaking. Based on this assessment, teachers can develop a plan to facilitate continuous advancement.

DENVER PUBLIC SCHOOLS Department of English Language Acquisition
English Language Development
Understanding

Student Name:

ID#:

Date of Birth:

Directions: Check the box Sf that most represents the student's Dehavior.

LEVELS 1

H

3

4

5

• follows oral directions that are supported by a visual cue and require physical response such as: moving, pointing, choosing, matching, listening, and correctly using manipulatives
• acknowledges and uses simple social language: greetings, yes/no, etc.
• listens attentively to simple stories with illustrations and actions, chants, and songs
• responds appropriately to survival messages

• performs classroom routines
• pays attention to speakers in small group situations
• pays attention to short, high-interest audio-visual materials
• follows simple directions related to the immediate situation
• comprehends simple statements related to the immediate situation
• demonstrates understanding through drawings, drama, pantomime

• uses an age/grade appropriate social vocabulary
• tunes out distractions and attends in small group settings
• uses academic vocabulary presented experientially
• distinguishes between true and untrue statements about experience

• comprehends academic vocabulary presented experientially
• listens for main and subordinate ideas
• initiates and participates in an oral discussion of previously covered content
• distinguishes statements of fact from statements of opinions

• interprets/comprehends all classroom discussions in all settings and situations
• uses figurative language
• draws inferences
• recognizes idiomatic expressions
• recognizes other language subtleties such as humor and sarcasm

School: Teacher Name:

Grade:

Date:

Years/Semester in Program:

Years

Semester

DENVER PUBLIC SCHOOLS Department of English Language Acquisition
English Language Development
Speaking

Student Name:

ID#:

Date of Birth:

Directions: Check the box Ef that most represents the student's behavior.

LEVELS 1

2

3

4

5

• communicates with gestures to indicate immediate needs
• responds with one word to questions of immediate need
• uses non-verbal responses

• expresses basic personal needs
• names, lists, labels, categorizes
• responds with one or two words
• uses ritual greetings, expressions
• attempts to communicate despite errors in grammar and/or vocabulary
• actively participates in choral speaking activities i.e.: predictable stories, chants, songs, poems, etc.

• retells a simple story read aloud in short sequential sentences with some assistance
• describes, defines, explains, recalls
• makes oral grammar mistakes which do not interfere with intended meaning
• follows and understands sufficient language to engage in conversation with another person
• participates in activities through pantomimes, dramatizations, skits, etc.

• contributes own knowledge to small group academic discussions
• uses comprehensible intonation, rate, and phrasing
• uses more specific vocabulary
• maintains narratives of increasing length/ complexity
• shows increasing control of grammar

• uses correct grammar consistently
• uses previously learned vocabulary in new situations correctly
• maintains conversations of increasing length and topic variety
• can vary level of formality according to demands of social or academic interactions
• contributes knowledge, ideas, and opinions in large group academic discussions
• uses language subtleties

School: Teacher Name:

Grade:

Date:

Years/Semester in Program:

Years

Semester

DENVER PUBLIC SCHOOLS Department of English Language Acquisition
English Language Development
Writing

Student Name:

ID#:

Date of Birth:

Directions: Check the box (Sf that most represents the student's behavior.

LEVELS

1

2

3

4

• controls L-R directionality when writing
• reads back simple hone messages and correspondence
• shows awareness of sound/symbol relationship
• labels own drawings with assistance
• (primary) scribbles messages

• begins to take risks and attempts to spell and write ideas unassisted
• intended message can be read by others
• uses more conventional spelling when writing high frequency words
• combines words, phrases, and simple sentences to write about experiences
• writes simple phrases about group activity or shared story with assistance
• begins to write with audience in mind

• attempts to spell and write ideas unassisted and with confidence
• uses a variety of spelling strategies and resources for unknown words
• begins to understand the need to revise first attempt
• begins to expand vocabulary
• uses proper language (i.e. subject verb agreement)
• writes with audience in mind with some assistance

• generates own ideas/topics to write about
• uses conventional gradeappropriate spelling and punctuation consistently
• can self-edit consistently
• uses feedback to revise/edit writing
• uses a variety of grade-appropriate sentence structures
• incorporates grade or near gradeappropriate expanded vocabulary in own writing
• uses powerful language (strong verbs, specific nouns)
• uses writers' techniques (interesting leads, closures)
• writes with the audience in mind, frequently

School: Teacher Name:

Grade:

Date:

Years/Semester in Program:

Years

Semester

DENVER PUBLIC SCHOOLS Department of English Language Acquisition
English Language Development
Reading

Student Name:

ID#:

Date of Birth:

Directions: Check the box Hf that most represents the student's behavior.

LEVELS

1

2

3

4

• knows:
- letters/sounds - concepts about print ~ front/back - top/bottom ~ left/right ~ voice print match - some punctuation
• interprets pictures
• uses background knowledge, titles, and pictures to predict
• can retell "gist" of story
• reads familiar level 4 test with 90% accuracy

• predicts, self-monitors, and confirms or disconfirms
• cross-checks and self corrects
• uses syllables and larger word chunks to decode
• can actively read for meaning
• can explain sense and sequence of story
• identifies elements of a story that are realistic/fanciful
• can retell story including important details
• reads familiar text with appropriate phrasing after teacher models
• uses meaning, syntax, and graphophonics to read level 12 text with 90% accuracy

• takes risks
• uses a variety of strategies for clarifying text: i.e. rereads, reads on and comes back, uses familiar word chunks, etc.
• can read between the lines, makes inferences
• can identify story elements
• uses comprehension strategies such as:
~ predicting ~ questioning ~ visualizing ~ making connections ~ synthesizing - summarizing
• reads familiar text with some phrasing and expression
• uses meaning syntax and graphophonics to read level 20+ text with 90% accuracy

• reads fluently with a lot of expression
• uses a variety of strategies to selfcorrect errors that interfere with meaning
• student can answer inference questions by referring to the text
• chooses reading materials representing a variety of genres and writing styles
• uses multiple strategies for comprehending text automatically
• (elementary) reads unseen text at a level within half a year below grade level or above with 90% accuracy
• (secondary) reads unseen text at a level within 1-2 years below grade level or above with 90 % accuracy
• controls the two phonetic systems of L1 and L2 and uses each appropriately

School: Teacher Name:

Grade:

Date:

Years/Semester in Program:

Years

Semester

Student A
The Oept. of English Languag Acquisition does not asslfy the student a
an£U.(1)

Classification as an English Language Learner Students Answering Yes to the First Question
ILLUSTRATIONS

Student B

StudentC

Student D

Student Data Grade level K

Student Dala Grade level 3

LAS

4

Student Data Grade level 2

LAS

4

of English Linguage Acquisition classifies
the student as

ISA Team Reviews Student Data

Student Profile

Reading

3

Writing

3

•

ISA Team Review* Student Data

Student Profile

Reading

2

Writing

2

Student E
Student Data Grade level 7 LAS
The Dept. of English Linguage Acquisition classifies
the student at tnELL

Attachment 2A

Student F

Student Data Grade leve. 11

LAS

4

ISA Team Revlewi Student Data

Student Profile

Reading

2

Writing

4

(1) ELL = English Language Learner

ISA Team recommends that the student not be classified
as an ELL
The Dept of English Language Acquisition does not classify the student as
an ELL

ISA Team recommends that the student be classified as
an ELL
The Dept. of English Language
isition classifies e student as

ISA Team recommends that the student be classified as
tnELL
The Dept. of English Language Acquisition classifies
the student as anEU

Student A
Student Data Grade level 1 LAS

Classification as an Ei _ .sh Language Learner

Students Answering No to the First Question and Yes to the Second Question ILLUSTRATIONS

Student B

Student C

Attachment 2B
Student D

Student Data Grade level K
LAS

Student Data Grade level 3
LAS

Student Data Grade level 7
LAS

The Dept. ''of English LanguagesAcquisition does not qlassify the student as
an ELL (1)

The Dept. 'of English LanguagesAcquisition classifies
the student as an ELL

ISA Team recommends that the student not
be classified as an ELL
The Dept. of English Language Acquisition does not classify the
student as an ELL

ISA Team recommends that the student not be classified as
an ELL
The Dept. of English Language Acquisition does not classifiy the student as
an ELL

Assessments indicate that the student's reading is below grade level; an Individual Literacy Plan is written that
provides for a variety of interventions

The student qualifies for and is placed in a Title I Reading Program

(1) ELL = English Language Learner

Student A
ISA Team Reviews Student Data Kindergarten
LAS

Student B

ISA Team Reviews Student Data Grade 3

LAS

5

ITBS Language: 30

ITBS Reading:

53

e Department of English Language Acquisition
EXITS the student

The Department of English Language Acquisition EXITS the studenl

Exiting from the Program ILLUSTRATIONS

Student C

ISA Team Reviews Student Data Grade 5

LAS

4

ITBS Language: 32

ITBS Reading:

20

(SA Team Reviews Additional Student Data

Student Profile

Reading

3

Writing

3

Student D

ISA Team Review Student Data Grade 6

LAS

ITBS Language: 1

ITBS Reading:

2

tSA Team Reviews Additional Student Data

Student Profile

Reading

4

Writing

3

t yr after oral proficiency

1

ISA Team Review* Additional Student Data

ESL-LVL 8

B

Mathematics (mainstream) C

Science (mainstream)

C

Reading (mainstream)

C

Sodal Studies ELA-E

C

Classroom performance Good

The Department of English Language Acquisition EXITS
the student

The Department of English Language Acquisition EXITS the atudent

Attachment 3

Student E

ISA Team Reviews Student Data
Grade 5

LAS

4

ITBS Language:

12

ITBS Reading:

30

JL

ISA Team Reviews Additional Student Data

Student Profile

Reading

3

Writing

2

1 yr after oral proficiency

ISA Team Reviews Additional Student Data

ESL

B

Mathematics

A

Science

A

Reading

A

Social Studies

B

Absences (days)

2

Classroom Performance Good

Th« Department of English Language Acquisition EXITS
the student

Attachment 4
DENVER PUBLIC SCHOOLS INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION
Department of Educational Services
Proposed English Language Acquisition Program Teacher Recruitment Plan 1998-1999
Goal
The overall goal of the Teacher Recruitment Plan is to ensure that there will be a sufficient number of qualified English Language Acquisition Program teachers for every school.
General Strategies
1. Organize the Human Resources Department to support effective teacher recruiting efforts by designating Tony Vigil to coordinate all English Language Acquisition recruiting.
2. Send teams of trained principals and administrators who can "sell" the Denver Public Schools to recruit teachers. For recruiting Spanish speaking teachers, send principals and administrators who are fluent in Spanish. (See Attachment A.)
3. Offer teaclimg^ojitractsjmmediately after interviewing acceptable candidates.
4. Assess Spanish language skills at or near the time of the interview to ensure that potential staff meet districTquallfications.
5. Revjew recruiting strategies of other Colorado front range districts and other large school districts that serve large populations of English ianguageiearnefslo ensure Denver's competitive advantage.

English Language Acquisition Program Paraprofessional/Teacher Training Program
Continue to offer paraprofessionals the opportunity to complete the requirements for teacher certification through a cooperative arrangement with Metropolitan State College and Community College of Denver.
International Teacher Recruitment
Explore with intein^Oj^jOjganjzations_like FEYDA the possibility of recruiting qualified English Language Acquisition Program teachers from other countries.
Advertisements
1. Advertise in newspapers in selected cities (Attachment B) to make qualified individuals aware of the opportunities to teach in the Denver Public Schools.
2. Advertise English Language Acquisition Program teacher needs in selected community newspapers in Denver. (See Attachment B.)
3. Send district employgesjnformation about English Language Acquisition Program teaching opportunities.
Colleges and Universities
In order to effectively utilize available resources, colleges and universities will be assigned to a level, depending on the likelihood of recruiting teachers for the Denver Public Schools. (See Attachment C.) The four strategies that may be used are listed below.
1. Send_employment information and packets to the job placement offices of selected colleges and universities^
2. Visit staff^njd_pr;ofessors_alselected colleges and universities.
3. Participate in jobjairs at selected colleges and universities.
4. SoJicJLP^ojtj^iejJo^pejakjQ^Uid^nls in selected colleges and universities about job opportunities in the district.
Student Teachers
Recruit and offer^contracts to student teachers who are qualified to fill English Language Acquisition Program vacancies.
ELAP Recruitment Plan
c:\lep\elarecrui doc

Internet Post English Language Acquisition Program teacher vacancies on the Internet. Job Fair Host a job fair to make community members aware of district teacher and paraprofessional employment opportunities. Conferences Establish recruiting booths at identified conferences. (See Attachment D.)
ELAP Recruitment Plan
c:\lep\elarecrui doc

ATTACHMENT A

DENVER PUBLIC SCHOOLS Department of Human Resources
Recruiter Training
Agenda

Welcome, Purpose, Goals and Objectives Review of Denver Public School Recruitment Plan Review of Recruiter Handbook
• Strategies • Procedures • Timelines • EEOC Guidance on Preemployment Inquiries Colorado Licensure Specifications English Language Acquisition Specifications Recruiter Sign-up - Making a Commitment
Discussion and Questions

Dr. Johnny Lydia, Chief Personnel Officer, Human Resources
Dr. Tony Vigil, Manager, English Language Acquisition, Human Resources
Roslyn Underwood-Dee, Manager, Secondary Certificated Personnel, Human Resources
Carol Ruckel, Manager, Staff Development, Human Resources
Tony Vigil, Manager, English Language Acquisition, Human Resources
Roslyn Underwood-Dee, Manager, Secondary Certificated Personnel, Human Resources

Denver Public Schools Department of Human Resources
Recruiter Information Sheet

Attachment A
Page two

Name School Position Telephone_

1.

Have you been a recruiter for the District in the past five (5) years? yes

no_

If yes, please list the cities or colleges/universities you have visited:

City/College/UniversitY

Year

2. Please check the following that apply. In addition to my present position, I have experience in the following areas:

Business Education Industrial Technology Library Media Speech Language OT/PT Social Work English Language Acquisition Special Education Secondary Education Elementary Education Science Math

3. Check the following that apply:

Do you have bilingual skills? Yes

No_

Language(s)

Competency Level: Minimal

Fair

Fluent_

Do you have a bilingual endorsement? Yes

No_

Have you passed the Spanish Language Proficiency test? Yes

No_

Attachment A
Page three 4. Please check the following that apply:
I am willing to recruit in state I am willing to recruit out-of-state I am willing to recruit in state and out-of-state 5. I consider myself: an experienced recruiter (I have attended 5 or more recruitment fairs) an inexperienced recruiter (I have attended less than 5 recruitment fairs)

ADVERTISEMENTS
Targeted Cities
Arizona Phoenix
California Fresno Los Angeles San Diego
Colorado Denver
Florida Tallahassee
New Mexico Albuquerque Las Cruces
Texas Abilene Austin El Paso Houston San Antonio
Community Newspapers in Denver
El Semanario LaVoz

Attachment B

COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES

Attachment C

Level I • Send packet to universities
((Packet includes information about DPS and ELA program, CDE licensure information, application and description of teacher support system - mentoring).
Level II • Send packet to placement offices • Call or visit staff and professors of university/college
Level III • Send packet to placement offices • Visit staff and professors of university/college • Present programs to students
Level IV • Send packet to placement offices • Visit staff and professors of university/college • Present programs to university/college staff • Participate in Job Fair

SELECTED COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES

Attachment C Page 2

Arizona Grand Canyon University - Phoenix (Bilingual and ESL program), Level III

California Biola - La Meridia (Bil/Bicultural), Level II California Lutheran University - Thousand Oaks (ESL), Level II California State University - Carson Dominquez Hills (Bil/Bicultural), Level II California State University - Fullerton (ESL), Level II California State University - Stanislaus Terlock (Bil/Bicultural), Level III Fresno Pacific College - Fresno (Bil/Bicultural), Level III

Colorado Metropolitan State University(bilingual), Level IV University of Northern Colorado (bilingual), Level IV University of Colorado at Denver (Master's Program in Bilingual Ed), Level IV University of Southern Colorado (bilingual), Level IV Regis University (bilingual), Level IV Adams State College - Alamosa (Bil/Bicultural), Level IV

Florida Florida State University - Tallahassee (Bil/Bicultural), Level III

New Mexico Eastern New Mexico - Potales (ESL), Level HI New Mexico Highlands - Las Vegas (Bil/Bicultural), Level IV New Mexico State - Las Cruces (Bil/Bicultural), Level IV University of New Mexico - Albuquerque (Bill/Bicultural/ESL), Level IV

Texas University of Texas - El Paso (UTEP), Level IV Hardin-Simmons University - Abilene (Bil/Bicultural), Level III McMurray University - Abilene (Bil/Bicultural), Level III Houston Baptist University (Bil/Bicultural), Level II University of Houston (Downtown) (Bil/Bicultural), Level II Our Lady of the Lake University - San Antonio (Bil/Bicultural), Level III Saint Edwards - Austin (Bil/Bicultural), Level III Southwest Texas State University - San Marcos (Bil/Bicultural), Level II Texas A&M International - Laredo (Bil/Bicultural), Level II Texas A&M - College Station (Bil/Bicultural), Level II Texas A&M - Kingsville (Bil/Bicultural), Level II Texas Wesleyan - Ft. Worth (Bil/Bicultural), Level II University of Texas - San Antonio (Bil/Bicultural), Level IV

Attachment D
CONFERENCES Colorado Association for Bilingual Education (CABE), Denver, October 1998. National Association for Bilingual Education (NABE), Denver, January 26-28,1999.

Attachment 5

-••
School Name
AMESSE ASBURY ASHLEY BARNUM BARRETT BEACH COURT BRADLEY BROMWELL BROWN BRYANT-WEBSTER CARSON CASTRO CENTENNIAL CHELTENHAM COLFAX COLLEGE VIEW COLUMBIAN COLUMBINE CORY COWELL DEL PUEBLO DENISON DOULL EAGLETON EBERT EDISON ELLIS FAIRMONT

DENVER PUBLIC SCHOOLS

DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH

I' 1 PROJEC1rEDENROLLME

I) SERVICEJ5 - ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

NTAN1C998-1999

"I

.... ^ I

|

Pupil Data as of April Ui, 1998

I

J

.
J J

I Project ed 1998-19*I9 Stude nts

SPANISH

OTHER

LAU A LAU B LAUC

Tota -

LAU A LAUB LAUC

. .. Tota

I
Grand jg -- TotalS

"••
pinHn
annual

199c

_i i .

Rtsourct •N1i9tl9v9t LPanroggram Services*

Ttachtn

Tutor* Spanish Oth tr

I
I
r ...
Zont School

52

43

2

97

2

0

0

71

44

19 134

138

67

23 228

19

18

10

47

63

49

15 127

2

5

0

7

1

2

0

3

57

39

6 102

195

61

27 283

6

10

1

17

135

67

26 228

21 ii

4

36

156

90

35 281

87

34

16 137

78

29

6 113

79

51

6 136

40

47

7

94

1

1

0

2

204

38

12 254

100

39

2 141

2

34

6

42

23

25

4

52

121

76

9 206

39

16

6

61

25

23

7

55

46

30

4

80

194

54

26 274

6

c

0

15

112»

12 2160

1.0

2

0

i

t

0

0

0

0

aft

-

0.0

134 H

16 2880

0.0

3

3

0

6

234 i

28 5040

0.0

0

0

0

0

471

5

900

1.5

3

3

0

6

2700

0.0

1

1

2

4

11 H

•

0.5

1

4

0

c

en

-

0.0

7 25

2

136H

12 2160

1.0

0

0

0

'0

^233)1

35 6300

0.0

2

2

3

7J • • • ^ 4 H ~ "

-

-

1.0

15

11

3 29

2571

28 5040

1.0

0

0

1

1

37J

4 720

1.0

2

12

0

0

2 0

16 0

~<1W37&H

35 6300 17 3060

1.0 0.0

3

11

2

16

129W

14 2520

1.0

0

1

0

1

1371

17 3060

0.0

3

9

5

17

111H

11 1980

1.0

0

0

0

0

-

0.0

1

0

0

1

2551

31 5580

0.0

1

4

0

5

146 §

17 3060

0.0

(3 0

0

0

5 " Te "n

-

eel

5

900

0.0

6 •••" 1 0 8 0

1.0

0

3

2

5

21 i s

25 4500

0.0

0

2

1

3 •-64J

0

0

0

0

55 §

7 1260

0.5

6 1080

1.5

14

10

7

31

111i

10 1800

1.0

0

1

0

1 CS^W

34 6120

0.0

'

*.

6

6 Unrv Park

1

<

1 2

1

t

2

2

6

6 Unlv Par*

6

1

3

1

c

2

3

1

3

2

3j

1

3,

I 1

35

1

1

5

1

3

6

6 Unrv Par*

1

5

1

5

1 .... _5.

12

A

1

5

1

5

2

3

1

3

1

5

•Services: 1-TNLI (Transitional Native Language Instruction) 2*ESL Resource • Spanish 3"ESL Resource 4«ESL Classroom 5«6SL In TNLI Classroom 6«Transportation 10 Zone School

Attachment 5

- —- - - - -
School Name

DENVER PUBLIC SCHOOLS

DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH

[

I

|

)

r-

I

II

-

PROJECTED ENROLLMENT ANC) SERVICES • ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

1998-1999

I

J

L .. J |

LT77 _L

Pupil Data a s of April 16. 1998

I" - ~:

r." T.""i~™•~" i r 1

Projected

SPANISH

1998-1999 StOudTeHnEtsR

Grand j

LAU A L A U B LAUC Tota

LAU A L A U B LAUC Tota

Total

I

I

I

'"I.
P»ra Hr»

. 1998-1999 Program

Resource Native Lang

Services'

annual Teacheri

Tutors Spanish Oth«r

!

•

Zon» School

FAIR VIEW

17

19

13

49

13

19

i

36

85

FALLIS

77

23

i

102

8

7

1

16

118

FORCE

56

34

10 100

c

1

1

7

107

FORD

50

42

21 113

2

3

*;

8

121

GARDEN PLACE

117

38

25 180

0

0

1

2

183

GILPIN

127

44

13 184

1

0

0

1

185

GODSMAN GOLDRICK

93

38

i i 142

127

85

16 228

5

15

6

26

168

19

24

6

277

GREENLEE

41

26

14

81

20

19

6

126

GUST HALLETT

22

14

23

12

2

38

6 41

3

9j

0 *T2

50

2

0

jlj

3

44

HARRINGTON HOLM

222 69 24 315

0

29

9

3

41 1

4

0 6

''HI 3

3

5

15

" 56"

JOHNSON

27 21

2 50

6 10

3

19

69

KAISER KNAPP

0

0

0

0

207 56 12 275

0

0

1

1

2

0

0

2

T|
277

KNIGHT

0

2

0

2

0

1

1

2

4

LINCOLN

17

8

1

26

0

2

0

2

28]

MARRAMA

5

8

3

16

4

8

3

15

31

MCGLONE

110

24

14 148

1

5

1

7

155

IviCKIN LE Y-THATC HE R

T

"1

1

3

" 0

6

0

b

3

MCMEEN

39

21

3

63

17

22

15 ("54

117

MITCHELL

164

70

14 248

0

0

0

248

MONTCLAIR

15

10

11

36

1

10

12

23

59

MOORE

35

20

5

60

2

5

0

7

67

MUNROE

143

42

26 211

2

2

3

7

218 g

NEWMONTBELLO

18

15

3

36

0

2

3

5

41

NEWLON

73

53

25 151

1

5

2

8

159?

6 1080

1.5

6

t

'i

12 2160

1.0

1

2

12 2160

0.0

1

t

14 2520

0.0

1

5

22 3960

0.0

1

5

23 4140

0.0

1

5

i'7 3060

To

1

3-

••-•

28 5040

i5

6

1

3

10 1800

to.

4

720

1.5

5

900

1.5

39 7020

0.0

6

L r
2

3I3]

2

1

5

5 900

1.5

2

3

6 1080

1.0

4

4

-

-

0.0

6

6 Sabln

34 6120

0.0

1

5

-

.-

0.0

-

-

3 540

1.0

2

3

-

-

1.0

2

3'

18 3240

0.0 —

—

1

0.6

"

6

5 6 Unlv Park

7 1260

1.5

1

3

31 5580

0.0

1

5

4

720

1.0

4

4

7 1260

0.0

1

5

26 4680

0.0

1

5

1.0

2

3

18" 3240

0.0

1

5

•Service*: 1'TNLI (TraniHtonal Native Lanjuaje Inilaiclion) 2 " E S l Resource - Spanish 3'ESL Resource 4*ESL Classroom 5«ESL In TNLI Classroom 6'Transportation lo Zone School

Attachment 5

School Name
OAKLAND PALMER PARK HILL PHILIPS PIONEER REMINGTON ROSEDALE SABIN SAMUELS SCHENCK SCHMITT SLAVENS SMEDLE'Y SMITH STECK STEDMAN STEELE SWANSEA TELLER TRAYLOR UNIVERSITY PARK VALDEZ VALVERDE WHITEMAN WHITTIER WYMAN

DENVER PUBLIC SCHOOLS

DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH

|

I

_... LL_ L_ • I i I T I . |_ J

J_ J _ : . 1 _1 _1_

PROJECTED ENROLLMENT ANC) SERVICES - ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

I

i r

r r 1998-1999
[
Pupil Data a i of April 16,1998

r:r:r T.".I "~r_ rr.r

|

I "T Project ed I998-19S99 Stude nta

SPANIS

bt HER

LAU A LAUB LAUC Tota

LAU A LAUB LAUC

I
tota

Grand total'

r:\~i ~~:."i 199C1-1999 Prog ram T~

Pan• Hrt _ Reaourc* Nttlvt Lang

S«rv lees*

annual Teaehtri

Tutor* Spanish Other

i:
Zona School

21

20

17

58

19

6

t

27

11

11

4

26

2

8

64

16

0

10

2

83

63

35

13 111

4

4

2

10

6

4

_3J 13

3

6

6

15

92

49

24 165

15

30

9

54

0

1

4

5

161

56

19 236

25

23

3

51

0

2

2

4

24

7

6

37

10

4

6

284

80

24

16

21

3

40

0

1

4

5

1

1

1

3

384

55

9 f^4?

57

52

9 TT8'

28 is

26

19

5

51

4

49

24

12

3

39

4

14

t

23

81

7 1260

1.0

4

1

8

13

40

540

1.0

2

1

I

t

31

540

1.0

2

0

0

4

12

-

•

0.5

2

1

0

2

86

10 1800

1

0

0

1

112

13 2340

0.0

0

1

0

1

11

-

-

0.5

9

4

8 21

34

-

-

1.0

2

11

5

18

33

•

-

1.0

10

8

3

21

186

20 3600

1.0

8

20

6

34

88

6 1080

1.0

0

0

1

1

' 6

-

-

0.5

0

0

0

0

236

29 5220

0.0

3

7

0

10

61

6 1080

1.0

9

3

4

16

20

-

•

1.0

0

1

1

2

39

4 720

1.0

1

3

2

6

•

-

1.0

0

0

0

0

( V

3

8S

-

48 8640

0.0

3

2

0

5

45

5 900

1.5

4

7

5

16

21

-

1.0

10

8

4

22

JL

0

0

0

0

<^448

-

1.0

56 10080

0.0

3

4

2

9

127

14 2520

0.5

4

3

3

10

61

6 1080

1.0

0

0

0

0

3

0

3

6

49 \ 45

6 1080

1.5

4

720

1.0

6

d

4

3

3

^

3

1

5

1

5

3

3

6

3

3

2

3

1

3

6

4

4

3J 3

1

5

4

4

3L 3

2

3

2

3

1

5

2

3

3

3

3

3

1

5'

1

3

4

4

2

3

2

3

•Services: I'TNLI (Transitional Native Language Instruction) 2"ESL Resource • Spanish 3-ESL Resource 4-ESL Classroom 5«ESL In TNLI Classroom 6"Transportallon to Zone School

Attachment 5

School Name
Baker Cole Gove Grant Hamilton Henry Hill Kepner King Kunsmiller Lake Mann Merrill Morey Place Rishel Skinner Smiley

- -

- —

DENVER PUBLIC SCHOOLS

DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH

1I I

r i
F'ROJECTED ENROLLMENT AND SERVICES • MIDDLE SCHOOL

['

xr I 1998-1999 """•]" -

I...

I

Pupil Data as of April 16,1998

;

•'•

T " r | " • " n Projected 1998-99 Students

I " X'::.::XL~

I.— L. 1998-1999 Program

SPANISH

OTHER

Grand g

PiraHra

NittYt Ling.

Services*

LAU A LAU B LAU C TOTAL

72

100

25

197

81

120

33

234

10

22

10

42

29

57

8

94

JLAL) A

LAU B 0 1 1 1

LAU C 2 1
0 1

TOTAL

0

4

0

4

2

0

4

- i fo1ta9i 9S 236 i 45 g

•nnual

16 2880

19 3420 3

7

1260

Tutor*

Spanish 1 1 ;
1

Other

2

6

8

16 Kj

1

7

11

11

29 fj

0

29

50

28

107 1

6

4 7 2

5
7 51

10 14 13

1"422306H§f

8

1440

3 1

57

190

76

323]

1

8

4

13 '' 336j|

26 4680

1

30

68

33

131 J

0

10

3

13

144$

10

1800

1

36

78

30

1441

4

14

15

33

177 §

12 2160

6

1

101

121

42

264 J

1

5

0

6

270 M

22 3960

1

78

129

27

234J

0

2

0

236 H

19 3420

1

20

48

16

84"

23

39

8

70

18

32

16

66

38

84

26 c '

232 H

7 1260

0 3

0 4

1 8

1 15

17 1
81 §

5

900

5

900

24

1

2

1

1

3

65

132

79

82

3

12

41

238

26

187

11

26

2

4

2

8

246 i

19

3420

0

3

0

3

1901

15

2700

0

1

1

2

281

-

1

3

1

2

3

3

-

...

— II......
-

-
X
—

,

.. —

-—
...

'Services: 1=TNLI 2=ESL 3=English language developmenl and/or ELA-E classes, if available

g:\project\proj\1998-99\lepserv.xls:ms98-99r

Attachment 5

'
School Name
Abraham Lincoln East George Washington John Kennedy Manual Montbello North South Thomas Jefferson West

DEiiVER PUBLIC SCHOOLS

I" 1.

DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH
L 11
F>ROJECTED ENROLLMENT AND SERVICES - HIGH SCHOOL

1

r

1998-1999

[

L_ H

I

Pupil Data as of April 16, 1998

•"

T

j

I

I.

Projected 1998-1999 Students

X-

LAU A

SPANISH

|

LAU B LAUC T O T A L |

LAU A

OTHER

Grand

LAUB LAUC TOTAL Total

64

118

72

254 8

26

48

19

93

347

13

13

14

401

11

21

27

59 B

10

29

23

62 |

2

7

5

14

54

2

27

30

59

118

4

13

15

32

94

107

118

59

284 1

0

2

1

3

287

15

27

24

66 flj

4

4

10

18

84

136

201

88 .A25!

0

2

2

4

429

69

56

30

1551

67

82

27

176

331

3

8

5

16 jf

3

7

10

20

36

190

266

134

590 $

6

12

8

26

616

1

I

I

I
1998-1999 Program

PtraHra

Ntttvt Lang,

Services*

•rtnuil

Tutor*

Spanish Other

15

2700

24

T

2

3

3

3

3

3

540

1

3

17

3060

1

3

.

3"

3

26

4680

1

3

9

1620

24

1

2

•

3

3

38

6480

1

3

'Services 1=TNLI 2=ESL 3=English language development and/or ELA-E classes, if available

g:\project\proj\1998-99\lepsev.xls:hs98-99f

Attachment 6
DENVER PUBLIC SCHOOLS
PROCEDURES FOR IDENTIFYING APPROPRIATE SPECIAL EDUCATION AND ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
PROGRAM SERVICES
Severe/Profound Self-Contained
1. A child enters school and the parent has answered "yes " to the first or second question of the Home Language Questionnaire.
2. The child's skills in English and the other language are assessed using the Language Assessment Scale or as otherwise appropriate.
3. A concern is noted regarding a possible disability.
4. The Permission to Evaluate form is provided to the parents or guardian in the parents' native language or the form is appropriately translated.
5. A determination is made regarding evaluations which can be completed by the School Staffing Team.
6. A referral is made to the Multi-lingual Assessment Services Team (MASTJJo complete all other necessary evaluations. Members of this team are proficient in Spanish. The team includes the following professional staff:
• Special Educators • School psychologists • Speech/language specialists • Social worker • Nurse • Family liaison
7. AnJLEE-meeting is held. A member of the ISA Team serves as a member of the IEP Team. Parents are provided with an interpreter so that they may fully participate in the decision-making process.
8. The IEP contains documentation of:
• The student's current Language Assessment Scale scores; • The actual language(s) in which the assessments were conducted; • Modifications, if any, of standard assessment procedures; • Qualifications of individuals completing assessments; • Objective test results; and • The impact of language on the interpretation of the data.

9. A decision is made by the IEP team, which includes the parents, regarding whether the child meets the federal and state criteria to be identified as disabled. The IEP team ensures that the fact that the student's first spoken language is not English and/or that a language other than English, which is regularly used by the student's parents or guardian is not determinative of this decision.
10. The student's special education program services, the extent and setting of which have been determined by the IEP team, will be provided by teaching staff who have been trained in ESL methodology and sheltered English techniques. To the extent practicable, staff who speak the language of the student will be provided.
11. The English Language Acquisition Program services are determined by the IEP team.

DENVER PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Attachment 7

PROCEDURES FOR IDENTIFYING APPROPRIATE SPECIAL EDUCATION AND ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
PROGRAM SERVICES
Mild/Moderate - Resource or Itinerant
1. A child enters school and the parent has answered "yes " to the first or second question of the Home Language Questionnaire.
2. The child's skills in English and the other language are assessed using the Language Assessment Scale or as otherwise appropriate.
3. English Language Acquisition Program services are determined in accordance with guidelines in this document.
4. A concern is noted regarding a possible disability. Appropriate interventions are implemented.
5. The Permission to Evaluate form is provided to the parents or guardian in the parents' native language or the form is appropriately translated.
6. A determination is made regarding evaluations which can be completed by the School Staffing Team.
7. A referral is made to the Multi-lingual Assessment Services Team (MAST) to complete all other necessary evaluations. Members of this team are proficient in Spanish. The team includes the following professional staff:
• Special Educators • School psychologists • Speech/language specialists • Social worker • Nurse • Family liaison
8. An IEP meeting is held. A member of the ISA Team serves as a member of the IEP Team. Parents are provided with an interpreter so that they may fully participate in the decision-making process.

9. The IEP contains documentation of:
• The student's current Language Assessment Scale scores; • The actual language(s) in which the assessments were conducted; • Modifications, if any, of standard assessment procedures; • Qualifications of individuals completing assessments; • Objective test results; and • The impact of language on the interpretation of the data.
10. A decision is made by the IEP team, which includes the parents, regarding whether the child meets the federal and state criteria to be identified as disabled. The IEP team ensures that the fact that the student's first spoken language is not English and /or that a language other than English is which is regularly used by the student's parents or guardian is not determinative of this decision.
11. The student's special education program services, the extent and setting of which have been determined by the IEP team, will be provided by teaching staff who have been trained in ESL methodology and sheltered English techniques. To the extent practicable, staff who speak the language of the student will be provided.
12. Services provided through the English Language Acquisition Program are determined in accordance with the provisions of this document and as may be modified by the school staffing team.

Exhibit #1

The Congress of Hispanic Educators (CHE), the United States, and the Denver Public Schools have recently negotiated a new plan for addressing the educational needs of students whose language is other than English. Our records indicate that you have a child who is an English language learner and is eligible for services.

This new plan would replace the plan previously approved by the U.S. Federal Court in the case of Keyes v. DPS. The new plan: (a) provides a procedure for identifying and assessing pupils eligible for services and for determining when they no longer need to be in a special program; (b) provides standards for teachers and aides; (c) identifies instructional standards, including the creation of different programs for pupils with different language needs; and (d) appoints an independent monitor to oversee implementation. Parents who believe that the program is not meeting the terms of the settlement will be able to provide their information to the monitor.

Before_the settlement goes into effect, you have a ri£hLtQ._reyiew_it. If you do not like all or part of the settlement, you have a right to file an objection and to appear in court to state your objection.

The Settlement Agreement can be reviewed at the school office of any school, and in Room 105, 900 Grant Street, between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. A copy of the Settlement Agreement will be available in English and Spanish. Speakers of other languages may bring a translator, or may obtain a list of translators proficient in Vietnamese, Khmer, and Russian. You may also obtain a copy of the document for $3.00.

If you wish to file an objection, you must do so in writing. It should be mailed to the following locations so that it is received at least two (2) days before the date set below for the
hearing.

1. Bilingual Clerk United States District Court P. O. Box 993 Denver, Colorado 80201
2. Michael H. Jackson, Esq. 900 Grant Street, Suite 704 Denver, Colorado 80203

Peter D. Roos, Esq. 785 Market Street, Suite 420 San Francisco, California 94103
Jeremiah Glassman, Esq. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Equal Educational Rights Section Washington, D.C. 20530

Your objection should indicate at the top of the page that it relates to the case CHE

v. School District #1, CA #95-M-2313. If you file a written objection, you have a right to voice

your concerns to the judge by appearing in court at 9:30 a.m. on

, 1999.

The court is located at: 1929 Stout Street, Room C-204, Denver.

Exhibit #2: Notice of Proposed Settlement of CHE v. School District #/, Denver
CA #95-M-2313

The Congress of Hispanic Educators (CHE), the United States, and the Denver Public Schools have recently negotiated a new plan for addressing the educational needs of students whose language is other than English.

The new plan would replace the plan previously approved by the U.S. Federal Court in the case of Keyes vs. DPS. The new plan: (a) provides a procedure for identifying and assessing pupils eligible for services and for determining when they no longer need to be in a special program; (b) provides standards for teachers and aides; (c) identifies instructional standards, including the creation of different programs for pupils with different language needs; and (d) appoints an independent monitor to oversee implementation. Parents who believe that the program is not meeting the terms of the settlement will be able to provide their information to the monitor.

Before the settlement goes into effect, parents of students who attend the Denver Public Schools (DPS) and who are English language learners, may review it and file any objection they may have to its contents. They further have a right to appear in court.

The Settlement Agreement can be reviewed at any DPS school, or at Room 105, 900 Grant Street, Denver, between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Copies will be available in English and Spanish. Speakers of other languages may bring a translator or obtain a list of translators proficient in Vietnamese, Khmer, and Russian. Copies can be obtained for $3.00.

Any parent or guardian of a student who attends the Denver Public Schools and who is Limited English Proficient, or who believes his child does or will qualify for special language help, may file an objection by mailing a letter to each of the following locations so that it is received at least two (2) days before the date set below for the hearing.

1. Bilingual Clerk United States District Court P. O. Box 993 Denver, Colorado 80201
2. Michael H. Jackson, Esq. 900 Grant Street, Suite 704 Denver, Colorado 80203

Peter D. Roos, Esq. 785 Market Street, Suite 420 . San Francisco, California 94103
Jeremiah Glassman, Esq. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Equal Educational Rights Section Washington, D.C. 20530

Any objections should indicate at the top of the page that it relates to this case, CHE v. School District #/, CA #95-M-2313. Anyone who files a written objection has a right to voice his/her concerns to the judge in this case by appearing in court at 9:30 a.m. on 1999. The court is located at 1929 Stout Street, Room C-204, Denver.

Joint Exhibit B
MONITORING

Introduction

The parties, having jointly developed an English Language Acquisition Program, agree

that implementation of the use of the Student Profile within the Program will be piloted

in the second semester of the 1998-1999 school_y^a^withjystem-wide implementation

scheduled to begin in the r999-200tT school year.

~~

"

One component of the implementation process is the selection of an independent monitor to review and report on the status of implementation of the Program. While the monitor is responsible for reviewing and reporting on matters districtwide, the monitor will be expected to conduct a sufficient number of site visits and record reviews to enable reporting on the status of implementation and delivery of program services as well as identification of broad districtwide concerns.

Monitoring Areas
The mojttiloj^JnxoQperalion with the parties, shall establish a plan and schedule for monitoring implementation and reporting on the following areas:
1. Screening, assessment^cjas^ficatlon^and placement of English language learners, including special education students;

2. De\vveTy_()f_Prograrn services;jn accordance with the Program provisions and reviewing student progress toward the acquisition of sufficient proficiency in English to meaningfully participate in supported English content instruction or the mainstream English language instructional program;

3. Availability of supplementary activities and programs for English language learners,

including Title I programs;

~

4. Review of entry and exit procedures including development of individual plans and monitoring of students who have been reclassified;

5. r^rograin_siaiFin&_including assurance that the district is taking all reasonable steps to recruit, hire, and place needed Program teachers;

6. Teacher training, including training in the use of the English Language Development (ELD) form that is part of the Student Profile;

7. Record-keeping, including ensuring an ongoing record-keeping process consistent with the English Language Acquisition Program;
8. AyaibWHty^fbooksi andjnaterials in accordance with the Program.

c:\lep\monitl29.doc

1

Conduct of Monitoring Activities
The Monitor shall:
1. Coordinate site visits, obsewatiojisandjnteiyiews with the school principal to ensure that the integrity of the school day is maintained.
2. Have the abilityJo-calL-oixsuch-technkaLsupport as may be necessary to permit needed analy_sis-Qf-daia_.or other materials and to select and hire assistants or consultants, the reasonable and necessary costs of which shall be the responsibility of the school district. The monitor shall notify the parties of his or her intent to engage such individuals prior to employing them in order to give the parties opportunity to comment to the monitor should they desire to do so.
3. Have the authority to request and review such additional district records and data as are necessary to evaluate implementation efforts Fn specific program or training areas. Such requests will be accommodated in a timely manner. Personally identifiable student or personnel_data or information shall bejglgasgd_byJhgjnonitor only upon a showing of necessltyand then only in accordance with applicable federaTarKTstate laws"
4. Establish &process to receive^information oiLpr_concerns with implementation strategies or progress. During this process, the monitor will be able to gather such information from the district, school personnel and others in confidence. The monitor will submit to the parties such factual information as the monitor finds to be credible. Any problem areas are to be reported promptly to the parties in writing to permit appropriate corrections.
Reports
1. PixiyMe_aimuiai_and[interim reports on the districtwide implementation of the program to the parties.
2. Provide annual reportsjo the^court asjnay_be required.
3. Meet annually with the parties to discuss the status of the implementation of the Program.
c:\lep\monitl29.doc

Term Mojiitoring^hallcontinue f^threeyearsjbeginning with the 1999-2000 school year following which any party may-appJy-^the^Court fpr_arj_ordgx of dismissal of the matter or such other relief as may be appropriate. Budget The district shall allocate a/fhaximum of $75,000 annually?for monitoring activities.
c:\lep\monitl29.doc

V7TA [8#pt 1996]
Ernest Robert House
Education
A.B. in English, Washington University. 1959; M.S. in Secondary Education, Southern Illinois University, 1964; Ed.D., University of Illinois. 1968.
Honorary Organizations, Prizes, and Awards Phi Beta Kappa General Scholarship, Washington University, 1959 Glftfd Youth Fellow, University of Winots, 1967-69 Phi Delta Kappa, Kappa Delta Pi Ford Foundation Fellow (England), 1975 Distinguished Visiting Scholar, Center for th« Study of Evaluation, University of California at Los Angelas, Summer 1976. Soholar-ln-Residence, Institute for Educational Policy Studies. Harvard University, Fail 1980. Distinguished Visiting Scholar, University of Colorado at Boulder, Summer 1962. VisJting scholar. Australian Association for Educational Research, Summer, 1984. Fifth Annual Harold D. Laswell Prize for Article Contributing Mcni to the Theory and Practice of the Policy Sciences, awarded by Policy Sciences. 1989. Visiting scholar, University of Valladofid, Spain. April-July. 1990. Paul Laiarsfold Award for Evaluation Theory, for lifetime contributions to evaluation research and theory, awarded by American Evaluation Association, 1990. Keynote Address, Canadian Evaluation Sooiety, Vancouver, 1991. Visiting scholar, University of Umea, Umea. Sweden. May-June, 1992. FulbriflM Poreign Scholarship to Sweden, 1992 (declined). Visiting scholar, Institute for Advanced Study. Vienna, Austria. March, 1993. Keynote Address, American Evaluation Association, Seattle. 1993. Keynote Address. Australasian Evaluation Society, Sydney, 1995. Invited Fellow, Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences Palo Atto, CA, 1996 Visiting Scholar, Monaah University, Melbourne, Australia, 1997
fixperlenee
1985-1993 Professor of Education and Director, Laboratory for Policy Studies, University of Colorado at Boulder.

1979-1985

Professor, Center for Instructional Research and Curriculum Evaluation (CIRCE), Oep«rtm*nt of Administration, Higher and Continuing Education, and Department of Educational Peyohology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champalgn.

1975-1979

Associate Professor, Center far Instructional Research and Curriculum Evaluation (CIRCE) and Department of Administration, Higher and Continuing Education, University of Illinois at Urbane-Champaign.

1973-1975

Assistant Professor, Center for Instructional Research and Curriculum Evaluation (CIRCE) and Department of Administration, Higher and Continuing Education, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champalgn.

1971-1973

Project Director and Assistant Professor in Education, Center for Instructional Research and Curriculum Evaluation (CIRCE) and the Computer-Baaed Educational Reaearch Laboratory (CERL), University of Illinois at Urbana-Champalgn.

1969-1971

Project Director, Illinois Gffted Program Evaluation, and Educational Specialist Center for instructional Research and Curriculum Evaluation, University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign.

1968-1969 Program Manager, Evaluation Role Development Program, Cooperative Educational Research Laboratory. Northfleld, Illinois.

1967-1968 Project Manager, Project for the Evaluation of the Illinois Gifted Program, Cooperative Educational Research Laboratory, Northfleld, Illinois.

1964-1965 Consultant Illinois Demonstration Project and English Curriculum Project, University High School, University of Illinois.

1960*1964 English teacher. Roxana Junior-Senior High School, Roxana, Illinois.
Professional Aotlvitlee Chair, Evaluation Committee. The Association for the Gifted (1969-71). Technical Policy Advisory Board, State/Federal Task Force on Educational Evaluation (1971). Advisory Panel, Technloal Assistance D«v»lopm«nt System, Frank Porter Graham Child Development Contmr, University of North Carolina (1971-78). Research Staff. Senator Adlai Stevenson HI (1970).

Research Staff, Lieutenant-Govemor Paul Simon (1972). Evaluation Board, Central MJdwtst Ragiona! Educational Laboratory
(1973-84). General Program Co-ohalr, 1976 Annual Mooting of the American
Educational Research Association, San Francisco. Expert Witness, 'US. Dept of Justice vs. State at South Carolina.*
Federal Appellate Court. 1876. Panel of Writers, Project on Educational Evaluation, Standards, and
Guideline*. 1976. Listed In Aprarican Men and Women of Science. Who's Who in the
Midwest. International Dictionary of Biography. AmerfaQn Authors Contemporary Authors. Who's Who in the West. Dictionary of tntemational Biography. International Djrectorv of Distinguished Leadership Editorial Board, PfJuaatbnal Evaluation and Policy Anatyftjft. American Educational Research Association, 1979*81. Editorial Advleory Board, Evaluation Studies Review A>t)nua\. SAGE Publications, 1981-1990. Editorial Board. New Directions for Program Evalua^qp.. Evaluation Research Society, 1981. EditoMn-Chief (with Ronaid Wooldridge) rMew Directions for Program Evaluation Journal of the Evaluation Research Society, 1982-85. Chair, American Educational Research Association Award for Distinguished Contributions to Educational Research Columnist, Evaluation Practice (formeity Evaluation tyewa) 1984-1989 Expert Witness, Anderson vs. Missouto Board of Trustees 19S4 Advisory Board, Educational Evaluation and PoDcy Ana{ys<t. 1986*91 Consulting Editor, Falmer Press book series on Educational Policy, 1988-90 Advisory Board. Journal of Education Policy. 1986Jaint Dissemination and Review Panel, U8. Department of Education, 1986-1987. Regional Educational Laboratory Review Panel, US. Department of Education, 1887*1990. Chair, Publications Committee, American Evaluation Association 19891991. Reciptent, Fifth Annual Harold D. Laeswefl Prtze for artJde contributing most to the theory and practice of the policy 8C4enoe6» Vol. 2 1 , 1988, Kluwer Academic Publishers, awarded by International Advisory Board of Policy Sciences in 1989. Recipient, Lazarsfeld Award for career contributions to evaluation theory. American Evaluation Association, 1990 Review Panel for Award of Research and Development C«nfc$, U. S. Department of Education, 1890. Keynote Address, Canadian Evaluation Society, Vancouver, May 1991. Evaluation and Dissemination Advisory Committee for Undergraduate Science, Engineering, and Mathematics Education. 1C81-1993. Evaluation Advisory Committee, Office of Studies and Evaluation, National Science Foundation, 1991*1993.

Evaluation Advisory Committee, Statewide Systemic Initiative, National Science Foundation, 1991-1803.
Kaynota Address American Evaluation Association, Svattia, Nov. 1992.
Expert Panel far Review of Federal Education Programs in Math,
Science, Engineering, and Technology, Federal Coordinating Council on Science, Engineering, and Technology. 1992*1993. Editorial Board, Evaluation Practtoa. 1990-1907. Editorial Board, Educational Evaluation, and Pofloy Anjtiyate Amsrican Eduoational Rea«arch Society, 1994-1997 Editorial Board, New Direction* for Program Evaluation American Evaluation Association. 1993Edtonal Board, Gifted ChM D t t a r r ^ 1993.1997 Editorial Board, Poiicv Annala. 1993EdftOrtal Board, Evaluation; An intemattonai Journal of Theory. Research.
and Practice. (British) 1994EdttDdal Board, Heuristics (Spanish) 1997Evaluation AcMsory Board. Education and Human Resources
Directorate, National 8dence Foundation, 1996-
Executive Committee, Grants Program, American Educational Research
Association, 1996-

Book Chipttrt
Emest R House. White Chicago Bums. In WiJIJam M, Rogge and Q. Edward
Stormer, ln«fiarv!cg Training: For Taachara of the Qffled. Champaign, Illinois: Stipes PubHahtng Co., 1 W « , pp. 18S-186.
David M. Jackson (Ed). Ernest R. House, Thomaa Kerins, Stephen Lapan, Joe M. Stede. Illinois Evaluates Its Special Program tor tha ffifted. 1963-71. In Education of the Gifted and Talented. Report to the Congress of the United States by the US. Commisaioner erf Education: prepared for the Committee on Labor and Welfare, United States Senate. March 1972. pp. 255-287.
Ernest R. House. Teaching and Grading the Gifted. In Alien Berger and Blanche Hope Smith (Eds.). Classroom Pfyflcftfl In Twohmq Enoiteh: Measure for Measure. Urbana, Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English, 1972, pp. 56-58.
Ernest R House. The Relevance of Evaluation. In Robert R. Rfppey (Ed.). Sprites in Tran»actipn.ftj Evaluation,. Berkeley, California: McCutchan Publishing Corporation, 1973. pp. 256*266.
Ernest R. House. Assessing the Impact of Rtptlcable Products on Target Audiences. In Lynn (Sunn (Ed.), Qtitraach: Raolicatino' Sarvtoas for Young Handtanflpqd Children. Chap^i Hill, North Carolina: Frank Porter Graham Child Development Center, University of North Carolina, 1975, pp. 85-100.
Ernest R. Houae. Beyond Accountability. In Thomas J. Sarrjiovanni (Ed.) Professional Supervision for Professional Teachers. Washington. DC.: Association for Supervision and Curriotium Development. 1975, pp. 65-77.
Ernest R House. The Utility, Rationality and Justice of Practice-Oriented Research. In Relating Theory In Prjofrw» **n pHttcatlonat R^searoh. Institut fur Didactic der Mathematik, Bielefeld Unfv«rtrty, Germany, Deoember, 1976. pp. 70-74.
Emeet R. House. Justice in Evaluation. In Gene V. Qlaaa (Ed.), EvaJuation Sfudtes Rgyjf^ Annvnl Vftli t Beverty Hills, California: SA3E Publioationa. 1975, pp. 75-100. Also Jn Richard A. Schumuck and Philip J. Runkel. 5^»C/Qf]d Han<il^flPh of Organization Devwlnpnrf nt In Schools. Palo Alto, California: Mayftold P T « 8 « , 1877, pp. 505-517.
Emeet R. House. Evaluation as Complex Judgment. In Thorough and Efficient Education. Philadelphia: Research for Better Schools. 1977.
Emaat R. House and Craig Qj#rd*. PLATO Cornea to the Community College. In David Hamilton, David Jenkins. Christine King, Bany MacDonaJd, and Malcolm Parlett (Eds.) Qeyond the Numbers Gama. London: MacMlllan Education, 1077. pp. 298-310.

Em««t R. H O U M . Future PoHcy for School-based Evaluatkxi. in H. Simonsand
T. AMk (Eds.). Thorny tuvl Practice of School-haflod Evaluation- A Research Perspective. LiHehammer, Norway; Oppland College, 1893,113*119.
Ernest R. House. Ethics in Evaluation Studies. In T. Husen and T. N. Postlew«rte (Eds.). International EnoyriopadJa of Education. 2nd edition. Oxford, UK; Pergamon Prees.1904.
Emeet R. House. (1995). Lapolhfca educatlva en una epooa da productivldad. In Voiver a nensaj k ftAjcacten. Vol. 1, Madrid: EdteJoneu Morala. S. L, 112-127.
Ernest R. House. (1906). Environmental Education Policies: In-Depth Studies
In Five Countries. In K. Kelley-Laine (Ed), Environmental EducationLftarnlnq far the 21at Century. Parif; Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 79-94.
Ernest R House, KJell Ede. and Kamieen Keltey-Laine. (In press). Environmental Education Pdieiat In Austria, in K. KeRey«Laina (Ed.). Environmental Eduoation Pelley Studiaa. Paria; Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (|n press).
Ernest R House, Peter Poeoh, and Kathie«n Keliey-Laine. (in press). Hungarian Environmental Education Poftciea. In K. Kellay-Lain6 (Ed.). Environmental Education Policy Studies. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (In press).
Ernest R. H o w e and 8tephen Lapan. (1997). Policy, Productivity, and Teacher Evaluation. In B. J. Biddle, T. Good, and I. Goodson (Eds). International Handbook of Taachara and Teaching. Dordrecht. The Netherlands: Kluwer. 593-620.
Ernest P. House and Patrick McQuillan. (1098). MortpactiveB on Innovation. In A. LJeberman, M. Fullan, A. Hargraaves, and D. Hopldns (Eds.). tntamatlppal Hann^yok of Friurartlonn] C^wnga. Oordecht The Netherlands: Kluwer. The Rooft of Eduaatlonal Changtr Vol. 1. 198-213.
Ernest R House. Evaluation. In R. Burgess (Ed). Encyclopedia of Social Racoarcfl Math.o.de. London; Routledge.
Emeat R. House. Economio Change, Eduoaticnaj Policy Formation, and the Role of the 6tate. In J. Elliott and H. Attrlcnter (Ed«.). (In process) Imupmapf Fduoational Change. London: Open University Press.
Ernest R. House and Kenneth R Howe. Deliberative Democratic Evaluation in Practice. In D. StufHebeam (Ed.). FvahjaHfln Moda|^. Kluwer.
Journal Articles

I 0
Emesi H. House. Rationale for Evaluation of the Uflnote Qifted Program. fJawatottef Council of State Dtrsoioni of Programs for tha Gifted. Vol. 2, No. 5, May 1968, pp. 17-23. Reprinted in Illinois Journal of Education. October 1968, pp. 68-73.
Ernest R. House and Stephen D. Lapan. Training Public School Personnel for Evaluation Local Projacta. Illinois Journal e/f Education. January 1969, pp. 22-25.
Ernest R. Hou«e. Training Non-Researoh Pertonnel to Conduct Evaluation. Contemporary Education. Vol. XL, No. 6. May 1969. pp. 324-328.
Emeet ft. House, Joe M. Steete, Stephen D. Lapan, Thomai Kerina. Eariy Finding* on the Illinois Gifted Program. Gifted Children Newsletter. Vol XII, No. 2, March 1970, pp. 24-28.
Ernest R. Hou«e, Joe Milan Steele, Thomas Kerin*. What Hauppena When Sugar Daddy Evaluate* Hto Own Baby? PW Delta Kaopan. Vol. Lll, No. 4, December 1970, pp. 247-248.
Dave Ertandson and Eme«i R House. Theory and Practice: Why Nothing Seemt to Work. The Bulletin of the Natjontj Aaaociattoft of Secondary School Principals. Vol. 65, No. 354, April 1071, pp. 60-75. Reprinted tn The gduoation Dfoeal. September 1971.
David A. Ertandaon and Emeat R Houae. The Principal and Performance Contracting. I|linoj9 Principal. May 1071. pp. fl.11.
Joe M. Stede, Emeet R Houae, Thomaa Kerina. An Inctrument for Assessing Instructional Climate Through the Use of the Low-Inference Student Judgments, American Educational Research Journal Vol. VIII, No. 3, May 1971. pp. 447-468.
Joe Milan Steele, Ernest R. House, Stephen D. Lapan, Thomas Kerins. Cognitive and Affective Patterns of Emphasis in Gifted and Average Illinois Clasae«. Exceptional Children. Vol. 37, No. 10, Summer 1971, pp. 757-759.
E m n t Pi. Hou»». A Critique of Linear Change Models in Education. Frfuoationat Technology. Vol. XI, No. 10, October 1971, p. 35.
Emett R. House. The Conscience of Educational Evaluation. Teachers Record. Vol. 73, No. 2, February 1972, pp. 405-4U.
Ernest R House. Whose Goals? Whose Values? Whose Kids? The National Principal. Vol. LI. No. 5, February 1972, pp. 58-61.

11

Ernwt R. House, Thomas Kerfns, Joe M. Steete. A Teat of the Research and

Development Model of ChangQ. Educational Administration Quarterly. Vol

VIII, No. 1, Wlntor 1972, pp. 1-14.

~-™

Ernest R House. An Examination of the 'Field Teacher" a* an Alternative to School*. Paabody Journal of Fritfcfltfon Vol 40. No. 3, Aortt 1972 OD. 222227.

ft House. Ravww of AccountabHtty In gd^oajfo by Leon M. Le*sing«r and Ralph W. Tyler. Educational Studies: A Journal of Book Reviews In thft foundaflQna of Education. Vol. 3. No. 2, Sumnw 1072, pp. 110-120,

Emast R House. A Raeponsa to Clark and Gub* Tho Loglo of Revtatonltm. Educational Admlfttetratton QuarfanV Val VIM No 3 Autumn 1Q72, pp. t04106,

Ernest R. House. Thd Dominion of Economic Accountabilityy. Tha EfifltfIL Vol XXXXVfl, No. 1, NNovember 1972. pp. 13-24. RRaprinfed In Ralph A. Smith (EA). Raoaining Educational Laadarthlp; Critical E>says on PSTE/C8TE. Bahavioral Obfoctivei and AeoountafaHtty. New York: John Wll«y & Sont, 1975. Alto repdntad in PnxJ Raubinger, Merte Sumption, and Richard Kamm, ^aaderahlp In the Seoondary School. Columbua, Ohio: Chnfot E. Merrill, 1974.
Ernest R. House and Donald Hogben. Setting Spa^ulative Snares. SRlfi Quarterty. Vol. 6, No. 1, Spring 1973. pp. 11-13.

Herbert J. Walberg, Emeet R House, Joe M. Steele. Qracto Level, Cognition and Affect A Crosi*8aotion of Ctaasroom Perceptions. JoumaJ of P^^yyyehateoy. Vol. 64, No. 2. Appril 1973,, pppp. 142>146. Repprinted (n Robert E. Griinder ((EEdd.)), SStudtaa In Adolaacencfaf.i 3fd Edffion. New YoYrkk: Macmillan Co. 1. 1975, pp. 152*168. Also in B. Newman and P. Newman (Ed.), Infancy and Childhood. New YortC WIoy,1977. Aleo In M. C. Wlttrock
Spontorad by American Educational Reaearch Aatodatlon. Berkeley: McCutchan Publishing Corporation. 1977, pp. 563-689.

Emaat R. Houae. The Prioe of Productlvfty. Who Pays? Today'* Eduoatlon. Vol. 62, No. 6. Soptdmber-Odobar 1973, pp. 64-89. Reprinted in William J. Gephart (Ed.), Accotjntftbfllty- A fltwtw A Ppgcff*, or a Product?. Thirteenth PW Delta Kappa Symposium on EducatJorial ReaearenT Bloomlngton, Indiana: Phi Delta Kappa, 1975, pp. 49-57.

Eme«t R. House. Technology and Evaluation. Educational Taohnology, Vol. XIII. No. 11, November 1973. pp. 20-26.
Ernest R. House. Wendell Rivera, and Daniel L Stufflebeam. An Asaassm«nt of th« Michigan Accountability Sy»tom. Phi Delta Kappan. Vol. LV. No. to, June 1974, pp. 663-669,

12
Joe M 8t«eie, Herbert J. Wafb*m, and Ernest R, House. Subject Area* and CognltJvt Prett. Journal of PrtiirjittflnaJ P ^ Y T T N ^ Y , VOJ. 66. No d June 1974, pp. 363366*.
Emett R. House. AooounUbiOty. An Eeaav Review on Three Books. American Educational Raaparch Journal. VoL H, No. 3, Summer 1974, pp. 275-279.
Emeat R House, Wendefl Rivera, and Daniel L Stufflebeam. A CounterResponae to Kearney. Oonovan. and Raher. Phi D«it* Kappan, VoJ. LV1, No. 1, September 1974, p. 19.
Eme*t R. Houee. The Politics of Evaluation in Htgh«r Education. Journal of Higher Education, Vol. XLV, No. 8, Novamb* 1674, pp. 618-627. RapHnted in Frank COR)/ (Ed.), RaadfrWi in Evaluatfon R—^areh (2nd Edition). N«w Yoric Ruaa*fl Sage Foundation. 1977.
Enwst R. Houso. AccountabiBty in the U.S A Cambrtdaa Journal of Education. Vol. 5, No. 2, E«ater Term 1875. pp. 71-78. AJ«o In Alex Rnch and Peter Scrimshaw (Eds.), Standards. Scnooitno. and Prfunatlgp Hoddar and Stouohton and Open Unh/areity Praat, 1981, pp. 3«1-367.
Dnest R. House. Tho MieropoUtios of Innovation*. Nin« Proposition. Pnl Qetta Vol. 57. No. 5. January 1976. pp. 337-340. Reprintad in Louis Handbook on Curriculum. Bortorc AJlyn and Bacon, 1977.
Emoat R House and Gordon Hoka. Lobbying for Special Education. PHy.«tinn*i Laaderehip. Vol. 34. No. 2, November 1976, pp. 118-121.
£matt R Housa. Assumptions UndenVinfl Evaluation Models. gducationaJ Raaaamharr Vol. 7. No. 3, March 1Q78. pp. 4-12. Also in J. Galan Saylor, Wlfiiam Alexander, and Arthur J. LawU (Eds.). Ptannhq Currioukim for Schooia. Hott. Rinehart and Wirwton, 1081. Atoo In 8. Franke-Wlkbarg ooh U.P. Lundgron (Eds.), A» Vordera Lhbftkmq Dai a. Stockholm: Wahiatron & WMitrand, 1B61. pp. 310-338. Also In a Madaus, M. ScnVon. and D.L StUfRebeam (Eds). Evaluation Uadeto Kluwer-Nfjotf, B<Mten and Tho Hague, 1983, pp. 46-64.
Ernest R House, Qene V. Glass, Leslie D. Moiean and Deokar F. WalKtr. CrtUduing A Follow Through Evaluation. PW Dahn Kmpamn. Vol. 59. No. 7. March 1978, pp. 473-474. Also in Eduoaflonal Laadarahte. Vol. 35. No. 6, March 197$, pp. 462-484.
Emeat R. Houta, Gena V. Glass. LesCo D. McLean and Decker Walker. No Simple Answer Critique of the Follow Through Evaluation. Harvard Educational Ravfrw. Vol. 48, No. 2. May 1978, pp. 128-160. Reprinted in Thomw D. Cook, et a!., ^valuation fitudl— R«v<<»w Annual. VoL 3, SAGE Publication*, 1978.

1 5
6meit R. House. The Evaluation Audit, Evaluation Practice. Vol. 8, No. 2, May
1987, 52-56,
Ernest R. House. The Iran-Contra Hearing* and Evaluation. Evaluation E f l VoL 8. No. -4, Nov 1987, 31-33.
Ernest R. Hcusa. Tres Perepactrva ds la Innovation Educatlva: Technologica, 1 Pollttea y Cultural (reprinted); and Post Scriptum; A Ten Year Retrospective on My Three Perspectives* Paper. Revista De Education. No. 286. MlnJsterio de Educacion y Clenela. Madrid, Spain. Mayo-Agosto. 1988. (In
Spanish). 6-34.
Ernest R. House and William Madura. Raoe, Gender, and Jobs: Losing Ground on Employment Policy ficienoea. 21:351-382. 1988.
Emeat R. House. Evaluating the F.BJ. Evaluation Practice. 8, 3. August. 1988. 43-46.
Ernest R. House, 8teph«n D. Lmpan, and Sandra Mathison. Teacher Inference. Cambridge Journal of Education. VoL 19. No. 1, Spring. 1fifi9, 63-68.
Em«ft R Houee. Review of Gemld Grant Trw Worid We Created at HJfltj. In Tha Annale of | ScSnofl. Vol. 504, July 1988,161-163.
Emost R. H o u « r Sandra Mathiton, and Robin McTap^jort. Validity and Teacher Inference. Educational Researohaf. Vol. 18, No. 7. Octobar 1989.11-15.
Ernest R. House. Methodology and Justice. Kenneth Sirotnik (ed) New DIreotlona for Program Evaluation. No. 45. San Francieco: Jossey-Bass, 8pt1ng 1990, 23-36.
Ernest R. House. Trends in Evaluation. Educational R — a r c h f . V d . 19, No. 3. April, 1990, 24-28. Also In Spanish, Tendendaa In Evaluaclon, Revlsta de oducacton. 299,1992. 43-55.
Eme«t R. House. Flunking: What Do«« It do for the At-Ri«k Child? EjuffiilfiCcajQ
I a a g . Voi. 7. No. 3. Sprpinoo 1990 10-12. Reprinted In Education Digest.
as T h « Pemlciousness off FFlunking SStudento." 56, 6, FFeb. 1991,41-43.
Emest R. House. Confessiona of a Respontive, Qoal-Free Evaluator. Evaluation p t i . Vol. 12. 3. 1, Feb., 109-114.1991.
Ernest R. House. Big Policy, Little Policy. Educational Raaaarcher. June/July. Vol. 20, 5,21-26.1991.
Emwt R. House. Realism in Re«earch. Educational Retaarcher. Aug/Sept. Vol. 20,6, 2-9.1991

21

Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing. UCLA, CSE Technical Report. October, 1900. 3S pages.

Emeat R House. Report One: Evaluation Issues inside a Large-Scale National Solenco Foundation, Sept, 1992. 20 pages.

Emeet R House. KJell Eide, and Kathleen Keltoy-Laine environmental E-duoatten Pojjcies in Austria: A Review. Organization for Economic
' Cooperation and Development, Parta, August, 1993. 78 pages.

Expert Pandi for Review of Federal Education Programs in Sdenca, Mathematics. Engineering, and Technology, Tha Fadafflf Invpstmant tn Science. Mathematics. Engineering, and Tecnnatoqy Edqoatton: Where Now? What Next? FedermJ Coordinating Counefl on ScJenoe, Mathematics, and Engineering Technology, Washington. 0. C. 1093.

Emett R Houso and Carolyn Haug. Report Two; Evaluation Issues Instate a.

O

National Science Fdundatfon. 9ept. 1993.

Emevt R. House and Carolyn Haug, with Nigel Norns. Evaluation Policies and Issues In the National Sofofipa Pnundatton. Bouider, CO: University of Colorado. 1994. 116 pages.

Martin Trow, Tony Becher, Erruact House, and Aino Saflneen. Raport of Intemat'fonai Advisory Committee to the Qftfl*°r mnt^ Mambars of Ume& University. Umea, Sweden. Jan, 1995. 20 pages.

Ernest R. House, Peter Po*ch, and Kathleen Kelley-Ufn4.

j^f

Environmental Education Policies. Organization for Economic Cooperation

and Development. Pan*. 1995.29 pages.

Ernest R. House, Scott Marion. Linda Rastelf, Dorothy AguQera, Tim Weston, and Kyung Mln. An Evaluation of tha Imoao^of the Center for Research on Evaluation. Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST). School of Education, University of Colorado.

Some Coneultant Aotivltiee
Biological Sdenoes Curriculum Study (6SC8) General Accounting Office (QAO) National Center for Educational Communications (NCEC) Governor's School, North Carolina Connecticut State Department of Education Illinois Education Association (IEA) Kettering Foundation Bush Foundation Far Weal Laboratory for Educational Research and Development Florida State Department of Education American Institute for Research (AJR)

22
Center for the Advanced Study of Educational Administration (CASEA), University of Oregon Central Midwest Regional Educational Laboratory (C£MR£L)
Florida Association for the Gifted National Science Foundation (NSF) National Education A«aodatlon (NEA) The Center for Vocational and Technical Education, Ohio State American Institute of Physics Michigan Educational Association (MEA) New Jersey Education Association (NJEA) National Institute of Education (NIE) Educational Testing Service (ETS) University of Connecticut
National Foundation for Research inEngland and Wales (NFER)
University of Reading University of Sussex University of South Florida Tha Ford Foundation Center for the Study of Evaluation (CSE), UCLA Research for Better Schools (PBS) New Jersey Department of Education
Rand Corporation
Wisconsin Education Awoolaflen (WEA) Ontario Institute for the Study of Education (OISE) U-S. Department of Justice Institute for Policy Studies National Consortium on Testing Educational Development Corporation (EDC) Educational Staff Seminar, Qoorgo Washington University Weytrhaueer Foundation Canada Council Lung Division, National Institutes of Health (NIH) International Institute for Educational Planning, UNESCO Stockholm Institute of Education University of Urnea
Sohoofe Council
British Broadcasting Company (BBC) Cambridge Institute of Education University of London National Academy of Education University Of British Columbia Harvard University University of Colorado Mayor's Office, New York City The J. Paul Getty Trust College Board Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI), U. S. Department of Education Colorado Department of Education

23

University d Western Ontario National Faculty of Humanities, Art* and Sciences Norwegian Research Councfl for Science and the Humanities
University oil Oslo. Norway Rogaiands-FofsKnlng, Norway
MoreForskrdng, Norway
Qpptend District College, Norway Norwegian Research Council for Applied Sooial Sctenoe
Northern Arizona University University of N«W Mexico University of VafladdW, Spain University of AloaJa, Spain University of Malaga, Spain British Columbia Ministry of Education Southeast Evaluation Association
Canadian Evaluation Society
Office of Studies, Evaluation, and Dissemination. NSF Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Parts University of Umek, Sweden Institute for Advanced Study, Vienna, Austria
Naftonal Science Board, NSF Economic and Social Science Research Council, UK National Institute of Occupational Health, Sweden
University of Melbourne Australasian Evaluation Society Tavistock Institute, London Wellington Evaluation Society, New Zealand Auckland Evaluation Society, New Zealand

A Partial List of Funded Projects

1967-71

Olreotor, Evaluation of the Illinois Gifted Program, funded by the Office of the Superintendent of Pubflc Instruction. State Of Illinois • $420,000.

1971

Assistant Director, Technical Assistance Program. Joint State/Federal Task Force on Educational Evaluation, funded by the U.S. Office of Education - $60,000.

1971-72

Director, Development of Instruments for Ascertaining the Opinions of Various OSPI Publos. funded by the Office of the Superintendent of Pubflc Instruction, State of Illinois $15,000.

1971-73

Director. Development and Testing of a New Model of Educational Change, funded by the Office of the Superintendent of Public instruction, State of IHInoie$60,000.

1974 1975 1975-78 1977 1978 1979-82 1981 1 $81-84 • 986-98 1988-89 1989 1989-90 1990-95
1991-96

An Assessment erf tht Michigan Accountability Program, National Education AtaodatJon- $30,000.
Ford Foundation Travel/Study Award to Centre for Applied Research in Education. University of East Anglia - $6,600.
Evaluation of Nettiehorat Project, Ford Foundatfon$70,000.
Policy Implications of th# National Follow Through Evaluation, funded by the Ford Foundation - $25,000.
Evaluation of the Weyerhauw Company Foundation Activities • $40,000.
Study of Evaluation Use and Productivity. National Institute of Education - $140,000.
An Investigation of the Adversary Hearing ee a Public Forum, funded by the Ford Foundation- $8,500.
Auditing the Evaluation of the Promotional Gales Program, funded by Now York Cfty - $54,000.
Content Assessment Center for Testing, Evaluation, and Standards, UCLA, funded by the U.S. Department of £ducation.-$80,000.
Content Assessment, Center for Testing. Evaluation, and Standards, UCLA, funded by the U.S. Department of Education. $35,963.
Evaluation for the National Faculty of Humanities. Arts, and Sclences-$6.000.
Content Assessment Center for Testing, Evaluation, and Standards, UCLA, funded by the U.S. Department of Educttlon-$35, 390.
National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing, UCLA, University of Colorado, and Stanford University, funded by U. S. Department of Education, (Total o1 $10 miBton over S years for entire consortium.)
A Study of Evaluation Issues and Pollde* In a Large-seal* Organization. National Soience Foundation, $ 300,555.

 
 Congress Hispanic Edv. Sen. District No. 1

OT-CO-001-006 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICTDi§5ijRT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 95-M-2313

CONGRESS OF HISPANIC EDUCATORS, e t a l . ,

K. J/x/

Plaintiff-Intervenor,

and

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Proposed Plaintiff-Intervenor v. SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, DENVER, COLORADO, et al.,
Defendants.

nr
•••/-

UNITED STATES' MOTION TO INTERVENE

The United States hereby moves this Court for the entry of an order permitting it to intervene as a matter of right as a plaintiff party in the above-styled action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. -24 (a) (1) and 24(a) ( 2 ) ^ and directing the Clerk to file the attached Complaint-in-Intervention. In the alternative, the United States, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P,- 24(b)(2j> hereby requests that the Court enter an order granting permissive intervention and directing the Clerk to file the attached Complaint-in-Intervention. As grounds for this motion, the United States asserts as follows.
I. Introduction and Summary 1. On December 3 0,___1983, the Court found the defendant school district _(D. P. S•j___in_vlo.la_tion of the Equal OpportunjJ^ies__Act of 1974, 2D..U^S.C. §___1ZQ 3, with respect to its

provision of services to limited English proficient students.

Thereafter, the private plaintiffs and D.P.S. negotiated a

remedial Decree which was approved by the Court on August 17X 1984.

2. More recently, in October 1994, the plaintiffs filed a

motion_J:or contempt alleging that D.P.S. was not in compliance

with various aspects of the Decree. Subsequently, on March 3,

1995, D.P.S. filed a motion to modify the Decree.

3. 0n__July__3_l_L 1997, the United States Department of Education found D.P.S. to be out of compliance _with Title VI of

the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation

Act of 1973, and-Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act,

as well as applicable regulations, due to a failure to provide

equal educational opportunities to limited English proficient

students. The Department of Education was unable to obtain

voluntary compliance and on

Octqber_^_1^2J^^^^^£~^^^^^-te

to the Department of Justice with _a_ recominendation to intervene

in this lawsuit. Referrals are authorized by applicable

regulations.

4. Subsequent to the referral, the United States, D.P.S.

and the CHE plaintiffs entered into lengthy and complex

negotiations to resolve the outstanding issues raised by the

referral by the Department of Education to the Department of

Justice, and the filings referred to in paragraph 2, above,

without the expense of litigation. The Department informed the

plaintiffs and D.P.S. that the goal of the negotiations was to

resolve these outstanding issues and that it would seek to intervene at the conclusion of the negotiation process. This is our common practice. See United States v. Bd. of Educ. of City of Chicago. 554 F. Supp. 912., 913 n.l (N.D. 111. 1983) .
5. The United States, D.P.S. and plaintiffs have resolved the outstanding issues and have agreed to submit two documents to the court for approval. This motion is being filed contemporaneously with the submission. The first document, "English Language Acquisition Program," sets forth the substantive obligations of D.P.S. toward limited English proficient students and includes certain reporting provisions. The second document, entitled "Monitoring" creates a position of a monitor which will oversee the implementation of the decree for a period of three school years, beginning in the 1999-2000. The parties have agreed that Dr. Ernest House will serve, with court approval, in that position.
6. The United States seeks to intervene to join with D.P.S. and the CHE plaintiffs in urging the Court to approve the agreement, and to be__able to enforce the_ag_reement_and the applicable laws upon which the agreement is based.
II. Intervention of Right A. Rule 24(a)(1)
7. Rule 24(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, with respect to intervention of right, provides that " [u]pon timely application anyone shall be permitted to intervene in an

action: (1) when a statute of the United States confers an unconditional right to intervene."
8. A statute of the United States grants the Attorney General the unconditional right to intervene on behalf of the United States. The Equal Educational Opportunities Act. of 1974 •-at- 2CKU.S.C. § 1709 permits the Attorney General to intervene in an action instituted under 20 U.S.C. § 1706. This lawsuit was instituted, in part, under this provision. See Keyes v. School Dist. No. 1. 576 F. Supp. 1503, 1520 (D. Colo. 1983) (finding EEOA violation).
9. The United States' intervention is timely. The timeliness analysis is contextual, and considers the length of time the would be intervenor should have known of its interests in the case before it petitioned to intervene, the prejudice to existing parties because of the delay, the prejudice the would be intervenor may suffer if intervention is denied, and unusual circumstances. See Sierra Club v. Espy, 18 F.3d 1202 (5th Cir. 1994). Here, the United States has acted diligently since it was asked by the Department of Education to intervene in this action. It has participated in comprehensive negotiations with the parties in this case to bring about a fair, reasonable and adequate resolution of the issues raised by not only the referral but also the filings referred to in paragraph 2, above. Accordingly, the original parties to this lawsuit are not in any way prejudiced by the United States '__ intervention. The United States would be prejudiced if intervention were denied. The

United States would have to file a separate lawsuit regarding the same subject matter and not obtain the immediate benefits of its substantial efforts in the negotiations process.
B. Rtile 24 (aWjn ) 10. Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2) permits intervention of right, :upon timely application, "when the applicant claims an interest relating to ... the subject of the action and the applicant is so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the applicant's ability to protect that interest, unless the applicant's interest is adequately represented by existing parties." See generally, Coalition of Arizona/New Mexico Counties for Stable Econ. Growth v. Dept. of the Interior, 100 F.3d 837 (10th Cir. 1996) (discussing standard for intervention under Rule 24(a)(2)). 11. For the reasons stated in paragraph 9, above, our application is timely. 12. The United States has a substantial interest in the subject matter of this lawsuit, which is the provision of services, as required by federal law, to limited English proficient students in D.P.S. to enable such students to meaningfully participate in the district's educational program. This is particularly true when the defendant is a recipient of federal funds, and also when the government is charged with enforcement responsibility under the statutes in question. See Smith v. Panailinan. 651 F.2d 1320, 1324 (9th Cir. 1981); Gulf States Utilities v. Alabama Power Co.. 824 F.2d 1465, 1476,
5

modified on other grounds, 831 F.2d 557 (5th Cir. 1987). 13. As set out in the attached Complaint-in-Intervention,
the Department of Education found D.P.S. out of compliance with several statutes pertaining to the provision of services to 'limited English proficient students. Pursuant to applicable statutes and regulations, see 42 U.S.C. § 2000d, 34 C.F.R. § 100.8(a), incorporated into the Section 504 regulations at 34 C.F.R § 104.61, and authorized by the ADA regualations at 28 C.F.R. § 35.174, the matter was referred to the Department of Justice for enforcement, with a recommendation that the United States intervene in this lawsuit. Thus, our interest is more than sufficient to warrant intervention.
13. Should intervention be denied, the United States would have to file a separate lawsuit regarding the same subject matter to protect its interests identified above. However, the disposition of this action may impede our ability to protect our interest, even assuming the same remedial plan that was negotiated by the United States, D.P.S. and the CHE plaintiffs, were incorporated into the separate action. Indeed, with the unlikely scenario of two separate lawsuits regarding the same subject matter, which would put a strain on D.P.S. limited resources, any subsequent action in one lawsuit would necessarily affect the other and also raise the possibility of inconsistent obligations for D.P.S. Moreover, a decision in one lawsuit would impact the parallel suit. "In appropriate circumstances ... stare decisis may supply the requisite practical impairment

warranting intervention of right." Pangilinan. 651 F.3d at 1325. See Coalition of Arizona/New Mexico Counties. 100 F.3d at 844; United States v. Oregon. 839 F.2d 635, 638 (9th Cir. 1988) .
14. Finally, the requirement of the Rule is met if the applicant shows that the representation of its interest "may be" inadequate; the burden of making that showing is minimal. Trbovich v. United Mine Workers of America, 404 U.S. 528, 538 n.10 (1972). The private plaintiffs do not represent the government's interests, they represent the interests of the Congress of Hispanic Educators and the class. Moreover, the government has a unique interest here insofar as several of the statutes its seeks to enforce through intervention, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, are conditioned on the receipt of federal funds and the contractual relationship between the government and the D.P.S.
Ill. Permissive Intervention Rule 24/(b) (2) )
15. Granting permissive intervention is within the sound discretion of the district court. City of Stilwell v. Ozarks Rural Elec. Coop. Corp., 79 F.3d 1038, 1043 (10th Cir. 1996) . The requirements for permissive intervention under Rule 24(b) are met when there is a common question__of law _or fact between applicant's claim and the main action. In exercising its discretion the court should consider whether the intervention will unduly prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the
7

original parties. 16. Here the requirements are met. The questions of fact
and law in the referral and the questions of fact and law in this lawsuit are the same or substantially overlap as they relate to the provision of services to limited English proficient students. Moreover, for reasons set out herein, our intervention is timely and will not prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties. Indeed, our participation will help ensure the guaranty of those rights.

Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, we urge the Court to grant our motion to intervene as of right pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(1) and 24(a)(2), or alternatively to grant our motion for permissive intervention pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(2); and to direct the Clerk to file the attached Complaint-inIntervention.

LINDA A. ,Mcl United StateS^Attorney

Respectfully submitted,
BILL LANN.-^EE) Acting Assi-sxant Attorney General

JEREMIAH(^ LISA/EVANS" - ^
HRYN M. WOODRUFF U.S. Department of Justice Educational Opportunities Section P.O. Box 65958 Washington, D.C. 20035-5958 (202) 514-4092

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have served copies of the foregoing, United States's Motion to Intervene with the attached Complaintin-Intervention and Proposed Order, by first-class mail upon the following counsel of record:

Michael Jackson, Esq. Denver Public Schools 900 Grant St. Denver, CO 8 02 03
Peter R. Roos, Esq. META 785 Market St., Suite 420 San Francisco, CA 94103

CD
-<
o

This

day of April, 1999

U.S. Dept. of Justice

 
 — JUW 2 21999

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Chief Judge Richard P. Matsch

Um ^ / £. £ Q Sl

Civil Action No. 95-M-2313 CONGRESS OF HISPANIC EDUCATORS,

— " NSPEJj<ER

Plaintiff,

UNITED STATES,
V.

Congress Hispanic Ed v. Sen. District No 1
III I III II I!« I
OT-CO-001-007

SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, DENVER, COLORADO,

Defendant.

ORDER APPROVING ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION PROGRAM

The parties having jointly submitted to this Court "Joint Exhibit A" in settlement of the matters presently pending before the Court, and the Court having heard substantial evidence in support of the parties "Joint Exhibit A, Denver Public Schools English Language Acquisition Program" and "Joint Exhibit B, Monitoring," and it appearing that the requirements of Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have been met, it is
ORDERED that the document denominated "Denver Public Schools: English Language Acquisition Program," submitted to the Court jointly by the parties as "Joint Exhibit A" in settlement of the language issues in this action shall be implemented by the Denver Public Schools in accordance with its terms. The document denominated "Joint Exhibit B, Monitoring," shall be implemented in accordance with its terms and Dr. Ernest R. House, Professor of Education and Director, Laboratory for Policy Studies, University of Colorado at Boulder is appointed monitor, and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that this Order supersedes the Order Approving Program for English Proficient Students dated August 17,1984, and shall serve as this Court's Order

ah

v

0/

until further Order of the Court.
Dated:
COURT:
RitfhaVdP. Matsch, Chief Judge
Approved as to forrn^?
Peter D. Roos, Esq. Attorney for Plaintiff Multicultural Education, Training & Advocacy 785 Market Street, #420 San Francisco, CA 94103
remiah Glassman, Esq. athy Woodruff, Esq. Lisa Evans, Esq. Attorneys for Intervenors U.S. Department of Justice Educational Opportunities Section P.O. Box 65958 Washington, D.C. 20035-5938
M^hael H. Jackson, E Peter Lawrence Vana. Attorneys for Defendant 900 Grant Street, #704 Denver, CO 80203

UNITED ST/U-5S 9j§Tf?!CT COURT :^ -"•;• .'.flLOSAOO
M 18

Case Number: 95-M-2313
I certify that I mailed a copy of the Order Approving English Language Acquisition Program entered by Chief Judge Richard P. Matsch on June 16, 1999, to the following:
Dated:
JAMES R. MANSPEAKER, CLERK
By: ^Deputy Clerk
Stephen Taylor Assistant U.S. Attorney
Peter Roos Multicultural Education, Training & Advocacy 785 Market St. #420 San Francisco, CA 94103
Roger L. Rice Jane E. Lopez Multicultural Education, Training & Advocacy 240A Elm St. Suite 22 Somerville, MA 02144
Michael H. Jackson Peter Lawrence Vana, III Denver Public Schools 900 Grant St. Denver, CO 80203
Phil C. Neal Neal Gerber & Eisenberg 2 N. LaSalle St., #2300 Chicago, IL 60602
Jeremiah Glassman Lisa Evans U.S. Department of Justice Educational Opportunities Section P.O. Box 65958 Washington, DC 20035-5958

 
 Congress Hispanic Ed v. Sch. District No. 1

OT-CO-001-008

~"

F;':. IP

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT U.S_ r;'; T • '. ' : T

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

DIS~'

Chief Judge Richard P. Matsch

Civil Action No. 95-M-2313

CONGRESS OF HISPANIC EDUCATORS,

Plaintiff,

UNITED STATES,

Intervenor,

v.

SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, DENVER, COLORADO,

Defendant.

SPECIAL ENTRY OF APPEARANCE AND REQUEST FOR PERMISSION TO SUBMIT WRITTEN OBJECTIONS AND TESTIMONY REGARDING PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT

COMES NOW Padres Unidos, Inc. ("Padres Unidos"), an organization of parents of students of Denver Public Schools, by and through their attorney, Adrienne Benavidez of Riggs, Abney, Neal, Turpen, Orbison & Lewis, P.C., and hereby requests leave of the Court to enter its appearance on behalf of Padres Unidos for the limited purpose of submitting objections and testimony in connection with the proposed settlement of the above-captioned matter. In support thereof, Padres Unidos states the following:
1. On April 21,1999, the Court entered its Order Setting Hearing and Providing for Notice Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.23(e) to determine whether approval should be given to the proposed settlement. The subsequent Notice stated that "[a]ny parent or guardian of a student who attends the Denver Public Schools and who is Limited English Proficient... may file an objection..." The Notice went on to state that "[i]f you file a written objection, you have the right to voice your concerns to the judge by appearing in court at 1:30 p.m. on June 3, 1999."
2. Padres Unidos is a 501 (c) (3) organization comprised of parents of students attending Denver Public Schools. The membership of Padres Unidos includes parents and/or guardians of students who attend Denver Public Schools and who are limited English proficient, or who believe thier children do or will qualify for special language help.

3. In 1996^Padres Unidos filed a Complaint with the Office of Civil Rights against Denver Public Schools for violations of Federal law_with regard to its delivery of educatio£a|^exyJ£e^aiiniu^^English-pr-oficient-students. The Denver Public STcfiooIsf and the U.S. Government through its Department of Justice resolved the Complaint by way of settlement.
4. The settlement of the above referenced Complaint was submitted as the proposed settlement of this matter. Because Padres Unidos was instrumental in the development of the Complaint settlement, their input regarding the proposed settlement is essential.
5. Therefore, Padres Unidos requests permission of the Court to submit its objections and comments to the proposed settlement. A copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
6. Dr. Kathy Escamilla, Board Member of Padres Unidos; David Portillo, Executive Director of Padres Unidos, and Guadalupe, Lopez, Parent Member of Padres Unidos will be present at the hearing. Padres Unidos requests that Dr. Escamilla be permitted to present testimony on its behalf at the hearing scheduled for June 3, 1999 at 1:30 p.m.
7. Pursuant to D.C. Colo. LR 7.1, the undersigned counsel has conferred with counsel for the Plaintiffs and for the United States. Neither counsel objects to this request. Undersigned counsel has also conferred with counsel for the Defendant who indicated that he could not state a position until he had discussed the matter with his client. Due to the impending date of the hearing, Defendant's counsel was advised that this request would be made this date and forwarded to him for more thorough review.
WHEREFORE, Padres Unidos requests that it be allowed to submit written comments and oral testimony at the hearing on June 3, 1999.
Respectfully submitted, this 28th day of May, 1999.
RIGGS, ABNEY, NEAL, TURPEN, ORBISON & LEWIS, P.C.
By? Adrienne^Benavidez, k e g ^ o . 20717 621 Seventeenth St., Suite 600 Denver, CO 80293 (303) 298-7392

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing, SPECIAL ENTRY
OF APPEARANCE AND REQUEST FOR PERMISSION TO SUBMIT OBJECTIONS
AND TESTIMONY REGARDING PROPOSED SETTLEMENT was mailed and faxed this 28th day of May, 1999, to the following parties of record:

Peter Roos Multicultural Education, Training & Advocacy 785 Market St., #420 San Francisco, CA 94103 (Fax (415) 546-6363)

Roger L. Rice Jane E. Lopez Multicultural Education, Training & Advocacy 240A Elm St., Suite 22 Somerville, MA 02144 (Fax (617) 628-0322)

Jeremiah Glassman Kathy Woodruff U.S. Dept. Of Justice Educational Opportunities Section P.O. Box 65958 Washington, DC 20035-5958 (Fax (202)514-8337)

Michael H. Jackson Denver Public Schools 900 Grant Street Denver, CO 80203 (Fax (303) 764-3216)

 
 IN THE UMTED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
CHIEF JUDGE RICHARD P. MATSCH

Katherine Hasfjord, Courtroom Deputy Kathy Terasaki, ECR Operator

Congress Hispanc Ed v Sen. District No. 1

DaterTune 3, 199^ Case No. 95-M-2313

OT CO 001-010

Congress of Hispanic Educators,

Peter Roos

Plaintiff,

vs.

United States of America

Jeremiah Glassman Lisa Evans Kathryn Woodruff

Interyenor,

vs. School District of No. 1, Denver, Colorado
Padres Unidos, Inc. Special Appearance

Michael Jackson Peter Vana
Adrienne Benavidez

COURTROOM MINUTES
Hearing: Fairness Hearing
Court in session: 1:30 p.m.
Counsel appearances.
Mr. Jackson reports to the court on compliance with the notice - publishing, post office box, response by Padres Unidos only, placement of notices, mailing of notices, etc. Mr. Roos confirms Mr. Jackson's statement. Court finds that there was procedural compliance.
Court speaks to Ms. Benavidez. She presents Dr. Kathy Esciamma who makes a statement to the court. No questions by Mr. Roos, Mr. Jackson does questioning and that is followed by a question from Mr. Glassman.

0

Mr. Jackson presents some witnesses.
Leonard Moskowitz (2:15) makes statements to the court followed by questions by Mr. Roos and Mr. Glassman.
Rita Montero (2:32) makes statements to the court followed by questions by Mr. Glassman, Mr. Roos and the court.
Dr. Wayne Eckerling (2:56) makes statements to the court followed by questions by Mr. Roos, Mr. Glassman and the court.
Recess 3:35 p.m. Reconvene 3:45 p.m.
Jose Perea makes statements to the court followed by questions by Mr. Roos and the court.
Susan Edwards (4:20) makes statements to the court.
Mr. Jackson and Mr. Roos ask the court to sign off on the plan and approve the recommended monitor. Mr. Glassman agrees. Ms. Benavidez asks the court to consider the suggestion their group made.
The court makes findings and speaks on the role of the court. The court orders the plan to be accepted and counsel are asked to prepare a consent decree for the court to sign.
The court speaks on the changes in the school system through the years from the 1970s to today.
Recess 4:40 p.m.

,,,?°?.Rr.ess Hispanic

). 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Chief Judge Richard P. Matsch
Civil Action No. 95-M-2313
CONGRESS OF HISPANIC EDUCATORS,
Plaintiff,

FILED
Ml 1 - 1999
JAMES R. MANSPEAKER .CLERK

UNITED STATES,

Intervenor,

v. SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, DENVER, COLORADO,
Defendant.

ORDER APPROVING SPECIAL ENTRY OF APPEARANCE OF PADRES UNIDOS, INC. AND REQUEST FOR PERMISSION TO SUBMIT WRITTEN OBJECTIONS AND
TESTIMONY REGARDING PROPOSED SETTLEMENT

Upon review and consideration of the request filed by Padres Unidos, Inc. on May 28,1999, it is

ORDERED that the request is granted to permit the special entry of appearance of Padres Unidos, Inc. for the limited purpose of submitting written objections and oral testimony regarding the proposed settlement.

Dated: ^*

, 1999

BY THE COURT:

// Rich&rd'P. Matsch, Chief Judge

Adrienne Benavidez 621 17th St. #600 Denver, CO 80293

 
 FILED .
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTDEWER,COLORADO

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

1

J U L * 1999

:ONGRESS OF HISPANIC EDUCATORS, Plaintiff,

JAMES H.MANSPEAKER

CLERK

BY.

'DEP.CUERK

vs .
SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, DENVER, COLORADO,

95 M 2313

Defendant.

FAIRNESS HEARING TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

Proceedings held before the HONORABLE RICHARD P. MATSCH, U. S. District Judge for the District of Colorado, beginning at 1:30 p.m. on the 3rd day of June, 1999, in Courtroom C-204, United States Courthouse, Denver, Colorado.

APPEARANCES

For the Plaintiff

Peter Roos, Esq.

META, Inc.

oo

785 Market Street, #420

San Francisco, CA 94103

For Padres Unidos:

Adrienne Helen Benavidez, Esq. Riggs, Abney, Neal, Turpen, Orbison & Lewis, PC 621 - 17th Street, #600 Denver, Colorado 80293

Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording; transcript produced by transcription service.
a. O
Congress Hispanic Ed v. Sen. District No. 1

V V

HH HH

•• •

•

OT-CO-001-011

APPEARANCES: (Continued) For the Intervenor:
For the Defendant:

Jeremiah Glassman, Esq. 601 D Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20035
Michael Hodges Jackson, Esq. Denver Public School General Counsel 900 Grant Street Denver, Colorado 80203

oo
<L
o
o
2 O

1

PROCEEDINGS

2

(At 1:30 p.m. on June 3, 1999, in the United States

District Court at Denver, Colorado, before the HONORABLE

RICHARD P. MATSCH, U. S. District Judge, with counsel for the

parties present, the following proceedings were had:)

6

THE COURT: Be seated, please.

7

We're here in 95 M 2313, Congress of Hispanic

Educators, Plaintiff, United States, Intervenor, and School

District Number 1, Denver, Colorado, Defendant, pursuant to

10 an order entered April 21st setting this hearing and

11 directing notice under Rule 23 (e) of the submission of

12 proposal to settle class action filed April 20, 1999.

13

And there's also a special appearance with the

14 request for permission to be heard on objections by Padres

15 Unidos, Incorporated.

16

So we have Mr^JRoos for the plaintiff, Congress of

17 Hispanic Educators. Mr. Glassman for the intervenor. Mr.

oo

18 Jackson for the defendant. And do we have the--

19

MS. BENAVIDEZ: Yes, Your Honor. Adrienne Benavidez.

20

THE COURT: All right, Ms. Benavidez for the Padres.

21

So I guess I need to make sure that there has been

22 compliance with the requirements of notice here. Mr.

23 Jackson, were you going to take care of that?

O

s

24

MR. JACKSON: Yes, Your Honor.

25

THE COURT: All right.

MR. JACKSON: I can do it one of two ways. I can report

to the Court, or I can call a witness to do--

THE COURT: No, you could report as to what notice was

provided, and so forth.

5

'MR. JACKSON: All right.

6

THE COURT: We have of course in the order, I directed

that you proceed with the forms of notice attached as

Exhibits 1 and 2, and so forth. We need to make a record

that that was done, if it was. I hope it was.

10

MR. JACKSON: It was indeed.

11

First, Your Honor, with respect to Exhibit 1, that

12 was sent out to the approximately 14,000 of the parents or

13 guardians of the 14,000 plus students in the Denver Public

14 Schools who are English language learners.

15

In addition, the notice as required by the order

16 was translated into Spanish, which was Exhibit 2, and was

17 published for a period of four weeks in Navos and El

oo

18 Seminario, as required by the order. We have filed with the

19 Clerk's office today the affidavits of the publishers,

20 together with the form of the notice, indicating that it was

0

21 published for the required period of time.

Q_

LU

tr

cr.

22

In addition, we have--

UJ

cc

23

THE COURT: Are those papers filed downstairs?

o

cr

24

MR. JACKSON: Filed downstairs. I have copies here if

25 you'd like copies now?

1

THE COURT: Yeah, I would. Yes, I would.

2

All right. And here are the publishers'

3 affidavits.

4

MR. JACKSON: Yes.

5

- THE COURT: Okay.

6

MR. JACKSON: As noted on the affidavits, Your Honor, we

7 did secure a post office box for the receipt of objections,

8 as called for in the order, and that post office box is noted

9 on the form of notice that was published. I have been

10 advised by the clerk, the deputy clerk, Mr. Ehrlich, that no

11 objections or letters or submissions of any sort were

12 received in that post office box, which~was checked weekly by

13 the Clerk's office.

14

THE COURT: That's the P.O. Box 993?

15

MR. JACKSON: Okay.

16

THE COURT: Okay.

17

MR. JACKSON: In addition, Your Honor, I would report

oo

18 that I received no response pursuant to that notice. I'm

19 advised by counsel for the United States and for the

20 plaintiffs that, likewise, they received no correspondence,

o

21 save for the _copjy_jof__the_sp_ec_ial appearance and request that

0.

22 was filed by Padres Unidos.

23

In addition, the copy of the plan in Spanish and in

o

s

24 English was placed in each school within the school district,

o
25 and in accordance with the submission to you, copies were

available at the administration building, again in Spanish

and in English. Lists of translators for Khamur, Vietnamese

and Russian were provided, and provision was made for those

who wish to purchase a copy of the plan were announced, and

those copies were available in the office of the school

administration building at a cost of $3.00. No one appeared

requesting to buy a copy of the plan.

Now, the documents that were submitted to the

schools and were in place for view included the joint Exhibit

10 A, which was the plan itself which was submitted to the

11 Court, and joint Exhibit B, which was the section relating to

12 monitoring. Exhibit B also contained the vitae of the

13 proposed monitor, Dr. House.

14

So with respect to the technical aspect, if you

15 will, Your Honor, of the procedures required for the notice,

16 we believe we have complied.

17

THE COURT: Okay.

oo

18

MR. JACKSON: All right.

19

THE COURT: All right, Mr. Roos for the plaintiff here,

20 I take it you're prepared to confirm Mr. Jackson's statement

o

21 that you didn't receive any objections, other than the one

0.

22 that is represented here?

23

MR. ROOS: That is correct. And in addition, we have

CO

o

24 received no information that would contradict anything that

25 Mr. Jackson said concerning the placement of the plan in the

1 schools, and the like.

2

THE COURT: All right.

3

MR. ROOS: So as far as our knowledge is concerned,

4 everything was done correctly.

5

" THE COURT: So we have a procedural compliance.

6

MR. ROOS: That is correct, Your Honor.

7

THE COURT: And are prepared to consider this matter on

8 its merits.

9

MR. ROOS: Yes.

10

THE COURT: You received, I presume, the written

11 objections regarding the proposed settlement filed by counsel

12 on behalf of what's identified here as Padres Unidos?

13

MR. ROOS: Yes, sir.

14

THE COURT: And I don't know whether any discussion was

15 had with representatives of that group and the plaintiffs, or

16 what has happened, or whether we're going to consider them in

17 detail here, or what.

ou

18

MR. ROOS: I believe that--I mean, we have spoken to

19 them and we've dealt with them over the course of time. I

20 think they do want to present their--some testimony, or

21 present in person their concerns, and we think that that's--

22 it seems appropriate to us. The community obviously should

23 be heard.

24

We would suggest, and again I don't know how the

25 Court regularly handles these, and maybe they proceed first,

and then I know that the District--and rather than have us

get up and sort of give an overview of what we have done, but

have them go first. And then I know the District feels a

need to present some witnesses.

- THE COURT: Sure. I want to hear from the District with

respect to their readiness to implement this plan, and maybe

also some summary.

MR. ROOS: Right.

THE COURT: I of course read the proposed decree here

10 and Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2. So I'm familiar with it, but we

11 have people in the courtroom who may not be.

12

Mr. Jackson, how do you wish to proceed? And I

13 don't know to what extent you may have discussed with or

14 considered the objections.

15

MR. JACKSON: I have certainly considered them. I have

16 not spoken with counsel about them. I would join with Mr.

17 Roos in the suggestion that they be permitted to state their

oo

18 objections initially.

CD
Li.

°e

19

THE COURT: Okay.

cr

LU

Q.

<

20

MR. JACKSON: And as the Court noted, we are prepared to

21 present witnesses from the school district that will talk not

22 only about the development of the plan, but will provide an

23 overview for the Court's benefit as to what they believe to

u

24 be the significant, not only changes, but components of the

o

25 plan, and then deal specifically with the issues of

implementation.

THE COURT: And will they be in a position to address

any of these objections?

MR. JACKSON: To the extent that they are truly

objections, they will be, Your Honor. As I view them, I

believe that many of them, although perhaps titled as

7 objections, really are concerns about implementation.

THE COURT: Well, that's right, and there are some

concerns about the way in which the $3.00 plan was available,

10 and so forth, and I'll hear from counsel about that. But it

11 strikes me that it's most efficient, if this is agreeable to

12 counsel for the objections, to hear from her first, and then

13 to the extent that some of these things might be addressed in

14 any of the--by any of the witnesses you call, we can deal

15 with it without having to recall them.

16

MR. JACKSON: Fine.

17

THE COURT: Okay. So, let me ask Ms. Benavidez to

oo

18 proceed.

19

MS. BENAVIDEZ: Thank you, Your Honor.

20

As we stated in our request to submit these

o

21 objections and comments, as well as testimony, Dr. Kathy

22 Escamilla, who is a board member of Padres Unidos, is here

23 with me to provide that testimony, and we're ready to proceed

24 in whatever manner you'd suggest.

25

THE COURT: Well, I don't know whether you want to make

10

a statement about these objections and then hear from him, or

however you want to proceed is all right with me.

MS. BENAVIDEZ: She can provide the testimony. She's

ready.

5

- THE COURT: Okay.

6

MS. BENAVIDEZ: Would you like her to come up here or--

7

THE COURT: Yes. Come on up and be sworn, please.

8

KATHY ESCAMILLA

9 called as a witness herein, having been first duly sworn, was

10 examined and testified as follows:

11

THE CLERK: Would you state your full name for the

12 record, and spell your last name?

13

THE WITNESS: Yes. Kathy Escamilla, E-s-c-a-m-i-1-l-a.

14

THE CLERK: Thank you.

15

THE COURT: Do you wish to proceed?

16

DIRECT EXAMINATION

17 BY MS. BENAVIDEZ:

oo

18 Q f Dr. Escamilla/ you wanted to summarize the objections

19 and comments and make additional statements?

20 A Yes.

tor

21 Q Go ahead.

a.

22 A Good afternoon, Your Honor.

23

It is important we believe that any plan that's

24 mandated by a court and accepted by a school district be
O
25 implemented in its entirety. I believe that all parties

Escamilla - Direct

11

1 concerned here today would agree that an issue with the

2 current court order is not in__it;.s_£ailiire_txx-ser^zice

3 children, but_rather in its failure to _be_fully implemented.

4

Given the likelihood that some version of the

5 proposed plan is going to be implemented and approved by you,

6 it is important to state that our purpose here today is not

7 to derail a train that appears to be moving down the tracks,

8 but rather to ensure that all of the wheels on the train are

9 fully operational.

10

It's critical that if this plan is approved, all

11 aspects of the plan be implemented in their entirety. To

12 that end, it's important to acknowledge the role of the

13 monitor in the new plan, and to state that this is a

14 significant addition and one that we support.

15

That said, however, I think it's important to look

16 at five key elements of the plan and ways to better assure

17 that they are implemented in their entirety. As they are

18 stated in the proposed plan, we feel that they pose potential

19 obstacles to full implementation. Padres Unidos has proposed

20 additional language that we feel would help to ensure full

o

21 implementation. We feel that these are reasonable and

22 legitimate considerations, and we ask you to consider them

23 seriously.

a.

o

otr

24

The five major issues relate to parent permission,

25 a parent's right to appeal decisions that are made for their

Escamilla - Direct

12

1 children, parents and teachers having access to the monitor,

2 and anonymity related to having access to the monitor, the

3 plan'js exit. c_r_ij^eria_. and administrator training. The Court

4 has a copy of the written comments, and my intention is to

5 just summarize them.

6

The first issue about parents is that parents need

7 real information. We are concerned that the school district

8 proposes to charge a fee of $3.00 for parents who want

9 information about the program in Spanish, while English

10 copies are free. We're concerned about that. We're

11 concerned that non-English speaking parents may not be

12 literate in their native language, and even if they have

13 information in their native language, this doesn't provide

14 real access.

15

The plan does provide provisions for an oral

16 interpreter in cases where more than 100 students speak the

17 same language, but parents have to request the services. How

18 do I know that I have a right to request an interpreter if

19 I'm not given information in my own language?

20

We are particularly concerned that school.

21 secretaries, as competent as they are, may not be the best

22 people to give parents information about the program. So we

23 would like to suggest that parents have real information, and

24 one of our suggestions would be that the parents have a bill
o
25 of rights that's available to them in English and Spanish,

Escamilla - Direct

13

1 and that the District, in collaboration with others in the

community, develop a video tape about the program that is

available to all schools for parents to--

THE COURT: Let me interrupt there. When you say bill

of rights, are you talking about their rights under the plan?

6

THE WITNESS: Yes .

7

THE COURT: Okay. You're not talking about some

separate--

THE WITNESS: No, no. No, we're talking about that they

10 have the right to refuse the program if they want to, that

11 they have a right to file an appeal.

12

THE COURT: Yeah, okay.

13

THE WITNESS: Currently, on Pages 13 to 16 of the

14 program, parents have no right of appeal. They have a right

15 to say that they don't want the program for their child, but

16 once their children are in the program, once the District has

17 made the decision to exit them from the program, they do not

oo

18 have a right to say I want my child to stay in the program

19 for a longer period of time.

20

There is language about parents being able to go

21 and say I disagree with this decision, but as the plan

22 currently states, the parents can file an objection, but the

23 objection goes in a file. There's no language how
o
24 procedurally parent objections are going to be handled, or
o
25 how long it will take for parents to get satisfaction to

Escamilla - Direct

14

objections. So we're concerned about that.

We are concerned about, again, parents knowing that

they have access to the monitor. We want to be sure that the

monitor has access to schools and to teachers. We're further

concerned that teachers who may provide information to

monitors fear retaliation, and so we would like for teachers

to be able to provide information that they feel is critical

to program implementation in a way that they are anonymous.

We have a major concern about the standards of exit

10 being too low, and I would like to address two specific

11 issues. One is that Number 2 on the proposed exit criteria

12 says that a student may be exited from the program if they

13 score between the 20th percentile on a Norm reference test.

14 This places students in the lower quartile, and in some

15 schools in some school districts, students in the lowest

16 quartile are considered to be poor readers, and yet the

17 standards for exit would identify children who read like this

oo

18 who are English language learners as being proficient in

19 English. And so there seems to be a major discrepancy

a.

20 between the definition of what constitutes being proficient

en

ct

UJ

't—
tox.

21 in English.

D.

22

We have already begun to see aspects of the plan

23 being implemented that give us cause for concern. There are

o
2

24 42 school that have been identified as ELAP program schools,

O

25 these are schools that would be priority schools, as a result

Escamilla - Direct

15

the third grade CSAP, and I want to differentiate between the

CSAP and the Iowa Test of Basic Skills.

In the District Board notes of May 28, 1999, the

District said that the ITBS results that were reported in the

paper as proving that the District is making positive gains

in literacy did not include students who are just learning

English, but the CSAP does. So the CSAP is probably the very

best way to look at how well potential English language

learners are doing in the program.

10

With regard to CSAP results, approximately 42

11 schools that have been identified as ELAP schools reported 12 their results in May. 29 of these schools, or 69 per cent of 13 them, had fewer students passing the third grade CSAP this 14 year than in 1998. Ten or more of the schools had 10 per 15 cent of the students failing the CSAP. One school posted the 16 same results and only 13 had any significant improvement to

17 report.

oo

18

And so we are concerned that the standards for exit

5

19 are too low and will result in students being exited to

20 failure instead of provided a meaningful opportunity to

m

tz

ui

a: O

21 participate in an all English classroom.

22

We are concerned_about: Number 4 of the exit

23 criteria, which basically provides loopholes for Numbers 1

o

5

24 through 3, and would suggest that Number 4 be eliminated if

25 the Court decides to accept Numbers 1 through 3.

Escamilla - Direct

16

1

The last concern is with regard to--

2

THE COURT: Let me just stop you there. I'm not right

there at the moment. Let me get to that chapter, because I

don't remember what Number 4 is.

5

-THE WITNESS: I'm sorry?

6

THE COURT: I don't remember what Number 4 is on the

7 ixit. That's Chapter 5?

8

THE WITNESS: It's Pages 13 to 16 of the plan.

9

THE COURT: Okay. Hold on.

10

THE WITNESS: And there are four suggested criteria, and

11 Numbers 1 through 3 outline criteria that include both oral

12 language and reading and writing, and Number 4 is a way of

13 saying__i£_atud.exLts_be__cgme__oral_lX-Pr.o_f_jLcjLent but they haven't

14 yet

could be exited

15 based on, and then there's a series of if this, then this.

16 If they're getting good grades, then maybe they can be

17 exited, if they don't meet the writing criteria and they

oo

18 score a Number 2 under some circumstances. That presents a

19 series of loopholes that provide a significant concern about

20 full implementation.

21

THE COURT: Okay, thanks.

22

THE WITNESS: Finally, we have a concern that there is

23 no administrator__training provided as a part of the plan.

24 Administrators, particularly school principals, have the
o
25 lion's share of the responsibility for implementation of this

Escamilla - Direct

17

plan. They have to lead schools. As we know, they're the

ones who get transferred if schools don't make significant

progress on things like reading and writing measures. They

are going to be responsible for convening the ICA teams in

theix school, and the ICA teams in the schools are the teams

who are going to exit kids out of the program.

They carry the responsibility, and it doesn't seem

quite fair that a lot of them are--have this responsibility

but don't have any formal preparation for carrying it out.

10

THE COURT: Well, what do you mean with training here?

11 What would the training be?

12

THE WITNESS: I think that they at least should know

13 what aspects of the program are. They're responsible for

14 identifying--

15

THE COURT: They ought to know the plan?

16

THE WITNESS: Yes.

17

THE COURT: Okay. Well, you're not talking about some

oo

18 special language training or--

19

THE WITNESS: No, no, I'jn. talking about that they need

20 to know the_plan_;.

Oa.

21

THE COURT: The rules.

22

THE WITNESS: Yes.

23

THE COURT: Okay.

c

O

tr

24

THE WITNESS: Okay, I'd like to close by saying that you

O

25 do have a written copy of all of this concern and that, you

Escamilla - Direct

18

know, our commitment is to help language minority students.

2

THE COURT: Sure.

3

THE WITNESS: And not to get in the way of what has

potential to help them. I'd be happy to answer questions.

THE COURT: Do you know the monitor who is suggested

here?

THE WITNESS: I know him, but I don't know him well.

THE COURT: Well, you know his background?

9

THE WITNESS: Yes.

10

THE COURT: His CV, and so forth. Do_you have any

11 objection to him becoming^the_monitor?

12

THE WITNESS: None.

13

THE COURT: Which is a rather significant role here.

14

THE WITNESS: Uh-huh. No objection.

15

THE COURT: Okay.

16

MS. BENAVIDEZ: If I could ask Dr. Escamilla a couple of

17 questions?

oo

18

THE COURT: Certainly,

19 Q

(by Ms. Benavidez) Dr. Escamilla, one of the other

20 areas that we--that Padres has raised a concern was.with

en O

21 materials that I'm not sure you completely addressed. Would

22 you like to"'comment on that?

23 A Yeah, a comment. At issue again, which there did not

too

2

24 seem to be any disagreement on either side was that schools

o

25 need materials in order to be effectively--be able to

Escamilla - Direct

19

effectively teach kids, and that schools have not had all the

materials that they need.

While the new plan calls for making standards to

adopt materials, it doesn't specifically say that schools

should have materials to teach, for example, English as a

second language, or to teach reading to second language

learners of English.

Q Dr. Escamilla, you also described in the information on

access in the video presentation, the bill of rights. We had

10 attached some proposed language, and I think the Court asked 11 you a question on those bill of rights. Is that what Padres 12 is proposing be included in the presentation? 13 A Yes.

14 Q And I failed to ask you to maybe for the Court's

15 information, to give a little background information on 16 Padres Unidos and yourself.

17 A Okay. Padres Unidos first?

oo

18 Q Sure.

19 A Okay. Padre^_.Uiiidos__was__formed_ the beginning of the 20 19S-Qs__as an advocacy and issues group for children in the 21 Denver Public Schools. My involvement with Padres began two 22 years ago, and I serve in an advisory capacity on the board 23 of Padres Unidos. I am a professor at the University of 24 Colorado at Boulder, and my area is bilingual education. So 25 I'm very interested in these issues.

Escamilla - Direct

20

1

THE COURT: Well.,..are._the_£eople in the organization

2 princ ipally parent s —

3

THE WITNESS: Yes.

4

THE COURT: --or are they teachers or--

5

-THE WITNESS: Yes. And Padres has an advisory board

6 that's made up of pr_Qje,ss_ional_s__in the community who they can

7 call on around various issues, medical issues, legal issues,

8 educational issues.

9

THE COURT: And have you participated in the advisory

10 group? I can't remember the name of the advisory group.

11

MS . BENAVIDEZ : HEACi___The Hispanic Education Advisory

12 Committee for DPS.

13

THE WITNESS: No, I have not.

14

THE COURT: Okay.

15 Q (by Ms. Benavidez) Maybe you could describe a little

16 more fully some of the activities that Padres does and their

17 membership, the parents?

18 A Well, the membership is composed of parents who are

19 parents of children in the Denver Public Schools, and it's an

20 advocacy organization around educational issues, but: there

O

21 are other issues, too, health issues, legal issues, and I

22 would--! don't know what you want me to say or what I should

23 say other than they advocate for particularly when people

24 have concerns about how their children are being treated,

25 whether or not their children should have access to

Escamilla - Direct

21

particular kinds of programs.

And perhaps their involvement with bilingual education

in particular, with the filing of--their involvement with the

filing of the OCR complaint?

A " Yes. Padres Unidos has been very involved with

bilingual education in the school district, working since the

early 1990s with the Latino Education Coalition. As a matter

of fact, it's my recollection that about 1994, Padres, in

conjunction with CHE and the Latino Education Coalition, did

10 enter into a memorandum of understanding with the school

11 district outlining seven goals for the education of Latino

12 children, and Number 7 of that goal specifically related to

13 bilingual education.

14

MS. BENAVIDEZ: Unless you have other comments, Dr.

15 Escamilla--

16

THE COURT: Well, Mr. Roos, do you have any questions?

17

MR. ROOS: No cross-examination. I'd like to comment on

oo

18 some of the points tnade--

19

THE COURT: Well, sure, we'll give you that opportunity.

20

MR. ROOS: No, I have no cross-examination.

21

THE COURT: How about Mr. Glassman?

22

MR. GLASSMAN: No questions, Your Honor.

23

THE COURT: Mr. Jackson?

o

24

MR. JACKSON: I do have just a couple that I think would

o

25 be helpful in terms of clarification.

22

1

THE COURT: All right. Proceed.

2

CROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. JACKSON:

Q Is it Dr. Escamilla?

A -Uh-huh.

Q Dr. Escamilla, do you have a copy of the plan before

you?

A I left it over on the desk over there.

THE COURT: Well, we'll get it for you. Dr. you have

10 it, Ms. Benavidez?

11

THE WITNESS: Okay, now I do.

12 Q

(by Mr. Jackson) Okay. Just a few questions. First,

13 the concern that you had--I believe your testimony was that

14 your understanding was that someone would have to pay $3.00

15 if they wanted a copy of the plan in Spanish, but if it was

16 ]in English it was free?

17 |A Right.

oo

18 Q In fact, isn't it true, Dr. Escamilla, that anyone can

19/ look at a copy of the plan in either English or in Spanish,

2 0 but if they want to purchase_ a copy_ of__tlie._plaru-aii-^ngl:ish or

211 in Spanish, itJLa—$3^002,.

22 A Are you saying that it's available for purchase in

23 English also if one wants to take it?

o

aso.

24 Q Yes. Did you have a chance to look at the exhibits that

25 reflected that there was--

Escamilla - Direct

23

1A 2Q

I have that. Uh-huh. --available for purchase in English or in Spanish for

3 $3.00?

4 A No. I mean, yes, I have the plan. No, I was not aware

5 that-both in English and Spanish had to--

6 Q All right. Were you aware of that section of the plan

7 that said that at the time students register in school, or

8 that parents bring students to register in the school

9 district, that they are to be provided with information about

10 the_specific proqram_e.lements that are available at that

11 school?

12 A Yes. Uh-huh. Yes. It's not the elements of the

13 program that are a cause for concern; it's who is going to be

14 providing the parent information and whether or not the

15 people who are going to be providing parents information have

16 sufficient information themselves to help parents make

17 informed decisions.

18 Q Okay. So you recognize that the plan does call for

19 fairly extensive information to the parents?

20 A Right. The issue is, and I want to state again, that if

ocr

21 we have school secretaries providing the information to

22 parents and parents have questions, that those people won't

23 necessarily have all the information they need to provide

u

xo

24 parents the opportunity to make an informed decision.

25 Q So, in reality, we're talking about implementation

Escamilla - Direct

24

concerns as opposed to plan objection concerns; is that fair?

A No. Well, I don't think so, because I would like to see

it specifically stated in the plan that beyond the--this is

going to be available at a school, to be delivered by a

secretary, or someone else, that if parents have questions,

that there will be other resources at the school for people

like school secretaries to draw on.

You realize--

A And a video tape would be very helpful in that regard.

10 Q You realize that the plan calls for information to be

11 provided, provides opportunities for_ parents* .to desigriate the 12 language that they prefer cjDnv^n^_cat.igns_to_be___in?

13 A Yes, I understand all of that. 14 Q All right. 15 A This is in addition to what's proposed in the plan and 16 not instead of.

17 Q And you understand those provisions of the plan that

oo

18 talk about this being something that is the subject of

I 19 reports by the school district as a part of the

20 accountability process, and is something that the monitor

o

21 wi11 be 1 noking at?..

22 A Yes.

23 Q Now, speaking of the monitor, you did have the

o

24 opportunity to read the section--the joint Exhibit B on the

o

25 monitor, did you?

Escamilla - Direct

25

A Uh-huh.

And do you recall the section of that that discusses the

fact that the monitor specifically will have the authority to

receive information in confidence and he may make requests of

the schools for information?

A Yes, I understand that very well. I would like to raise

an additional concern, however. This being the very first

year of what we call I would guess a preliminary or a pilot

example of the program implementation, we do have anecdotal

10 reports^ from teachers in schools that when they raise

11 objections to kids being exited from the program, or when 12 they raise concerns about program implementation, that they 13 have been retaliated_againa£_. 14 Q That relates to this plan?

15 A Yes, absolutely that it relates to this plan. It was

16 about A and B kids who were being exited out of the program

17 without meeting any exit criteria, and when a teacher called

oo

18 and reported her concern, and there's no official monitor, so

19 we had to call whoever was available to her, in fact she has

0.

20 been retaliated against the rest of the year.

wa.

IT O

21 Q This plan hasn't been implemented yet, has it? The

a.

22 Court has not authorized this plan to be implemented.

23 A Well, I would think that everyone here would agree that

o

cc

24 versions of the plan have indeed been implemented this year,

o

25 and as a matter of fact, I think we have newspaper reports of

Escamilla - Direct

26

1 officials from the district saying that they have begun

2 implementation, particularly at several schools that have

3 volunteered to do early implementation. Yes, sir, I believe

4 that it has been implemented, not at every school, not fully

5 implemented.

6 Q And your source for that is the newspaper?

7 A One source_lor_that is_.ihe,.iiewspa5er. Other sources are

8 anecdotal reports from teachers, and we do have their names,

9 and they were most willing to have their names be used in

10 court, and the schools that they teach at.

11 Q When you stated that there were no opportunities for the

12 parents to appeal decisions regarding--

13 A There are multiple opportunities for parents to appeal.

14 What is not clear in the plan is what will be done with

15 parents' appeals. They can file an appeal, and I believe

16 what the plan says is that the appeal will be put on file in

17 the director's office. And I don't think that anyone would

oo

18 consider that to be an appropriate response to a parent who

19 says I want my child to continue in this program.

20

The ap_peal_p_rp_ces_s, as a matter of fact, is so

o

21 lengthy that a child could be out of the program in a year or

22 two before anyone gets around to telling them we made a

23 mistake.

2 cc

24 Q What part of the process is lengthy?

O

25 A Could we look at the specific pages?

Escamilla - Direct

27

Well, I'd--

A Which are Page 13 to 16. Okay, the letter C on the top

of page 14, "The students, parents and the student, if in

grades 9 through 12, are informed whenever it is determined

by the Department of English Language Acquisition that the

student should be exited from the program, and are given

opportunity to request that the decision be reviewed by the

executive director of the Department of English Language

Acquisition." I guess I'd like to remind you that there are

10 over 15,000 students that are in some way going to be

11 impacted. It may take a while to get from a particular

12 school site to the executive director of the Department of

13 English Language Acquisition, assuming that all he is doing

14 is looking at parent requests for appeal.

15

"A record of each request and its disposition is

16 maintained for two years." All it says is that this is going

17 to--a record is going to be kept of parent objections. It 18 doesn't say that parents are going to be informed in any way

19 if, for example, their request is denied, accepted, to have

20 their kids stay in programs.

O

21 Q Would you just turn to Page 15. Do you see the

22 provisions there for monitoring students who are exited from

23 the program?

o

occ

24 A Uh-huh.

25 Q And do you see within that, contact is maintained with

Escamilla - Direct

28

the parents with respect to students that are exited?

And what happens if a mistake was made and a year has

gone by?

The point is they are advised throughout this process.

It is not a whole year that goes by. They're advised at nine

week intervals and with report cards and for others; right?

A Advisement isn't the same thing as having a parent say I

want my child to continue in the program, and the District

saying you can let us know that you don't want your child to

10 be in the program, but we're not going to do anything about

11 it, and a year later, we're maybe going to say--

12 Q Well, there's nothing in the plan that says that, is

13 there?

14

There's nothing in the plan that guarantees that a

15 parent who says I would like my child to stay in this program

16 one more year or two more years__c_anL_d:o that.

17

THE COURT: Well, are you suggesting that there ought to

18 be some body to adjudicate the difference of opinion between

19 the school people and parents?

20

THE WITNESS: I'm suggesting that parents' concerns be

21 legitimate, and that if a parent can take their child out of
o
a.
22 the program, they ought to have the right to say I think that

23 this is the best place for them. This is not unusual in what

24 most educational programs require. Parents have to say that

25 they want their kids in Title I or in Special Education.

Escamilla - Direct

29

They have to say if they don't want them there. This is not-

2

3

THE COURT: Well, I know, but you'reLJtalkincf about an

appeal,__which to me means a process leading to an

adjudication of a dispute. Are you talking about that?

THE WITNESS: Well, what we would like to see is that

parents who have objections to their children being removed

8 from the program--

9

THE COURT: Okay.

10

THE WITNESS: --that there's more than simply a

11 paperwork function that says, hey, we got your request and

12 we're going to keep it on file, that there's--yes, that

13 within the school, perhaps through the ICA team, that there

14 is some way to say this parent has a legitimate request.

15 We'd like to leave the child in the program. As it is now,

16 the only thing that happens is someone keeps the parent

17 objection on file.

oo

18

THE COURT: Well, arjs you_talking about_J:ike a situation

FG.

19 where it's determined that these exit criteria have been met?

Lt

LU

Q.

Q_

20

THE WITNESS: Uh-huh.

CD

aU:J

cc

21

THE COURT: And I realize you're objecting to the exit

22 criteria themselves because they're too low. But, you know,

23 you have test scores, except for this D-l, which is

o
ir

24 exceptional circumstances. Let's leave that out for the

O

25 moment.

Escamilla - Direct

30

1

THE WITNESS: Okay.

2

THE COURT: You've got the test scores, and so forth,

3 but the parent says no, I want them left in; right?

4

THE WITNESS: Uh-huh.

5

- THE COURT: So now we have a dispute. Now, what would

6 you do with that?

7

THE WITNESS: What would I do with that?

8

THE COURT: Yes.

9

THE WITNESS: I would do what most other educational

10 programs are required to do, and that is to respect the

11 rights of the parents to advocate for their own children.

12

THE COURT: So is it your suggestion that the plan

13 provide that the parent's choice overrides the exit criteria?

14

THE WITNESS: Yes.

15

THE COURT: Okay.

16 Q

(by Mr. Jackson) Would you turn to Page 50, please, Dr.

17 Escamilla? Do you see under the Roman III, the section

oo

18 entitled Review Procedures?

a

2

19 A Uh-huh.

20 Q Did you read that section?

21 A Yes, I did.

22 Q What does that section provide?

23 A It says that the parents discuss and attempt to reach a

o

24 satisfactory resolution. In the event that they don't, we

o

25 still don't see any language that says that--other than we'll

Escamilla - Direct

31

keep a copy of your complaint on file. It is my hope that

schools would work with parents to reach--

) Well, Paragraph 2 says if you don't reach resolution

with the principal, you can go to the Department of English

Language Acquisition and request that they investigate it,

does it not?

A I would like to raise once again the issue of 15,000

kids and one director of the Department of English Language

Acquisition.

10 Q Is that what--

11

And that, you know, in school districts the size of

12 Denver, the lapse in time between when schools request

13 something and the requests actually get to the district

14 office.

15 Q Is that what the plan provides?

16 A Does the plan provide--

17 Q That the department will investigate it?

oo

18 A The plan provides that.

19 Q All right.

20 A 21 Q

The objection is that the amount of time-And it further provides--

22 A --that it would take--

23

THE COURT: Well, let me just interrupt here, because I

o

a.

24 think you're ^alking__about the capacity to do what is

O

25 involved here.

Escamilla - Direct

32

1

THE WITNESS: Uh-huh.

2

THE COURT: But not the plan itself. How would you

3 change this provision?

4

THE WITNESS: Again, exactly what you suggested a while

5 ago,- that parents who object, that do not want their children

6 removed from the program even though they have met the exit

7 criteria, that the children would be allowed to continue in

8 the program.

9

THE COURT: Okay.

10 Q

(by Mr. Jackson) Do you know that Paragraph 2 says that

11 the department will respond orally and in writing to the

12 parents?

13 A Yes.

14 Q And Paragraph B says that if the parents are still not

15 satisfied after they've talked to the principal and then to

16 the department, that the matter may be further reviewed and

17 referred to the appropriate assistant superintendent. It

18 provides for further review and appeals, does it not?

19 A If you recall my first statement, this is a very lengthy

20 process. Any one of us who has ever taken a request of any

21 kind from a principal to a director to an assistant

22 superintendent to a school board, knows that school years can

23 pass and kids don't get justice.

n

o

5

24 Q Well, the plan itself provides for appeals; do you

2

25 agree?

Escamilla - Direct

33

1 A Yes.

And more than one level of appeal; do you agree?

A Yes.

4

MR. JACKSON: I have nothing else, Your Honor.

5

- MR. GLASSMAN: May I ask one question to follow up?

6

THE COURT: Sure, Mr. Glassman.

7

MS. GLASSMAN: Something seems to be getting out of

context.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

10 BY MR./'G'LASSMAN:

.1 Q DrV"EscamilJ_a, y o u ' v e commented about t h a t t h e r e c o r d s

12 of a p p e a l s a r e going t o be ma±ntairied__for_

:s. And

13 you're also aware that the monitor has a right to review

14 these appeals?

15 A Uh-huh.

16 Q And as well as counsel may want to review appeals and

17 whether they've been granted or denied. So you'd agree that

oo

18 it would make some sense just for that purpose to maintain

19 these records for.a reasonable period of time so that a

20

^

the parties

21 in the case, or the monitor?

22 A Yes.

23

THE COURT: Or the Court.

24 Q

(by Mr. Glassman) Or the Court.

25 A Yes.

34

MR. GLASSMAN: Thank you. I have no other questions,

Your Honor.

THE COURT: I mean, that is one thing that is an

important part of this plan, you understand, that the reports

of the monitor come here?

6

THE WITNESS: Yes, I do understand.

7

THE COURT: Okay. Anything further from Dr. Escamilla?

8

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

9 BY MS. BENAVIDEZ:

10 Q Dr. Escamilla, would it be reasonable to propose that if

11 a parent objects to exiting of their student, that they

12 remain in the program_at the parent's r_ejqu^_s^jwhi^e_an_appeal

13 is pending?

14 A Yes.

15

MS. BENAVIDEZ: No other questions.

16

THE COURT: Okay, thank you. You may step down.

17

All right, we'll hear from the witnesses called by

o

18 the school district.

o

s

19

MR. JACKSON: Call Mr. Irvi Mqskowitz_.

20

THE COURT: If you'd come forward to be sworn,,please?

o

21

IRVING MOSKOWITZ

22 called as a witness on behalf of the defendant, having been

23 first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

toz

24

THE CLERK: Would you state your full name for the

25 record, and spell your last name?

35

1

THE WITNESS: Irving Moskowitz, M-o-s-k-o-w-i-t-z.

2

THE CLERK: Thank you.

3

THE COURT: Mr. Jackson?

4

MR. JACKSON: Your Honor, before I proceed, may I hand

the -clerk and request that a copy of the joint Exhibit A,

which is the plan, and joint Exhibit B, which is the

monitoring, be placed on the witness stand so that those

witnesses who need to refer to the plan may do so?

9

THE COURT: Certainly. And I have my copy here.

10

MR. JACKSON: All right. And I do have a couple extra

11 copies should it be necessary if anyone needs one.

12

THE COURT: Well, I think that you have one there, don't

13 you? I'm talking to Ms. Benavidez?

14

MS. BENAVIDEZ: Yes, we have one.

15

THE COURT: Okay.

16

DIRECT EXAMINATION

17 BY MR. JACKSON:

8

18 Q Mr. Moskowitz, you are at p_resident..superintendent of

5

19 the Denver Public Schools?

20 A 21 Q

Yes. And you've testified before Judge Matsch before, have

22 you not?

23

Yes.

O

2

24 Q I'll not bother then to go through your vitae at this

o

25 time.

Moskowitz - Direct

36

1

Mr. Moskowitz, when you assumed the

2 superintendency, the original plan approved by this Court in

3 ( 1954 teas in place, which set forth the program for English--

4 or limited English proficient students. Can you tell us, 5 plea-se, your -exgerience W A ^ 1 that ^l-^_A]^-SnX

6 developed during your super_ipten.d.en_cy with respect to that

7 plan?

8 A In the early stages of my assuming the role of

9 superintendent, I looked at all programs in the district, or

10 as many as I could that I felt that there might be reason for

11 concern, and this program was one that I looked at carefully

12 with staff, and I found some parts of the program that even

13 though approved years ago, were still effective and still

14 needed to be implemented. However, I found others that were

15 more troublesome, and I found certain practices in the

16 district that gave me concern, among them inconsj^^tency from

17 school to school, which I don't believe had much to do with

oo

18 the plan, but had to do with the operation of the

19 instruction. And I found also that there were parts of the

2 Of plan as originally written that might Jiayejserved well in the

2".. early years, but as we learn more from our own experiences in

2 the school district, and as well as observing what's going

23 around the country and reading about the plan and seeing

2 tr

about the program, if you will, for English language

O

learners, that there needed to be some changes.

Moskowitz - Direct

37

1 Q Were you also at the same time cognizant of the

2 situation with respect to the achievement rate of students

3 within the school district, and also the drop-out rates of

4 students within the district?

5 A - Yes.

6 Q What were your concerns there?

7 A Well, the drop-out rate, particularly among Hispanic

8 youngsters, was alarming. Proficiency in reading and

9 literacy was alarming with all groups actually, as far as I

10 was concerned, and there was great concern on my part about

11 the numbers of students who were transitioning from the

12 program into an English based program for study. I found

13 that in my opinion it was alarmingly low.

14 Q Why--or what was alarming low about it?

15 A Well, out of all the kids in a given year who are in the

16 bilingual program, or LEP_ program, only about _6_per _cent were

17 transitioning into an English based program.

oo

18 Q What did you understand to be the goal of that program?

19 A As I understood it, and had that confirmed a number of

20 times, is that it was a transition program to get youngsters

21 into an English based program as quickly, efficiently and

22 sensitively as possible.

23 Q With the expectation that they would be able to

a

s

24 participate in the English instructional program?

25 A Yes.

Moskowitz - Direct

3 8

1 Q If that was in fact the goal, it wasn't being met, was

2 it?

3 A Not satisfactorily.

4 Q Did you also have occasion to conduct surveys of

5 materials that were present within the district in support of

6 this program?

7 A Yes. And one concern that surfaced rather quickly was

8 the distribution allocation of materials, and I found that

9 that was in need of repair, and we took some steps rather

10 quickly to do something about that in two different ways,

11 one, in allocating more money .Qn^an-emergeflcy-basis and, two,

12 making sure that we had staf_f participating in particular

13 book fajLrs_and working with publishers so that we could get

14 more direct contact and expedite the acquisition of

15 materials.

16 Q Did you also provide incr_ease_d__budgetary support for the

17 program?

oo

18 A Yes. As I said, on an emergency basis, we did put in at

19 one point a half_a miLlion dollars, and then continued with

20 that.

o

21 Q Did you take any personnel steps as a part of your

22 review of this program?

23 A Yes. Soon, upon realizing that some changes needed to

24 be made, we appointed__a_new=j_director__o_f_ the program, not that 25 the preceding director was in any way deficient, and I want

Moskowitz - Direct

39

to make that clear, we're looking for particular talents, and

the next person coming in I felt would be one with good

background, both at elementary and senior high school level,

at also site level and at district level, and who, from my

opinion anyway, was considered to be a healer, a person who

was conciliatory and could work with all groups of people.

That means staff as well as community people.

And has that effort continued to this date?

A That effort continued, and then I felt the need, and

10

, and made the

11 recommendation that we make another__change, and that we move

12 toward a person who has more, if you will, recent experience

13 and, again, at all levels, and who I consider to have the

14 experience and the personality to fit the job as it needs to

15 to look into the new era of the program.

16 Q During this time, were you farniliar with the efforts 17 nat_ionaliy__with respect to the provision of services to the

18 limited English proficient, or English language learners?

19

Yes.

20 Q And was there_..atrend,.evident

21

There were a number of things going on, in particular,

22 some dramatic activities that were happening in California

23 and in a couple of other states where there was a concern

o
DC

24 about the tardiness, if you will, of having students emerge

O

25 in English based programs, and there was a speed-up attempt,

Moskowitz - Direct

40

actually more of a call for immersion.

Now, we've heard recently about the three__y_e_ar component

of the plan that is being presented to the Court. What does

the three year aspect of this plan mean to you, Mr.

Moskowitz?

A I think that what's been tossed around as far as it being a three year program has been over dramatized. We had

taken the position that within three years, we as a district,

certainly staff in the district needs to become aware of how

10 each child is doing in this program. And so, in effect, it's 11 a review._ It's a stc^j_^o^k_^iid__l_isten_. What is happening 12 with this child? Why is this child still in the program? 13 Why does this child need to continue in the program? Never 14 at any point was it said that three years, and a child is 15 out, never. That was not a consideration. It was a point of

16 saying--it was a statement, if you will, that within three

17 years, we should see significant progress. That actually has

o

18 been promulgated by the current administration in Washington.

o

19 Secretary_ Reil^y_t_Edu^iatioru.Jtias__call^_fQr__SL_three_x®ar
oc

20 program. We believe that a child ought to be in the program

H oc

21 until the child is ready to be moved on, and that we ought to

O

22 be sensitive to all the issues concerning that child.

23 Q When you say stop, look and listen, as you understand
cc

w

o

2 oc

24 the process that's contemplated by the plan, what does that

o

25 include?

Moskowitz - Direct

41

1 A It means that we should in no case let a child who's in

2 that program, regardless of the numbers of kids who are in

3 this program, just continue on in this program without a full

4 comprehensive profile, a good look at the student's progress,

5 and -at the potential of the child. I know that it makes all

6 the sense in the world to look at each person as an

7 individual and not as a group, not a part of a group, and I

8 think this helps.

9 Q Is it fair to say that the plan developed by the parties

10 proposes a more personalized education program for children?

11 A Yes, and that was really the number one goal, and really

12 I guess on my part, the number one concern that I've had with

13 the way that we've been following the program. And I might

14 say also that _wj5J_r^_jiQt_alone, and it's just the notion of in

15 some cases just the arbitrariness, of having each child

16 perform as every other child, and that we look at one size

17 fits all remedy for these kids, which we wouldn't do in any

oo

18 program. And I believe that we are on our way, as well as

19 public education in this country, to make sure that each

20 child is looked at in a personal way.

CL
O

21 Q In your opinion, Mr. Moskowitz, is this a program that

22 will meet the needs of the English language learners in

23 Denver?

24 A Yes. I firmly stand behind it. As a matter of fact,

25 other people around the country have made calls wanting to

Moskowitz - Direct

42

enow more about our program. Our program that's being

proposed for consideration by the Court is a rich program.

It's a comprehensive program. It speaks to quality at all

levels, f rom,.recruitment of teachers, to the implementation

of all of the curriculum standards in the classroom. It

:alls for the same curriculum for these youngsters as English

speaking youngsters, and above all, we care about this number

one issue, is that a child who's in this program learns in

the best way how to move forward and become an English

10 language learner, if you will, but then an English speaker.

11

So the cauaeiculum in fact is the same?

12
13 Q

Absolutely. All right. Describe your role in the process leading up

14 to the development of this plan.

15

I was part of the team, and the team was made up of

16 people who have general administrative experience, governance

17 experience from the Board, and specialty experience, those

oo

18 professionals who know a lot about English language

19 acquisition, and as being part of the team, I'm glad to say

<

20 that we looked at this whole issue very, very carefully,

CL

M

tr LU

21 looked at what was going on. We were not in any mood to toss

CC
O

22 away what was part of the original plan, or the plan we're

23 operating under now. There was no "just because" kind of

O
s

24 thinking. Everything was done carefully, intellectually and

CE O
25 sensitively, and we moved on to a new plan for a new era.

Moskowitz - Direct

43

And throughout this process, was the Board of Education

kept apprised of both the progress and the provisions of the

plan?

A Consistently.

-And, in fact, was this plan then presented to the Board

of Education for its approval?

A Yes.

And what action did the Board take?

A The Board__unanimously approved of this.

10 Q And directed that it be submitted along with the United

11 States and the Plaintiff's to this Court for approval?

12 A Yes.

13 Q Now, Mr. Moskowitz, it is reported that you will soon be

14 leaving the school district?

15 A 20 days, working day, that is.

16 Q And you're not leaving education, as I understand it,

17 but are indeed going to embark on the development of a new

oo

18 program?

19 A Yes.

20 Q Would you describe that for the Court and the counsel,

21 please?

22 A Yes, it's part of University of Northern Colorado, and

23 it's an attempt to start something that is sorely needed, and

24 that is a center for urban education. And I might say that

25 while I made light of the number of days I have, working days

Moskowitz - Direct

44

in the district, I can tell you that there is a direct

commitment on my part and the part of Senator Hank Brown,

University of Northern Colorado, that the Denver Public

Schools be very much involved and very much the recipient of

all

center.

Would you in fact be then sending teachers to this

program?

A Preparing__te^^h^r_s^_f^)r__this__pjrograrn; as well as for all staff positions in the school district.

10 Q Describe, if you will, as you understand it, Mr.

11 Moskowitz, the commitment of staff in the Denver Public

12 Schools to the full implementation of this program?

13 A I know for a fact that the people who I work with, the

14 lead with the administrators in the district, are all four

15 square behind this. We know that our principaJ^._axe_JaeJaind

16 this. We've had no reason to think that anyone couldn't

17 accept a program like this and be content that the Denver

oo

18 Public Schools has moved forward in a very positive way to

a

19 address an issue that's confronting us across this country.

20

MR. JACKSON: Thank you. I have nothing else,. Your

O

21 Honor.

22

THE COURT: Mr. Roos?

23

MR. ROOS: Just a few questions.

o

a.

24

0

25

45

CROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. ROOS:

Mr. Moskowitz, you would agree with me- that the proof of

•-?
the pudding' on _tMs_jtfjJJ^_b^_th^jjnpJ:emen^

N^
would you

not?-

A Yes.

And, indeed, as to the fjarmer_jplan, you referenced a

number of iTnfilement_ation_problems. There were such problems,

were there not?

10 A Yes.

11 Q They dealt with lack of materials at one juncture; is

12 that not true?

13

I made reference to that.

14 Q Yes. And they dealt historically with ijdjgnijJLLiiaj^i

15 and reclassification; there have been problems in that vein

16 also, have there not?

17

Yes.

oo

18 Q And there have been, as you indicated, substantial

19 differences in terms__qf___school sites and their commitment to

20 full implementation; is that not true?

21 A Inconsistencies, yes.
o
0.
22 Q And I would gather from our negotiations and discussion

23 that the addition of a monitor is an important element to try

EC

24 to oversee that these implementation problems and other ones

o

25 do not reappear; would that be correct?

Moskowitz - Cross

46

A Agreed with that.

2

MR. ROOS: Thank you.

~h /ji

3

THE COURT: Mr. Glasser?

"^''""

4

MR. GLASSER: Thank you, Your Honor.

5

CROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. GLASSER:

Q Do you have a copy of the plan in front of you?

A Yes.

Q Perhaps we can clear up this material item which seems

10 to be an important one, and is obviously one that the 11 children have the appropriate materials to succeed. On Page

12 48, do you have that in front of you, under the

13 accountability section?

14

I do.

15 Q That requires, does it not, at C, the District to

16 develop standards for the books and materials that should be

17 available in the schools?

oo

18 A Yes.

19

And come up with an improvement plan if those materials

20 are not there?

o

21

Yes.

a.

22 Q And on Page 49 at the top, does that not carry over that

23 the District is going to identify a staff member to monitor

24 the availability of_the_materials for programs in the

25 classrooms?

Moskowitz - Cross

47

It may not be a member, but it will be staff, and

probably plural.

And on Page 50, under the reporting provisions, is not

the District required to report on whether these materials,

the standards and whether the materials are indeed available

on Number 8 on Page 50?

Yes, that's so.

Q Now, of course, it's implicit that when--if there's

reporting that the standards are not met, that the goal is

10 going to be to meet the standards. It's jnot_stated there, 11 but obviousJLy it^js not__2ust_going_tp_be_jrepQi±Jjig—we—den' t 12 have materials there, and that's the end of it?

13 A 14

No, there's a commitment. MR. GLASSMAN: Right. Thank you. I have no other

15 questions, Your Honor.

16

THE COURT: Let me ask, Mr. Jackson, whether there's

17 going to be another witness to talk about readiness to

oo

18 imp1 emerrt?_J

19

MR. JACKSON: Yes, in terms of the plan specifics, Your

<

20 Honor, there will be Dr. Eckerling, who will talk about the

0-

aw^—.
EC O

21 process and the significant changes within the plan, and then

22 Mr. Jose Perea, who is the executive director of the

23 department who will talk about specific implementation

O

o

24 strategies and timelines.

25

THE COURT: All right. Well, given that representation,

48

I won't ask you those questions.

2

THE WITNESS: Thank you.

3

MR. JACKSON: Oh, I think we ought to keep him around

4 for a while, Your Honor.

5

- THE COURT: All right, you may step down. Thank you.

6

Next, please?

7

MR. JACKSON: Call Ms. Rita Montero.

THE COURT: If you'll come forward to be sworn?

- RITA

T

10 called as a witness on behalf of the defendant, having been

11 first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

12

THE CLERK: Would you state your full name for the

13 record, and spell your last name?

14

THE WITNESS: My name is Rita Montero, R-i-t-a, last

15 name, M-o-n-t-e-r-o.

16

THE CLERK: Thank you.

17

DIRECT EXAMINATION

18 BY MR. JACKSON

19 Q Ms. Montero, would you describe your relationship to the
a.
20 Denver Public Schools, please?
0)

21 A

I'm a mejTiber__of_thjL^Bo^Xii^oJ_^du^atdon, and I am also a

22 parent. 23 Q And within the new scheme of things that the legislature

24 provided for the School District, are you a member of the

25 Board elected at large, or a member of the Board elected from

Montero - Direct

49

a director district?

A I am a member of a director district, which is Direct

District Number 5, Northwest Denver.

And geographic, Northwest Denver?

- Yes.

All right. How long have you been a member of the

Board, Ms. Montero?

Four years andthree months, I believe--one month, four

years and one month.

10

You were present in the courtroom and you heard the

11 testimony of Mr. Moskowitz?

12

Yes.

13 Q And the description that he provided of theconcerns

14 which he had with respect to the program for English language

15 learners over the years?

16 A Yes. 17 Q Were your concerns, or did you have concerns about the

18 program t h a t were similar to his? 19 A Yes. Twq_years_J3rior .to. having b.ec^me_._a_b_Qard_jnember, I 20 f i l e d a motion with t h i s court to_jjiter3ceiifi_lrL_Uae_JCeyes

21 case. 22 Q With respect to these issues?

23 A Yes.

24 Q Allright. Now, we've hadsome discussion about the
o
25 efforts which the parties to this litigation, the United

Montero - Direct

50

States, theplaintiffs and the school district, engaged in in

developing theplan which has been presented to this Court as

joint Exhibit A, which is in front of you there on the

witness stand. Did you have a specific role in the

development of this program?

I did.

7

Would you describe that role for us?

We began in my first year of becoming a board member,

began discussions about the revision of theprogram at that

10 time because it was important to me. It was one of the

11 issues that I ran for theBoard of Education on, if not one

12 of theprimary issues, andwere not able to and available to

13 at that point upon becoming a board member to begin the

14 revision of theprogram because we then came off_of__the

15

16 the process of

17 schools. And so it wasn't until my second year on the Board

18 that we had thekind of time that it was going to take for

19 the Board of Education to sit down and take a look at the 20 program as a whole andbegin the revision process.

cr O

21 Q And were you actually a part of the team that developed

22 this joint Exhibit A, this newplan, if youwill?

23

Yes.

o

ao.

24

You participated in a l l of the--

25

I participat_ed__in_alJ tiie—reviews . I think I have two

Montero - Direct

51

:xpandos of plans that were brought to us, all the revisions

that we did from day on to the day that it was finally

submitted to the public. And so yes, I have participated.

And as you now view the plan today as it is presented to

the Court, do you believe that this is a plan which will

truly meet the needs of the District's English language

learners?

A I do. I had concerns prior to becoming a board member,

which I believe have been adequately taken care of, and this

10 plan talks about parent permission, speaks of materials,

11 speaks of supervision, all of the__issuess that were of concern

12 to me wh^n_jny__cJ[dJjLj^s_.a_pa^

I believe

13 have been covered adequately in this plan.

14 Q One aspect of the plan that is important is the

15 provision that deals with the accountability, if you will, of

16 the District to provide reports to the Board of Education; is

17 that true?

18 A It is.

19 Q And would you turn, please, to Page 48 of the plan in

20 Exhibit A?

oa.

21

Okay.

22 Q And this is under the heading Accountability. It talks

23 about what the District does in terms of monitoring staff, of

24 reviewing the effectiveness of programs, monitoring children.

25 Do you see all of those?

Montero - Direct

52

A I do.

And then particularly under Roman II on Page 49 is a

section entitled Reporting. And would you just kind of

summarize for us, if you will, the types of reports that the

Board will now be receiving on this plan?

A Well, as it indicates in the plan, it states that--

you're talking about Roman II, Section A?

Yes, A and B.

A Student d_emp^raphj1c_Jj]iormatiori will be provided to the 10 Board of Education, grade levels, languages spoken, number of

11 English language learners that are receiving special

12 education services, and how they were placed there, program

13 services, such as student--of each student and the

14 relationship of such services to the last scores and student

15 achievement, teach assignment to the program and their

16 qualifications, which is extremely important to us.

17

And then Section B, we have personnel^information,

oo

18 how personnel will be recruited and the planning and hiring

19 of those individuals, which requires 150 hours of training

20 for all teachers. It also requires that teachers be able to

21 speak, read, write and understand the Spanish language 22 adequately, and according to a test that is given to them, so

23 that they are in a classroom of English language learners of

coc

24 which they can communicate with. That was extremely

25 important for us. Entry/exit procedures, those will also be

Montero - Direct

53

1 brought to the Board of Education. Number of parents

2 requesting English language program services that are not

3 provided for for their children, program services for each

4 student and the relationship to such services, their scores

5 and -student achievement. Curriculum will also be provided to

6 the Board of Education for English language learners.

7 Q So Jzhis contemplates a pretty active role in both

8 staff's obligation to provide reports and information to the

9 BQard^_but._al^5_Jji-..iJtie_Board^-s-_moiiit^xing of its ownpjrxxjram

10 by itself; right?

11 A Absolutely. I believe we have a very active Board and a

12 very concerned Board that puts in many hours, and that

13 supervision of this program is of the utmost importance to

14 each one of them.

15 Q And then the information, the reports that are mentioned

16 there, these will also be provided to the monitor, will they

17 not?

oo

18 A Yes, to the monitor as well.

=8

19 Q And do you believe that the monitor, as suggested to the

a.

20 Court and whose functions are described in the monitoring

cr O

21 piece, joint Exhibit B, do you believe this will be positive

22 in terms of implementation of the plan?

23 A I do. And I also had an opportunity to meet the

24 monitor, and I believe that he will provide the best services
o
25 that he is--that are possible, and I think that the

Montero - Direct

54

administration as well as the Board are satisfied with his

ability to conduct the monitoring of this plan.

3

MR. JACKSON: Thank you. Nothing further, Your Honor.

4

THE COURT: Mr. Roos?

5

-MR. ROOS: No questions, Your Honor.

6

THE COURT: Mr. Glassman?

7

CROSS - EXAMIJSAIIOil

BY MR. GLASSMAN:

Q If I could just take this opportunity to highlight one

10 more report that the Board is filing on Page 50, Number 10,

11 which to me is the crux of what we're about. And would you

12 read what Number 10 is on 50? 13 A Yes. 10 at the top of the page?

14 Q Yes.

15 A "The program's effectiveness, including evidence of

16 student progress in acquiring English and levels of student

17 achievements."

oo

18 Q And then on Page 51, Number C, what the District is

19 going to be doing.

20 A Number C indicates that the district monitors progress

CO

CC

UJ

Ico—c

2 1 in schools and classrooms and makes changes as appropriate to

Q_

UJ

CC

CC

22 support high school achievement--high student achievement.

LU

3

23

MR. GLASSMAN: No other questions, Your Honor.

CC

CO

o

IX

24

THE COURT: I have a question, but I don't want to

25 take--

55

1

THE WITNESS: Hi, Judge. How are you?

2

THE COURT: Hi. I don't want to take unfair advantage

of you. If you don't want to answer it, you don't have to.

But I'm sure that you have discussed this program a good deal

over- the years with your constituents, the voters.

6

THE WITNESS: Yes.

7

THE COURT: And differences of opinion there_, as there

8 are on almost every issue.

9

THE WITNESS: Absolutely.

10

THE COURT: But I wanted to ask you if you had a comment

11 with respect to Dr. Escamillja's observation that she thinks

12 that parents should have the opportunity to keep their

13 children in the program^ that is the special program, even

14 though the children meet the exit criteria under the plan,

15 and would, in the opinion of everybody else, qualify for

16 moving into the mainstream. Do you have a comment about

17 that?

oo

18

THE WITNESS: Yes, Judge. I believe that--you know, we

19 have two kinds of--I think two kinds--well, I break them down

20 as two kinds of folks within the City of Denver. We have

21 those folks who are and do have their children in our

22 program, and sometime back, we did a survey and found that

23 70-some per cent, it was over_75 per cent_o_f our parents,

24 their first priority was to have _their children learn English

25 because they wanted their children to be successful. And

56

when we went around the city talking with parents and parents

that I met prior to being on the Board of Education, had

indicated to me, as well as to other Board members, that—that

was their first priority...anAJU^t_._they__fe_lt_that it was their

obligation to maintain their culture and their language

within their home . __

So I think that we have, again, I've split the

community into two groups of people. We have the political

culturalists who are folks who maybe are my generation, and

10 we're people who had been denied our language. Our parents

11 thought that it was important for us to learn English because

12 they wanted us to be successful. And so I think that many of

13 us have carried this sort of torment within ourselves that we

14 were denied something that we rightfully should have had, and

15 that was our language.

16

So these are the kinds of folks that go around

17 indicating and telling and talking to immigrants and telling

o

18 immigrants that it's important for them to maintain their

o

19 language above and beyond the need for English, yet

20 talk to _itnmigxant__f^amil_iej5_and to parents who actually have

O

21 their kids in this_pr_qgrain, that is not their view^__the

22 majority of_jthemJ_ They see the importance of learning

23 English and being able to have their kids be competitive and

o

5

24 go to college as their utmost responsibility to their

25 children.

57

Recently, I saw an article that was in one of our

high schools, West High School, which was an article that was

written by students and they surveyed the students at West

High school, ^asking about the new program, and in their

statement, they indicated that the majority of the kids who

were part of. ELAP and at West High School, believe that the

program was good, and that as students, their comments were

that they wanted to be successful and that they felt that

learning English was the most important thing to them,

10 because they wanted to go to college, they wanted to be able

11 to get a job that was going to give them a salary where they

12 could actually support a family.

13

So I support their issues and I support their need

14 to be competitive, and I support their need to be partners in

15 society. Now, we can sit and we can argue about where I was

16 20 years ago as a political activist and what I thought was

17 important, and today as a parent and what I think is

18 important for my child who was an English language learner,

19 because we raised him speaking Spanish, so we have the

Q.

s.

20 diverse group of people within our community and we_had to

M

21 struggle with those issues. But I think for the most part,

22 I'm_convinced that the majority of the community that is

23 actually going to be a part_of__th^s_^rog_rjmi_bel_ieve_ that _ the

24 most important thing for them and their children is to learn

25 English, and that they feel, and they have said this many

58

times over, it is my responsibility andmy family's

responsibility to maintain our culture and our language in

our home, and to make ourkids successful so that if we do

believe that language is important and having more than

language is important, that's our job and that's our duty,

because in this kind of economy if you have two languages, it

makes fora better employee out in theworld of economics.

8

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.

9

THE WITNESS: Thank you, Judge.

10

THE COURT: Mr. Roos?

11

MR. ROOS: I actually have a question or two.

12

THE COURT: Allright.

13

CROSS-EXAMINATION

14 BY MR," RDOS; 15 Q Ms. Montero, i t ' s true in fact, i s i t not, that probably

16 100 percenj:_oi_:Lhe_ i

17 S_chools want their _chi_ldren to learn_Eng],ish and learn i t

oo

18 well; is that not true?

19

Absolutely.

20 Q And, indeed, many of them also believe that--indeed, 21 virtually allof them believe that their children should

22 learn all theother subjects as well; is that not correct?

23 A Yes.

o
2

24 Q And many of them believe that delivery of instruction in

CoE

25 their own language while a child is learning English isa

Montero - Cross

59

desirable and useful way of accomplishing that; is that

:orrect?

L To that question, I cannot answer you affirmatively. I

do know that when we did conduct our survey, that over 75 per

cent- of our parents stated that their priority was to have

their children learn English. They did not indicate whether

they felt that learning English, that the vehicle by which

you teach children English_was_ through their own language.

Now, we do have some parents in our district who have _op_ted

10 out of the program because they believe that the most

11 successful way to learn English is by being placed in an 12 English speaking class. Now, you have some folks who believe 13 that that's the best way for their child, and we have others 14 who may believe another way. We d^djioL ask that specific

15 question. 16 Q You are a participant in the negotiations around this

17 plan, were you not?

oo

18 A Yes, I was.

19 Q And I assume you voted for its approval?

20 A Absolutely.

<oar.

21 Q And the plan does call for bilingual instruction for

22 Spanish, limited English proficient children; does it not?

23 A No, it calls for instruction in the native language for

too

toz

24 three years.

25 Q Okay. And it also does permit parents to opt out of the

Montero - Cross

60

1 program if they wish?

2A

Yes, it does.

3Q

Now, you are aware, are you not, that there_are national

4 programs in which_are_Qrograms nationally that_in fact are

5 not tranj3jltjL£njJL^mgr_ams__^^

the language

6 and culture of--other than English; are you not?

7A

I'm aware that the movement in the country is to teach

8 children in the most expedient way possible, and to get them

9 at a level where they do become English speakers, and that is

10 the trend in the country.

11 Q

Okay. Forgetting about the trend, there are programs,

12 there are a number of programs around the country that would

13 be known as two-way bilingual^ programs, are there not?

14 A

Yes, there are.

15 Q

And a number of those are designed to build upon the

16 strengths that Spanish speakers and others bring to the

17 schools so that they leave the schools being truly bilingual,

o
o

18 both in their native language and in English; is that not

CD

2

19 correct?

20 A

It is correct. And I believe that although Denver

O

21 Publi_c__J3CJiooj1s_z__th^

a.

dual 1anguage

22 program, I do believe that those people, in_particular at the

23 site, that it was their intention to implement the dual

24 language program, and I believe that because of the results

25 of the particular program that I'm talking about in those

u 3Bq3

pxnoo '9uop gq pxnoo 3Bq3 'o:3XX^B9 p s s s n o s x p 9w S B 'BATsuBdxa

2

o

9o:oui SBM 3Bq3 uiBaBood B 0:0 'uiBo:Boo:d aBsriBuBX XBnp B ZZ

paqsxM oqM S3U9o:Bd 3c) Apoq x ^ T ^ U H ^ s c t n s e 9 J 9 « so:9q3 gx sx noA

0:03 u o i 3 s a n b s q 3 311a • 3Bq3 q3XM aso:5B AxuxB3o:ao pxnoM I 0

QZ

B SX 3 1 'UlB^fioo:d s x q 3 30 a s o d a n d a q 3 30U sx 3BL

61

BuxpuB3so:9pun Aui s,3X '30:1103 s x q 3 o:ad puB ' q s x x S u g UX pU"B 81

qSXUBdS UI U9AX6 S I uox3on^3sux 9oaqM mooassBxo B UX 13IxqD B LT

6UXUXB3UXBU1 O3 S>{B9CIs 96BTI5UBX I^na 'uajtpxTqo Buxuox:1XSUBJ:3 91

3OU O3 S3[B9C

3UBO3 B SI

9i[B3SXlll
iu,I 3"£ 9U1 dx9q 9£3B9xd puB '5uxpuB3So:apun s , 30:1103 ax^ s , 3 T ei 3Bq3 BuxpuB3So:9pun Aui s , 3 x '30:1103 a q 3 30 o:apo:o 9 q 3 ja3d V ZX
I*3o:9q3 s i '9SXM0:9q3O 0:0 s x s p q x ^ ^ u 9 1uxaadxa II

=q"3nBux6p 11160:3 3oxo:3sxp a q 3 3uaA9o:c

01

3Bq3 ABpo3 30:1103 ;3q3 0 3 p93uasso:d 5uT9q s , 3 B q 3 UIBJCBCDad a q 3 6

ux 6uxq3ou s,ao:9q3 'iUBo:5oo:d 95BTI6UBX I ^ n p B dox9A9p 03 paqsxM 8

oqM sxooqos OTT^d -laAuaa 9 q ^ UT s3uao:Bd 30 Apoq I ^ x ^ 1jB3sqns L

B 90I9M 90:;9q3 paapux 37 '^uassid pxhOM 3^q3 J5uxq3ou 9

S , 9 J 9 q 3 3nq '3<DU s , 3 B q 3 gqABUi 0:0 9110:3 s , 3 B q 3 9qA BW - 0 S •uoj.3ono:3sux 30 pux>[ 3Bq3

uioaj ABMB BUXAOUI 9O:B a x d o s d ' o p 03 6ux3dui833B ao:9M suiBo:6oo:d E

XBuBuxxxq 3SOU1 aAexxaq I qoxqw '95BII6UBX I^np 03 pjEBbgo: Z

q3XM Ao:3unoD a q 3 SSOO:DB pao:o:nDoo SBq 3BqM puB 'auol5^so:BaA I

19

ssoo:3 - oo:93uow

Montero - Cross

62

1 A Well, I think that with regard--the Board did speak to

2 that kind of an opportunity. I think that the problem that -

3 the Board is confronted with is that we have limited

4 resouxce_a_with regard to personnel, and that we have children

5 today who are living in a part of the city where in__the past,

6 there were not English language learners, and I'm speaking

7 more specifically about Northeast Denver, Southeast Denver, -

8 Southwest Denver, where when this order for this particular

9 program was initiated, there were not that many language

10 learners in those different parts of the city.

11

And so today, we are struggling with a limited

12 amount of resources regarding teachers and people who do have

13 the skill to implement such a program, and so I believe that

14 it would be difficult at most to provide a dual language

15 program for a group of people who wanted it, simply because

16 of the personnel resources that we have, when today we have

17 children who are in Northeast Denver who are getting an easel

o

18 program because we don't have enough qualified teachers to

o

i

19 provide them native language instruction and/or to even be

20 able to do easel instruction and have fully qualified native

21 language speakers to do easel instruction, because we just

22 don't have them.

23

Now, if you're asking me if I would take resources

IT

24 away from those children who needed more than a child who

o

25 wants to continue in a program for five years, six years,

Montero - Cross

63

1 seven years, I would say absolutely not. I would not take

2 those resources away from that child who still cannot speak

3 English and give it to the child who wants to maintain theii

^ 4 language for another five or six years.

^ 5

- I think that probably we would all generally agree with

6 that. Ms. Montero, I gather that from what you've just said,

7 that there is an ongoing problem of having enough teachers to

8 deliver a quality bilingual program?

9

Yes.

10

And the district is committed in this plan and otherwise

11 to make certain that there are the teacher resources to

12 implement the plan that's being presented to the Court; is

13 that not correct?

14 A We're attempting to do that. We have put together a

15 very stringent process that is in place to do recruitment.

16 We have had an individual who has gone throughout the country

17 and has also travelled abroad to try and find qualified

o

18 people who can teach in our program.

o

19

As you know, Mr. Roos, we are in a difficult

20 position because of the number of English language learners

O

21 across the country, and so we are competing with umpteen

0.

22 states who have many more English language learners than we

23 do, and so we are at a tug of war with other states for

O 5

24 qualified peopJLe_._

O

25 Q And the district is committed to maintain and increase

Montero - Cross

64

1 its efforts to secure a fair share of bilingual teachers?

2 A Absolutely. Absolutely.

3

MR. ROOS: Thank you.

4

THE COURT: Anything further, Mr. Glassman?

5

-MR. GLASSMAN: No, Your Honor.

6

THE COURT: One thing I want to--you know, I don't get

7 the opportunity to speak to a member of the School Board very

8 often, but--

9

THE WITNESS: Do you want to lobby me, Judge, on some

10 other issue?

11

THE COURT: The Court's role in all this, I hope you

12 understand, is to be certain that the School District Number

13 1 complies with federal law.

14

THE WITNESS: Yes.

15

THE COURT: And__in_this case, we're dealing with

16 statutory rpq"i rementp of fprlp-rai l a w ^ And the particular

17 statute in question provides that the school district must

oo

18 take appropriate action to overcome any language barriers

4

5

19

that impede equal participation in the instructional programs

20 that are available in the public schools.

21 THE WITNESS: Absolutely.

22 THE COURT: So^what is -the instructional program of the

23 school system is up to the people through their

2

24

representatives on the Board.

25 THE WITNESS: Absolutely, Judge.

65

1

THE COURT: And, you know, it could be that it's decided

2 that everybody who goes through the system ought to learn two

3 languages.

4

THE WITNESS: Uh-huh.

5

- THE COURT: I mean, you could have a dual language

6 program so that people coming into the program who only speak

7 English, learn to speak Spanish, or whatever language.

8

THE WITNESS: Uh-huh.

9

THE COURT: The important thing is that persons who are

10 not proficient in the language of instruction, generally

11 English, not be--well, as the statute says, that that not be

12 a barrier to their ability to participate in the program, and

13 that's the Court's role.

14

THE WITNESS: I agree with you, Judge. I think that we

15 all want to see the same thing that I would like to see, you

16 know, our parents and their children, have their children in

17 the future, you know, be in the place of Mr. Roos and be an

oo

18 effective and efficient lawyer who can come and represent

19 their community in any other issues. But to make that

20 individual and that child be effective and a player^ in our

occ

21 society, they have to be able to speak English, and I think

22 that that's our first objective, to make them players in

23 society. And I do agree that there is an important role for

24 the Court to play.
o

25

And on a personal note, and this does not reflect

66

1 the Board of Education at all, I objected with their removal

2 of the oversight in the desegregation order, and I have a

3 very sort of maybe a weird way of looking at things, that I

4 believe that it is paramount to have an outside source to be

5 able- to monitor.

6

I'm not going to be in my place forever, and Sue

7 Edwards will not be here forever, and Laura Luckwoods

8 (phonetic), who's a board member, who we're fully committed

9 to this program and understand the need for it to be

10 implemented, as we've said, other peop_le__come along and may

11 have different views, but the Court's always there and the

12 Court will always have a record of what was supposed to have

13 been_and not been done in terms of ajorogram.

14

And so for that reason, I understand your role. I

15 understand the Court's role, and do believe that oversight on

16 behalf of the federal judicial process is important, because

17 again, we are players that come and go.

o

18

THE COURT: Yeah, I won't be here forever either.

o

19

THE WITNESS: I remember you saying that about four

20 years ago, Judge.

t
cc O

21

THE COURT: There may be some who plan on that, but

Q.

22 somebody will be. Okay.

23

THE WITNESS: Thank you, Judge.

CC

24

THE COURT: Thank you. You may step down.

O

25

MR. JACKSON: Your Honor, I'm reminded of a couple of

67 1 details that I need to provide to the Court. I neglected to

2 say that one of the other requirements of the notice was that 3 the school district send letters to those people--

4

THE COURT: Oh, yes.

5

- MR. JACKSON: --that would be identified by the two

6 advisory counsel., the Hispanic education advisory counsel and 7 the Asian education advisory counsel, and that was also done.

8

THE COURT: Good. Thank you.

9

MR. JACKSON: And I neglected also to indicate to the

10 Court that present with me at counsel table is Peter Lawrence

11

^. who is the new__general counsel for the__s1chool_

12 district, and who filed his entries of appearance with the

13 clerk's office today.

14

THE COURT: All right, Mr. Vanna, welcome.

15

MR. JACKSON: At this time, we'd call/Dr. Wayne

16 Eckerling. /

17

THE COURT: Okay.

oo

18

WAYNE ECKERLING

19 called as a witness on behalf of the defendant, having been

20 first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

21

THE CLERK: Would you state your full name for the

22 record, and spell your last name?

23

THE WITNESS: Wayne D. Eckerling, E-c-k-e-r-1-i-n-g.

mo

coc

24

THE CLERK: Thank you.

25

68

1

DIRECT EXAMINATION

2 BY MR. JACKSON:

3 Q Are you the same Dr. Eckerling that has appeared before

4 Judge Matsch and testified before?

5 A - I am.

6 Q Dr. Eckerling, what is your present position with the

7 school district?

8 A Assistant Superintendent for Educational Services.

9 Q And give us a brief description of Educational Services.

10 A It includes many of the support departments that work

11 directly with the schools, including Title I program, the

12 English language acquisition program, curriculum assessment,

13 library services, things like that.

14 Q Bearing in mind that we do want to get through the

15 process today, and the Court's question about whether or not

16 some of the specifics of the approach covered by the new plan

17 would be discussed, I want to draw your attention, Dr.

oo

18 Eckerling, to Page 25 of the plan, which is joint Exhibit A.

19 Do you have that?

20 A Yes, I do.

21 Q And I direct your attention to the paragraph under Roman
o
LL
22 I on that page, and specifically paragraph A, is that a very

23 short, concise definition, if you will, or description of the

o

cr

24 provisions of the plan?

O

25 A That is.

Eckerling - Direct

69

1 Q And tell us then what that paragraph tells us about the

2 plan services.

3 A It says that we'll be providing native language

4 instruction in schools that meet a threshold number of

5 students. We'll also be providing an ESL model in schools,

6 most schools that do not--that we, when we look at what's

7 involved in native language instruction, we see three

8 components. We see content instruction in Spanish. We see a

9 student begin to improve their English, what's called

10 sheltered English or supported English, in other words,

11 English for students who don't speak the language fully, are

12 just learning it. And we see ESL, or the specific direct

13 instruction in the acquisition of English, reading, writing,

14 speaking and understanding. And then ESL would include

15 really the second two components, which are sheltered English

16 or supported English, as it's referred to here, and ESL,

17 again, the direct instruction in reading, writing, speaking

oo

18 and understanding English.

19 Q When we speak of native language instruction, are we

20 talking about a single class, a number of classes? What are

21 we talking about?
o
0-
22 A We are talking about instruction first in Spanish only,

23 because that's the only language that we have a sufficient
o
24 number of students to be able to practically offer such
O
25 instruction. And what we're speaking about are classrooms

Eckerling - Direct

70

1 that we would just say are regular classrooms where students

2 get their core subject area instruction, where instruction

3 could be provided in Spanish to students who speak that

4 language.

5 Q - And by core subjects, we speak of?

6A 7Q

Readingi__writ_ing, math, science and social studies. This happens to be a description of the services at the

8 elementary school level, Dr. Eckerling. Does this differ

9 from or is it the same as the service components at the

10 middle school and high school level?

11 A You would find these same programmatic services at all

12 three levels.

13 Q All right. Give us a brief description, if you will, of

14 supported English content instruction, or sheltered English.

15 A That is instruction in English where supports or

16 assistance is provided to help students who don't fully

17 understand the language, to understand and comprehend what's

oo

18 being stated to them. And so you might use visual clues, you

19 might provide additional assistance in vocabulary, so if you

20 use certain words, you might define those that you might not

tr O

21 normally define for a native English speaker. You might

a.

22 repeat yourself more than once. You might shorten your

23 sentence structure, all of which are ways to help people who

K.

24 don't fully understand the language to comprehend what you're

o

25 trying to say to them.

Eckerling - Direct

71

And then finally, the component of English language

development ?

That is the specific instruction in English grammar, in

oral understanding what's spoken to you, and in speaking

Inglish correct

It is--it's being able to read--teach

instruction in reading English and in writing English, so if

you come from another language or you speak another language

and are literate in another language, the conventions of

Inglish, written English, are explained to you and taught to

10 you, as opposed to content instruction where you're really 11 trying to help somebody understand mathematics or social 12 studies. 13 Q And then if you would, looking at the ESL service model), 14 the supported English content instruction and English 15 language development, are they the same as you have just 16 described for the transitional native language instruction?

17 A They are.

oo

18 Q Or the native language instruction. I'm sorry.

a

u.

S

19 A That's correct.

20 Q Dr. Eckerling, what is the concept that is developed

21 through this program in terms of the child's movement through

CC

22 the various service opportunities into the regular English

CO

23 instructional classroom?

o

o

24

What's the concept?

25 Q Right. Describe the process that's provided her for

Eckerling - Direct

72

that student movement.

Well, if the student speaks Spanish and is in a school

that offers native^language instruction, that student would

start with a heavy dose, if you will, of instruction in

Span-ish, and as that student--but he woulcLjalways get regular

ESL_inst ruction on a djoTv^^basis. And one of the differences

in the current plan is at the middle and high school level,

it now provides for two periods a day of ESL instruction,

because those students need to quickly learn English while

10 they're still in school. And as that student learns more

11 English, they would be placed in supported English classes as

12 their English language skills improve, and then finally begin

13 to transition into mainstream classes, again, as their

14 English language skills improve.

15 Q Now, there's a new concept,, if you will, that's present

16 in this plan that had not been with us before, and that's the

17 instructional service advisory team. Tell us about that

oo

18 team, its concept and its responsibilities.

(3

u_

19 A An instructional service advisory team is present at

20 every school that offers services, and it's made up of a

o

21 principal and two teachers from the school who are English

a.

22 language acquisition teachers. And their role is multi-

UJ

23 faceted, but most importantly, they would be reviewing entry

ir

eosn ocr

24 and eligibility for program services for students, so if

25 there's a question about whether a student is eligible, they

Eckerling - Direct

73

would review data that's supplied by the teacher and from

test results, and say our recommendation is that this student

should or should not--is or is not eligible for services.

They would also make recommendations and review

exit- data for students and make a recommendation of whether a

student ought to be exited from the program, as well as

monitor progress through the program, so that students are

appropriately placed in classrooms and that progress is made.

Directing yourself to the entry aspect of their role,

10 have other changes been made with respect to the time at

11 which tests are given and the information supplied to parents

12 with respect to placement in the program?

13 A Well, under the current plan, there's no direct

14 provision for supplying parents with information about the

15 program. So in this plan, it clearly states that information

16 is provided to the parent upon enrollment, if that's

17 appropriate. I mean, if a student comes in and he only

o

18 speaks another language, of course you would say, gee, we

o

19 ought to give this parent some information about where this

20 child will likely be placed. And then the child is^ 21 provisionally placed, based on their answers, the parent's 22 answers to questions on a home language questionnaire, may be 23 provisionally placed in the program. So if a parent says 24 yes, this child speaks another language and the child only 25 speaks this language at home and only understands it, that

Eckerling - Direct

74

child would be provisionally placed in a program, and within

20 days, school days, would be assessed, unless the teacher

says that the provisional placement is incorrect, or has some

question about it, in which case we agree to do that in ten

school days. And do the parents have a role during this 10 or 20 day

period?

They certainly can provide information to the teacher,

to the principal, and that information would absolutely be

10 considered in the placement process.

11

And, in fact, information is provided to the parents

12 about the process?

13

Absolutely. Upon time of entry, and that's provided in

14 writing, as well as there's other information that could be

15 provided orally or in writing.

16 Q Dr. Eckerling, you've been present in the courtroom

17 today. You've heard the testimony?

oo

18 A I have.

19 Q And you've heard the concerns that were expressed by Dr.

20 Escamilla about the role of the ICA team and the exit

o

21 criteria, if you will. Do you recall that testimony?

22 A I do.

23 Q Would you describe for the Court the process that is

o

24 contemplated by this new plan with respect to reviewing the

25 progress of students and exit from the program, what is

Eckerling - Direct

75

1 onsidered and who considers it?

2 A Well, first, there will be ongoing monitoring of

3 progress. The plan calls for

4 Students take assessments. We will be looking at progress on

5 the -LAS, which is an oral proficiency measure. We will be

6 looking at progress on achievement tests. We'll also be

7 looking for changes in what's called student profile, which

8 is what a classroom teacher would fill out about a student's

9 behaviors in class, academic behaviors, that indicate whether

10 the student speaks, understands, reads and writes English

11 adequately to participate in a mainstream program.

12

When a teacher feels that a student is ready for

13 exit, they can recommend that student, or a student could

14 meet certain criteria and an ICA team could say we would like

15 to review the data for that student to see whether it's

16 appropriate to consider them for exit. And that data would

17 include test scores, could include writing samples, would

18 absolutely include a student profile, would include other

19 information from the teacher, grades, attendance, anything

20 that would be relevant to that consideration of whether it's

21 appropriate to make that recommendation.

22

The IQA_ team would then make a recommendation, send

23 that to the Depart:jnentof English Language Acquisition, which
1Z M O

ior

24 has to review those recommendations. And I would say this is

25 not a rubber stamp process, if you will, Your Honor. This is

Eckerling - Direct

76

1 an absolute process where I've seen and participated and

2 watched these forms go back, and say this is not appropriate.

3 There is not adequate data to make this decision. So it's a

4 real process that we participate in.

5

If that decision is made, then there's what's

6 called the mojrit.oring process after that for one year. And I

7 don't know if you want to go--get into that part of the

8 process.

9 Q Yes.

10 A But there's a one year monitoring period, and this plan

11 says that if a student is exited and they score below the

12 20th percentile on the ITBS, within nine weeks, you have to

13 go to the teacher and say is_tjiis_^tudent appropriately

14 served in a mainstream program. So we don't wait one year to

15 say was the student successful. We do that immediately--you

16 know, we do that really as soon as is practicable in the

17 school setting. We're going to find out some information.

oo

18

I would also point out to you that the plan also

19 clearly says that at any time, no matter when a student is

20 exited, if that student meets those initial--answers those

21 initial eligibility questions with a yes, that student can be

22 placed back in the program if an exit decision wasn't

23 appropriate. So there are steps throughout that process that

24 let us ensure that we are doing a good job and that we're

25 exiting students appropriately. And in no case have I ever

Eckerling - Direct

77

1 seen a we'll wait a year until we make a decision about

2 whether to consider a parent's appeals. Those are handled in

3 a timely manner.

4

And, in fact, the concept of 15,000 appeals at one

5 time is simply just not true. You don't get_.£hat _kind of

6 thing, because you don't exit that number of students. You

7 know, you might exit--you might get 15, 20, 30 appeals, and

8 they can be handled fairly quickly, because remember, the

9 real question is can the student meaningfully participate in

10 a mainstream program. Is that student well served there, and

11 have we removed those barriers to the participation in the

12 educational process.

13 Q You heard the previous testimony with respect to the

14 three year concept?

15 A Yes.

16 Q In terms of the stop, look and listen aspect of that,

17 there's a provision in the plan, is there not, for the

18 development of an individualized education plan for those who
6
19 have not progressed to the point where they can meaningfully

20 participate in the English classroom?

ir

UJ

o

21 A There is.

Q.

22 Q Describe that for us, please.

23 A In that what we're going to do is as we find students

24 who have not progressed to a classroom in English, we're

25 going to look at the services that they receive, what their

Eckerling - Direct

78

educational needs are, are they still appropriately placed in

the program. What are we missing in the educational process?

That means a review of their test scores, their grades, their

attendance, and to say how do we better serve this student,

and .that means looking at the whole student. It doesn't just

mean looking at a particular aspect of the student. And we

actually have a model for that and a literacy plan that's

been developed that says, hey, what does this student need.

It will be reviewed with the parents, and then we will

10 monitor individually the progress of those students until we

11 can move those students into a classroom where instruction is

12 in English.

13 Q Were you a part of the development of this plan that's
14 presented to the Court, Dr. Eckerling?

15

Yes.

16 Q As an educator, would you describe for the Court and for
17 counsel what you believe to be the significant changes and/or

o

18 strengths of this plan?

19 A Yes. I believe that this plan builds on the strengths

20 of the previous plan around ESL or English language
0) DC
21 development and transitional native language instructions. I

22 believe this plan adds__three ^sources . We've already

23 increased dramatically centralrejsources. We've improved I

24 believe dramatically our training program. We built in para-

25 professional assistance into this plan.

Eckerling - Direct

79

We've substantially strengthened teacher training,

and we no longer have provisions in a plan, and I think well

intended, but one was that if you start in the plan, you had

two to three_j£eajrj5_Jbg_JLfiaxii^j^^

that meant is

we had teachers in classrooms wh°_Jiad__a_right to remain there

for three years until they acquired Spanish. And then they

didn't acquire Spanish, and we started all over again, and we

do not do that in this plan.

We've been very hard nosed about saying you have to

10 be proficient in Spanish to teach in this program. In a

11 classroom where native language in taught, we've been very

12 hard nosed about saying you have a year to get your 13 requirements met, and we've really tried to streamline that 14 part of the process. And often times we don't give teachers 15 contracts until they'll pass the test. So if they're going 16 to teach there, we want to know that they're qualified.

17

So we've added a lot of resources to the program.

oo

18 Our training budgets are increased dramatically. We've put

19 enormous amounts of money into materials. Our mill levy

20 program provides additional dollars for library books and
05

o

21 textbooks, which would mean more library books both in

22 Spanish and in sheltered English for English language

23 learners, as well as other students. We are increasing

a:

24 accountability, and I think you've already talked about that,

O

25 to the parents through regular reporting, to the Board of

Eckerling - Direct

80

1 Education through biennial reports, and to the Court and the 2 plaintiffs through the Court monitoring process.

3

We have safeguards in this plan. We have a three

4 year stop, look and listen. We have an individual learning 5 plan. We have tea_cber-4J^dgHteafc^through student profiles. We

6 have an ICA^_teara review. We have a department review. We

7 have a monitoring period, and we have an opportunity for

8 parents to say wait a second. So we have, I believe, really

9 offered a plan that has tremendous safeguards.

10

And, Your Honor, one thing I think that's important

11 is, as you've been pointed out, I think in the written

12 materials s ubm itted, we've moved from 3 , 3 0 0__LEP_studentLs_ t o

13 14,500. In the original plan, we talked about 13_bilingual

14 schools. We have 43 now out of 83 schools that offer native

15 language instruction. And you can no longer limit training

16 to a few teachers who are in a program, if you will. It's

17 not a few, but if you know what I mean, it's still a program.

o o

18

So this plan calls for training not just program

a

u.

5

19 teachers, but Title I teachers, special education teachers,

<

20 and teachers in mainstream classrooms to work with students

CL

w

<r

LU (—

21 who are transitioning out of the program. And so it really

DoC

22 recognizes that these students make up a substantial portion

cc

23 of our study body, and I think is a tremendous strength.

w

o

oa:

24 It's not a program any more; it's really an integral part of

25 this district.

Eckerling - Direct

81

1 Q Dr. Eckerling, you mentioned the numbers at the

2 elementary level. Would you give us the numbers at the

3 middle school and high school level as well?

4 A Well, it's 14,500 English language learners currently.

5 Q _ I don't mean that. I mean the number of schools

6 offering program services.

7 A 14 of 18 schools--well, first, to come back to the

8 elementary, I believe it's over--43i^will joffer native

9 laiigjiage__in^truction next year. Another over--I think it's

10 41 will offer ESL services. Some will offer both, depending

11 on the numbers in the school. 14_jof_18 middle schools will

12 offer native language instruction, and five of ten regular

13 high_schools will offer native language instruction. So the

14 program from small beginnings has grown dramatically.

15 Q Dr. Eckerling, I want you to now reflect, if you will,

16 on Dr. Escamilla's testimony this morning--or this afternoon

17 with respect to the CSAP results. Did you have occasion to

oo

18 review those materials and to listen to that testimony?

19 A Yes, I listened to the testimony and have had some

20 chance to review her--the written materials.

21 Q First, would you tell the Court and counsel what CSAP

22 signifies?

23 A Colorado Student Assessment Program, and it is a state

<n

o

cc o

24 assessment program that is being_phased in, and currently we

25 give a reading test in March of_ every year to all third

Eckerling - Direct

82

graders, and we give a reading and writing test in March of

every year to all fourth graders, and this year, we started

giving in the same month to seventh graders, and in another

year, we will start giving tests to tenth graders. And

there's some other tests, but basically, it's a state

assessment program.

Without going into extensive detail, Dr. Eckerling, what

did you find as you looked at those figures?

Well, first, there are some errors in the data, in the

10 subtraction. Second, I_believe_that it/_s__inappropriate to 11 make any conclusion about a program that, first, hasn't been 12 implemented, in 42 schools that have Hispanic percentages, 13 let alone percentages of English language learners, some as

14 low as 22 per cent. So you may have a school where scores

15 drop by 3 percentage points, and only 22 per cent of the

16 students are Hispanic, and an even lower percentage are

17 English language learners. And so to make a statement that

oo

18 this is the result of the implementation of the English

19 1anguage acquisition program__I_ think is__way__off_Jpase .

20

Also, if you just look at scores for Hispanic

21 students in those 42 schools, what you find is scores

22 improved in 15, dropped in 19, and there weren't a sufficient

23 number of Spanish--or Hispanic students in grade three to
o
24 give results in the others. So in that sense, I think that
o
25 it's way off.

Eckerling - Direct

83

1

And in addition, as Dr. Escamilla pointed out, the

2 students--there's a question about who's taking the test,

3 because she mentions two schools in particular, Fairmont and

4 Mitchell, and even though Mitchell has 45 per cent of its

5 population are English language learners, those teachers made

6 a decision to give that test to_88__joer__cent of their third

7 graders. Fairmont, whose English language learner population

8 is 54 per cent, only gave that English test to 49 per cent of

9 its population, and this is the way the state of the law

10 reads, is teachers make those decisions.

11

And so what you see happening is as students--at

12 some schools, the students are transitioning into English,

13 will choose to give them the English version while they're

14 just learning English, and we would encourage that, but of

15 course your result is going to be different than if you

16 continue to test those students in Spanish.

17

So I guess my, you know, the overall conclusion is

o

18 I don't believe you can draw any inference from these results

ao

Li-

19 about this program.

20 Q You mentioned the student profile. Tell us what that is

21 going to include and what it's intended to provide?

22 A It's intended to provide a formal set of information

23 from classroom teachers about a student's reading, writing,

o

5

24 speaking and understanding as they've seen it in that

25 classroom, as well as the student's--as well as social and

Eckerling - Direct

84

1 cultural factors that are impacting their behavior in a

2 classroom and that might affect their ability to be

3 successful in a mainstream classroom.

4 Q Is that information that had previously been made

5 available?

6 A No, this was never part of the original--or the '84

7 decree.

8 Q Tell us, if you will, Dr. Eckerling, what efforts have

9 been undertaken or are planned in terms of strengthening of

10 staff available for this program.

11 A Well, besides the 150 hour training program which a

12 teacher can complete in a summer or during a school year, so

13 that these modules have been--are offered extensively to that

14 we can move teachers quickly through training, and by the

15 way, the whole program, Your Honor, has been reorganized into

16 modules that teachers have to complete depending on whether

17 they're going to be an ESL teacher or native language

oo

18 teacher, and it's tailored also to the level, so that a high

19 school teacher would get something a little different, not

20 100 per cent different, than an elementary teacher.. There

21 are requirements around attendance. There are going to be

22 new requirements about completing exit proficiencies, and we

23 will be training broadly special education teachers in parts

o

a:

24 of this--in some modules. We will be training some Title I

O

25 teachers, and we will be training mainstream teachers.

Eckerling - Direct

85

1 Q Now, you have reviewed the accountability sections of

2 this plan and the reporting requirements that the District

3 has?

4 A Yes.

5 Q "And will those reports be your responsibility to ensure

6 that they're provided?

7 A Yes.

8 Q And do you intend to provide those reports?

9 A I do.

10

MR. JACKSON: I have nothing further, Your Honor.

11

THE COURT: I have a few questions before Mr. Roos.

12

MR. ROOS: Go ahead.

13

THE COURT: You know, it's been a number of years since

14 I've had to be concerned about how students are assigned to

15 schools, so I don't know what the current situation is in

16 Denver. But this program is site specific with respect to

17 buildings; right?

oo

18

THE WITNESS: That is correct.

19

THE COURT: Now, what is the opportunity, if there is

20 one, for a _student_ to_select a different school from the

21 school of primary assignment?

22

THE WITNESS: I think there's two answers. First, any

23 student who's at a site, and there are only intended to be
o
24 six next year where there are no program services provided,

25 we'll have transportation to a school where program services

86
1 are provided.

2

THE COURT: And can select that school?

3

THE WITNESS: Well, they, yes, can select that and we

4 would say, hey, this is an opportunity that you can

5 participate in a program here and we'll take you there.

6

In addition, we have an extensive choice program,

7 and you know a lot of our schools are close together, so if

8 you are at one school and said, you know, I would prefer to

9 be in a school that has a native language program, we would

10 offer and open our arms, wherever there's space, to students

11 coming in and participating. And so we have more than 20 per

12 cent of our students move around to different schools to

13 participate in the programs of their choice.

14

THE COURT: Now, much of the emphasis here is on

15 Spanish, because that's the largest population, I assume, of

16 native language other than English. You know, I can remember

17 back before the 1984 degree and some of the hearings we had

18 and how many languages were involved. And, of course, at

19 that time, there were large numbers of people coming from

20 Southeast Asia, and I remember the Mong people and the

oo.

21 Montagnards, and so forth. To what extent are those

22 languages now native languages in this system?

23

THE WITNESS: I suspect that the number of languages

24 hasn't changed a lot. There's over 80 languages still

25 spoken. But, in fact, the percentage of English language

87
learners who are Spanish is increasing dramatically, and the

absolute-number of other Ianguac[e_j5p_eakers has declined

know, primarily a

Spanish--

5

" THE COURT: Primarily Spanish?

6

THE WITNESS: Right.

7

THE COURT: And another problem that I remember was

the--how many people are transitory^ how many people like the

families of agricultural workers who are here only in Denver

10 for a few months. Is that still a major factor here in

11 trying to educate these people who are only going to be with

12 you for a short time?

13

THE WITNESS: Yes. I think if you talk to principals,

14 they would tell you that mobility is still a tremendous

15 problem. And one way that we're--it's not directly mobility,

16 but I don't know if you noticed the section that talked about

17 newcomer centers at middle and high school for students who

oo

18 come into our system and really haven't had much formal

19 education.

20

THE COURT: Yes.

o

21

THE WITNESS: And one of the things is elementary

0-

1JJ

CC tr

22 schools are to learn how to read and write and do math, you

LU

<
23 know, primarily, and at the middle and high school level,

24 there's a real expectation that kids come in at least with

25 some reading and writing knowledge. And so for students who

88
1 don't, we wanted a newcomer center so that we could

2 specifically focus on the needs of any students who happen to

3 be truly migratory, and have not had the benefit of formal

4 education. But it's really to say, hey, you can't put a

5 student who's never seen an alphabet into a native language

6 instruction class in Spanish or even into an ESL program with

7 students who are basically literate in their native

8 languages, and so we wanted to make some separate provision

9 because that's become an increasing problem in our district.

10

THE COURT: Okay, thank you. Mr. Roos?

11

MR. ROOS: Just a couple of questions.

12

THE COURT: Okay.

13

MR. ROOS: Sort of more also to address some of the

14 comments by Padres.

15

( CROSS-EXAMINATION

16 BY MR. ROOS:

17 Q Could you turn to Chapter 5, please? Chapter 5, I

oo

18 assume you would agree, sets out the criteria for exiting

19 students from a program, does it not?

20 A Yes.

DC O

21 Q And I'd like to draw your attention to Roman I, B-3. Do

22 you have that in front of you--

23 A I do.
o
24 Q --involving 20th and 29th. Now, in order for a student
o
25 to exit under that criteria, it's true, is it not, that they

Eckerling - Cross

89

1 must first exhibit oral proficiency on the language

2 assessment skill, the LAS test?

3 A Yes.

4 Q And in addition to having a score between the 20th and

5 29th", they must score at least a three on the reading and

6 writing aspects of the matrix; is that not correct?

7 A Yes.

8 Q And the matrix exam is the exam that's attached to the

9 plan, is it not?

10 A Yes.

11 Q And that exam is one that is given by trained bilingual

12 or ESL teachers, is it not?

13 A Yeah, it's given and it's done by a trained classroom

14 teacher who looks and says this is how the student is

15 performing.

16 Q Now, we also spoke about the transition within the

17 program, did we not, in your direct testimony?

o

18 A Yes.

19 Q And that's really found in--at least the specifics are

a.

2

20 found in Roman Numeral II of Chapter 5, is it not? ,

21 A Yes.

22 Q Page 14 and 15?

23 A Yes.

w

o

s o

24 Q And it's true, is it not, that it was agreed that before

25 a student began a movement into sheltered components, if you

Eckerling - Cross

90

1 will, that they would first be assigned to a bilingual

2 classroom, or native language classroom; is that correct?

3 A Depending on their LAS score, but certainly if a student

4 was a LAS one and doesn't speak English, or a LAS two and

5 speaks a little bit, they would first go to a native language

6 class.

7Q

If they were eligible for a native language class, they

8 would first go to the native language class?

9 A Absolutely.

10 Q Is that not correct?

11 A Yes.

12 Q And, indeed, it would be that teacher in the native

13 language class who would be the one who would be assessing

14 whether they are succeeding or whether they can in fact begin

15 to break off into some other classes?

16 A Correct.

17 Q Okay. So those are the protections that we've built in

oo

18 here, are they not, to assure that there is not premature

1 19 movement out of a native language situation?

20 A That's correct.

o

21 Q Now, actually I'd like to go back into the exiting with

22 respect to Roman Numeral I, Sub 4. Do you have that in front

23 of you?

y

io

24 A Yes.

25 Q That requires that, first of all, for a student to avail

Eckerling - Cross

91

1 themselves of Sub 4, they first have got to have a passing

score on the LAS test, is that not correct?

That's correct.

And that's an oral test; is that not correct?

A That is correct. Now, 4 requires a student meets criteria A, B and C or

D, so they must mean both A and B, and then C or D; is that

not correct?

That's correct.

10 Q And so B sets an objective standard, does it not, of a 11 three on a reading component on the student profile, does it

12 not?

13 A 14 Q

That is correct. And under D, C and D, there are similarly objective

15 criteria that students must meet in order to--on the student

16 profile in order to be exited; is that not correct?

17 A That's correct.

ou

18

MR. ROOS: Thank you.

19

THE COURT: Do you have any questions, Mr. Glassman?

20

MR. GLASSMAN: Just a few.

oEC

21

THE COURT: Okay.

Q.

22

CROSS-EXAMINATION

23 BY MR. GLASSMAN:

O

2cr o

24 Q Good afternoon, Dr. Eckerling.

25 A Good afternoon.

Eckerling - Cross

92

1 Q I just wanted to follow up on an earlier question of the

2 Court about whpt-hgr_ M I P <ji s f H <~i-_is ready to implement this

3

nd I would just start with one of the key areas.

4 Would it be fair to state that the gate keepers of who is in

5 and "out of a program are the ICA teams?

6 A They're a part of that process, but so is the

7 department. I always want to emphasize that we don't let--an

8 ICA team makes a recommendation. A department reviews that

9 recommendation and makes a decision. But they are a key

10 component, and I would grant you that.

11 Q And in order for them to be effective, that is the ICA

12 teams, they would have to have training, otherwise, their

13 participation wouldn't be very meaningful; would that be

14 fair?

15 A That's correct.

16 Q Have those ICA teams had the requisite training at this

17 point in time, or is it contemplated?

oo

18 A They--we have trained people. We have teachers, program

19 specialists at schools and they work with those teams. So,

20 yes, we have been working with people around exiting for a

IT

21 long time because exiting is also part of the current

o

a.

w

22 program.

23 Q And the ICA team members are teachers at the school and

o

2
<r

24 perhaps Spanish native language speakers as well as the

O

25 principal or his or her designee?

Eckerling - Cross

93

1 A That's correct.

2 Q And they, I take it, would need time to make these kinds

3 of careful decisions about whether a student should be in and

4 out of the program?

5 A 'That's correct.

6 Q And they're given that kind of time to make these kinds

7 of decisions?

8 A Yes, and they work that out and we try to work with them

9 to make sure that it works for them and that they have that

10 time.

11 Q Okay. Another important part of the process now is the

12 student profile, and in particular, the English language

13 development form in which scores are given for reading and

14 writing ability; is that fair?

15 A That's correct.

16 Q And it's important that teachers obtain training to know

17 how to fill out these forms and make these important

oo

18 assessments; is that correct?

2
•a

19 A That's correct.

cr

20 Q Have the classroom teachers been given instructions in

21 how to fill out these forms and make objective determinations

22 rather than I just feel this person is a two or a three?

23 A They haven't because remember, we're pilot testing that

24 now in accordance with what's in the monitoring, and so once
O
25 that's completed, that will happen.

Eckerling - Cross

94

1 Q And when is it contemplated that that will take effect?

2 A Before or right at the beginning of the school year it

3 will happen.

4

MR. GLASSMAN: I have no other questions, Your Honor.

5

- THE COURT: So if I sign off on this, you're projecting

6 to do the necessary training before, what, the end of August;

7 is that when--

8

THE WITNESS: Right at _the_Jbeginning of ^school. We

9 start I think September 7th next year.

10

THE COURT: Oh.

11

THE WITNESS: And, again, remember--

12

THE COURT: This year.

13

THE WITNESS: Of this year, yeah.

14

THE COURT: Calendar year, academic year.

15

THE WITNESS: Yeah.

16

THE COURT: Okay.

17

THE WITNESS: Excuse me, Your Honor.

oo

18

THE COURT: And that would include, I take it, because

19 one of the things that Dr. Escamilla was concerned about is

20 that the administrative people understand this plan.,. I take

o

21 it that you contemplate training them and instructing them

22 with respect to what's expected in their building?

23

THE WITNESS: We.' re_already had to startthat. Your

cor

24 Honor, because they're already having to staff for schools

25 for next year and think about how they're going to assign

95 teachers. So Mr. Perea has met with every elementary

principal who's got a program in a small group, and

individually where there was need for followup, met with the

middle schools and with the high school people already and

given them written information that they need to be thinking

about, as well as working with our person in personnel about

itaffing decisions and hiring decisions. So we've tried to

begin that process.

THE COURT: Okay. Well, did you have anything else, Mr.

10 Jackson?

11

MR. JACKSON: No, I do not, Your Honor.

12

THE COURT: You may step down. I think we'll take a

13 recess at this point. We'll take a ten minute recess.

14

(3:35 p.m. - Recess accordingly.)

15

(At 3:45 p.m. on June 3, 1999, with counsel for the

16 parties present, the following proceedings were had:)

17

THE COURT: Be seated, please.

o

18

MR. JACKSON: Call Mr. Jose Perea.

o

19

THE COURT: All right, if you'll come forward to be

20 sworn, please?

tr

21

o

JOSE PEREA

22 called as a witness on behalf of the defendant, having been

23 first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

mo

24

THE CLERK: Would you state your full name for the

o

25 record, and spell your last name?

96

1

THE WITNESS: Jose J. Perea, P-e-r-e-a.

2

THE CLERK: Thank you.

3

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. JACKSON:

- Being a witness that Judge Matsch has not had the

opportunity to hear before, would you give us a brief sketch

of your background, your educational background and

employment history, please, with the district?

A This is my 27th year with Denver Public Schools. Prior

10 to that time, I worked in Des Moines, Iowa for a couple of

11 years as a teacher. I started out my career at Horace Mann

12 Junior High School as a Spanish teacher and English teacher,

13 and from there, was transferred to North High School in 1975

14 and served as a bilingual resource teacher. After that,

15 assistant principal at North High School, assistant principal

16 at West High School, one tour of duty at the Central Ad.

17 Building in Human Resources, and then principal at Valverde,

oo

18 principal at Valdez, and nirrsntly

19 Director of the Department of English Language Acquisition.

20 Q Your educational background?

21 A Have a BA degree in Spanish, a master's degree in
O
22 curriculum and instruction, and administrative certificate

23 from Denver University, numerous hours in various subjects.

IT

CO

O 2

24 Q We've heard quite a bit of testimony today about the

o

25 director of the English Language Acquisition Program, and

Perea - Direct

97

1 you're that person, aren't you?

2 A Yes, I am.

3 Q Describe for us your responsibilities as director. What

4 do you understand your role to be as has been given to you by

5 the Board?

6 A Well, if this plan is approved, of course to implement

7 the plan. I'm responsible for the implementation, including

8 all the components of the plan. That's my responsibility, to

9 make sure that the 100 or so schools where we have children

10 receiving services are in compliance with what this plan

11 says.

12 Q During your tenure with the school district, you've been

13 a part of the educational program for limited English

14 proficient students who are English language learners,

15 haven't you?

16 A Yes, sir.

17 Q And you've also served as an administrator in schools

18 where those programs were in place?

19 A Yes.

20 Q Go ahead.

O

21 A North High School, where we had the largest number of

CL

22 English language learners, both as a teacher and as an

23 administrator, at West High School, and of course at Valverde

O

2
<z

24 and at Valdez, the school with the largest number of English

O

25 language learners at the elementary level.

Perea - Direct

98

When you were a teacher in the programs, were you a

native language instruction teacher?

I taught American History, bilingual American History,

and I also taught ESL.

" So you were both native language instruction and an ESL

teacher?

Yes.

Was that at North as well as at Valverde?

A That was at North High School. It was during the time

10 the judge mentioned earlier, 1975 when a number of 11 individuals from Southeast Asia arrived and lived at 17th and 12 Federal and were attending North High School. I worked with 13 ESL, those individuals, and also with Spanish speaking 14 students, and then also taught American History. 15 Q So in your teaching and administrative experience within 16 the district, you
17

8

18 A Yes, that's correct.

19

Including the Asjlan

20 A

o

21 Q You mentioned that if this plan is approved, then you

n.

ui

a:

22 would be prepared to implement it. Describe for the Court

23 what plans you have if it is approved, in terms of how you're

o

5
cn

24 going to go about implemenLJng—lLlie__Qlan •

O

25 A Well, I think one of the most important components of

Perea - Direct

99

1 the plan in order for it to be successful is the staff, the

2 training. There are a number of different categories of

3 employees in the district who need training, who require

4 training as it relates to this plan, as we've heard from

5 other individuals. That's a very important component,

6 probably one of the most important in terms of how we

7 implement it.

8

The other of course would be to supervisje_the

9 specialists in our department who serve the schools, making

10 sure that again schools are in compliance and making sure

11 that our teachers on special assignments or our educational

12 specialists are doing the kinds of jobs that they have to do.

13 Providing the reports to the Court, not directly, but are

14 required as a part of this plan, and making sure, again, that

15 the components of this plan, that there's a consistent

16 approach in terms of how this plan is to be implemented, and

17 that in fact there's a philosophy in the district from all

o

18 individuals, principals down to whoever else in that building

o

19 has contact with students, not only teachers, but other

20 individuals in the school, that there's a value for,this plan

21 and value for teaching the English language learners.

22 Q When were you appointed as the director?

23 A My appointment occurred this last summer, July the 1st

o

s

24 was my official date, but I came on board on June the 17th.

25 Q During that--or at that time, negotiations among the

Perea - Direct

100

1 parties had already been started, hadn't they? 2 A Yes.

3 Q After your appointment, did you then become a part of

4 the negotiating process?

5 A ^Yes, I did.

6 Q And continued through to the ultimate development of the

7 plan?

8 A Yes.

9 Q Within the plan, are there any responsibilities that are

10 described as being those of the executive director, or of the

11 department, that you feel cannot be accomplished?

12 A No.

13 Q You're familiar with all of them?

14 A Yes.

15 Q There's a suggestion, Mr. Perea, that in terms of the

16 classification process, and particularly the exiting process,

17 that recommendations are made up to the ICA team, the ICA

18 team then makes recommendations, and then ultimately, your

19 office and your department are the ones that actually make

20 those determinations.

21 A It's actually me.

22 Q Can you deal with the role that is given to you to

23 review all those recommendations for exiting? Is that
o
24 something that you feel comfortable in assuming and giving it
o
25 the attention that is needed?

Perea - Direct

101

1 A Yes. If I'm responsible for implementing this plan, I

2 want to make sure that I'm the one that's making that

3 decision.

4 Q You mentioned that you have now specialists in your

5 office. Can you describe what their role and duties are?

6 A These are commonly called teachers_o_n special

7 assignment, they're teachers who have served out in the

8 buildings as bilingual teachers, ESL teachers, and who are

9 assigned schools to report to. Part of their responsibility

10 is making sure that, for example, ICA teams or classification

11 teams are meeting at appropriate times, providing training

12 for new teachers, teachers who are brand new to the program,

13 teachers who are new to the district, also providing training

14 for the modules, being presenters actually for modules, as

15 well as providing training for teachers as it relates to, for

16 example, ESL. The main responsibility is to be a support to

17 those schools, support to the students in those schools, and

oo

18 making sure again that we're dealing with compliance in the

19 schools.

20 Q How many are there?

ao:

21 A We have seven individuals right now, with additional

0.

UJ

cc

tr

22 allocations that will be hired in the fall--or actually over

LU

CO

23 the summer.

o

5 en

24 Q Since last June, July, you had responsibility for

o

25 ensuring that the current order of the Court has been

Perea - Direct

102

1 complied with as well, have you not?

2 A Yes.

3 Q And we've heard testimony that the ICA teams' role in

4 the exiting of students or reclassification of students is

5 not only a part of the new plan, but it was the opinion of

6 those who mentioned it that it was consistent with the

7 provisions of the present plan. Do you feel that the

8 classification or reclassification process that the ICA team

9 has been performing that you have been reviewing and either

10 honoring or sending back for additional information has been

11 consistent with our current plan in terms of delivery of

12 services for limited English proficient students?

13 A Yes, sir.

14 Q The Court mentioned in some questions to Dr. Eckerling

15 about the mobility issue and the extent to which that still

16 presented itself. Can you tell us how that impacted the

17 delivery of the program as you were participating as a

oo

18 teacher and as an administrator, and whether or not you

u

LL

19 continue to see that type of mobility now that you've been

20 serving as director?

21 A As a teacher, of course, you know, we go back to about

22 1975 when I started as a bilingual resource teacher and ESL

23 teacher. At that time, our numbers were very small, even at
o
24 North High School. I guess to relate my experience, the best
o
25 would be working at Valdez Elementary School where we have

Perea - Direct

103

1 over 100--about 111 per cent, or we had mobility in the

2 school, where we have students who for one reason or another,

3 panish speaking students would return to Mexico, sometimes

4 for a month, sometimes for two months. The effect is that

5 the education is interrupted. A student leaves at a certain

6 time when you're teaching a certain concept, and returns when

7 you've moved on from that concept, and it's very difficult.

8

From a teacher standpoint, you know, you prepare

9 materials, you prepare packets, you attempt to do everything

10 that you can to individualize the instruction so that in fact 11 students can catch up. It's a very difficult problem.

12

There's also issues related to rent increases. You

13 know, we see parts of our city now that are becoming

14 desirable areas for individuals to live in as it relates to

15 being close to LODO, et cetera. I'm talking specifically

16 about Northwest Denver, where individuals no longer can rent

17 in those areas because those homes are now selling for 250,

oo

18 $280,000. So there's a movement, as we_heard earlier^ into

19 Northeast Denvex_as_ well as into the Montbello area, and it

20 makes it very difficult in terms of providing the services or

otr

21 providing instruction when that mobility occurs. So, yes, it

22 does have an impact.

23 Q We've heard some testimony, but I don't know that we've

2

24 fully covered the specifics about the newcomer center.

o

25 Describe that for us and tell us how you plan to implement

Perea - Direct

104

1 that.

2 A Well, one of the things that we've found over the years

3 is that many students come into the secondary level who have

4 had interrupting schooling, sporadic schooling, or in some

5 cases, no formal education, or very little formal education.

6 Our belief is that we can establish a center at the middle

7 school and at high school level where students who fit that

8 particular category can attend, receive intensive English

9 instruction as well as content level instruction, and spend a

10 year, a maximum of a year in the school, and then transition 11 either to their neighborhood school or remain in the school 12 where we've planned the newcomer center.

13

And in most situations, we're planning the center

14 to be located in zone schools where there are programs in ESL

15 and native language instruction so that students can progress

16 from the newcomer center into the regular classroom or the

17 regular school, and continue receiving services. It's a way

18 to provide an opportunity for students also to become

19 culturally attuned to a new country, a new--secondary schools

Q.

2

20 are hard, I mean even for individuals who are born and raised

21 in this country to become accustomed to. So there's a

22 process there that we're going to work with in order to help

23 those students make that transition.

24 Q And those centers will be located at Merrill and at

25 South; is that correct?

Perea - Direct

105

1 A At Merrill Middle School and at South High School.

2 Q And those are schools that do presently offer program

3 services?

4 A Yes.

5 Q - And are projected to have program services under this

6 plan as well?

7 A Yes.

8 Q There's been some testimony, Mr. Perea, about your

9 working with principals and meeting with principals. Tell us

10 what you have done in terms of beginning to lay the framework

11 for their participation in this plan.

12 A Well, I think one of the very important aspects of these

13 meeting has been to compare__and_contrast_the_^84__decree-jw.ith

14 the present plan, and to have principals take a look at

15 whether in fact they have actually complied with the '84

16 decree. Do you have an ESL component in your native language

17 classes? Do you have a reclassification team, et cetera?

o

18 But also to provide them information related to what Dr.

o

19 Eckerling testified as to the new aspects of the plan, the

20 identification, placement, parent permission, exiting,

21 monitoring, the areas that are new with our plan, and to also

22 assist them in terms of looking at how they have to staff

23 their schools as it relates to the number of English language

o

5

24 learners that they have, whether they're Spanish speakers,

25 not Spanish speakers, et cetera.

Perea - Direct

106

1

We've met with them in sraallgrougs,, and then I've

2 also gone out to the schools and met with them individually.

3 I've also had someone from my office that's met with them, a

4 designee from the office. So the idea again that in terms of

5 staff development, principals do play a key role in

6 implementing this plan.

7 Q And do you intend to continue to meet with them

8 throughout the summer as you approach the beginning of school

9 in September?

10 A Yes, I do.

11 Q Have you as well, Mr. Perea, been responsible for the 12 development of a draft principal's handbook and training 13 program?

14 A Yes.

15 Q Describe for the Court your efforts in that regard.

16 A As a former principal, you're responsible for so many

17 things in a building, Title I programs, special ed. programs,

oo

18 ELA programs, so one of the first things that I looked at was

a

u_

2

19 putting together a handbook for that principal that would

20 describe the different responsibilities that they have as it

O

21 relates to the implementation of the new plan, as well as

a.

22 looking at the present plan.

23

So what we did is we put together different

o

o

24 categories that a principal could look at very quickly with

25 tabs related to their responsibilities, placement for

Perea - Direct

107

1 example, identification of students, parent participation,

2 the different components of the plan, in a user-friendly

3 handbook that they could refer to very quickly and answer

4 questions as it relates to the services that they need to

5 provide in the building, as well as answer questions from

6 teachers, again related to the program and services.

7 Q And if this plan is approved for implementation, is it

8 your intent to complete the work on that handbook, and then

9 have training for those administrators prior to the opening

10 of school in the fall?

11 A Yes.

12 Q We've heard about the student profile, both its use in

13 terms of the exiting of students from the program, and also

14 in terms of its being something that is being piloted this

15 spring. Would you tell us about the piloting effort and what

16 has gone on and is going on in that regard?

17 A We've just completed the field testing, oh, maybe two

oo

18 weeks ago, or so, three weeks ago, or so. We've looked at

19 the data that we received. We field tested it with teachers

20 and students and parents. What we have found is positive--

21

THE COURT: Over what period of time was this?

22

THE WITNESS: This occurred over a two to three week

23 period of time. We've had very positive responses. We've

o

2

24 had some information from teachers in terms of how we can

O

25 modify the student profile, and also the social cultural or

Perea - Direct

108

1 what we're calling student environment learning guide, I

2 guess we would say.

3

Anyway, so we have that back. We've looked at the

4 data. We've put together that information, and making

5 modifications as it relates to information that we've

6 received from teachers and parents. Parents have been very,

7 very supportive of what we're doing, and one of the things

8 that they've said is that to them, it gives the teacher a

9 better idea, a better look at their student, because parents

10 are filling out information related to their particular child

11 and then comparing that to what the teacher has seen. So

12 it's been very favorable.

13 Q

(by Mr. Jackson) Is it fair to say, Mr. Perea, based

14 upon your experiences, that the development of the student

15 profile and the plan itself provide much greater opportunity

16 for informed parent involvement in the English language

17 acquisition program than has been present before?

oo

18 A I believe so.

19 Q And have you found within your experience that the role

20 of the parents is critical in this?

tr O

21 A It is. It's the most important role. We can work as a

CL

22 partner with parents in the schools and get them involved in

23 their child's education. It plays a very, very important

o

24 role.

25 Q And what kind of a commitment do you have to the

Perea - Direct

109

1 parental involvement in the implementation of this plan if

2 it's given the go-ahead?

3 A Well, of course one of the things that I've already done

4 is to meet jioJ^__ev^ry_nionthJ__but almost every month at 5 District B-PAC Meetings _wrth_p_axents, explaining the plan to

6 parents, talking about what this plan speaks to in terms of

7 services to their children. I will continue to do that,

8 continue to work with schools in terms of the forming of B-

9 PAXTS^ bilingual parent advisory committees, and continue to

10 work with parents. I've been called by principals when

11 parents have a question. Sometimes I can respond on the

12 phone. Sometimes I go visit them. So, you know, I'm

13 available to parents and have made visits on Saturdays and

14 even Sundays to parents.

15 Q To what extent have you been involved in updating and/or

16 modifying the training modules and training program that's

17 available for teachers?

18 A We have hired__a training specialist for our department,
a
19 and we have gone through the modules and made some revisions,

20 made some improvements, looked at--Dr. Eckerling spoke

21 earlier about a criteria for the teacher, a standard that

22 they would have to meet in order to pass the module. We want

23 teachers to demonstrate that if they've spent 3 0 hours in

O

2 T

24 training as it relates to ESL, that they're able to put

25 together an ESL lesson, something that we can look at and say

Perea - Direct

110

1 whether in fact--or determine whether in fact they have

2 learned what we are training them on.

3 Q Describe for the Court, if you will, your involvement in

4 ascertaining the presence of materials within the classrooms

5 through the city, and plans for the acquisition of additional

6 materials.

7 A Last year when I served as principal at Valdez, the

8 department had an audit of materials, and then that

9 information was given to us as principals, and we were asked

10 to order those materials. And actually, the department

11 provided support in terms of helping us provide the budget to

12 purchase those materials.

13

We have continued with that endeavor this year

14 because a number of schools, for example, did not purchase

15 sufficient numbers of materials, as well as some schools did

16 not purchase ESL materials. Last year's department

17 recommended a certain program, and some schools did not

18 purchase it. So this year, we assisted in purchasing those

19 materials for them.

20

We've also completed this year a secondary audit,

t
oc

21 and are looking right now at--or looking at what the needs

0-

u a: cc

22 are as it relates to the standard that we've set in terms of

UJ

en

23 those materials, and we'll be also ordering and assisting
cc

O

24 schools to provide those materials to their students.

25 Q Mr. Perea, if the Court were to approve this plan and

Perea - Direct

111

1 authorize its implementation, are you prepared to do the

2 things necessary to assure that the plan can be implemented

3 starting this fall?

4 A Yes.

5

-MR. JACKSON: I have nothing further.

6

THE COURT: Mr. Roos?

7

/CROSS-EXAMINATION

8 BY MR(. ROOS: )

9 Q Just some clarification similar to the questions I had

10 for Mr. Eckerling. Would you turn to Chapter 5, please, on

11 exiting from the program?

12

There's been discussion today about the burden on

13 your office of reviewing exiting criteria; is that true?

14 A It is.

15 Q It is your understanding, is it not, that the objective

16 criteria, i.e. passing the LAS test and meeting the threshold

17 scores on a matrix or the Norm Reference Test that are

oo

18 referenced in Chapter 5 are minimums that must be met before

19 a student is reclassified; is that your understanding?

20 A Yes.

21 Q And with respect to Chapter 4 which deals with initial

22 entry, could you turn to that? That's Page 190. Do you see

23 that?

w

o

2
o

24 A Yes.

25 Q Is it also your understanding that the objective

Perea - Cross

112

1 criteria dealing with the LAS test and the matrix test are

2 bedrock foundational requirements that must be met before--to

3 assure that a child gets into a program; is that not correct?

4 A Yes.

5

- MR. ROOS: Thank you.

6

THE COURT: Mr. Glassman?

7

MR. GLASSMAN: I have no questions, Your Honor.

8

THE COURT: Just one thing. In the communication with

9 parents and__the importance of the parents' involvement in the

10 education of the children, would I be right that a

11 significant number of the parents are limited in English?

12

THE WITNESS: Yes.

13

THE COURT: So that you have to have a structure so you

14 can communicate in native language there, and principally

15 Spanish in the areas you're talking about?

16

THE WITNESS: Yes.

17

THE COURT: And you contemplate doing that, I take it?

oo

18

THE WITNESS: Yes, we have translators in the department

o

u.

19 who assist when meetings are held, for example, in schools

a.

2

20 where they request a translator. Whenever I present, I

<n

21 present in both languages.

22

THE COURT: Well, if a principal who is not fluent in

23 Spanish wants to meet, you know, with parents in that school,

o

<r

24 then that principal can get a translator for the meeting?

O

25

THE WITNESS: Yes. Yes.

Perea - Cross

113

1

THE COURT: Is that done? I mean, has that been going

2 on?

3

THE WITNESS: Yes, it is. As a matter of fact, we had

4 to hire a translator that works a little bit different

5 schedule, coming in afternoons, actually an afternoon

6 schedule, almost a 3:00 to 11:00 shift.

7

THE COURT: Yeah. Well, some of those meetings are

8 after school?

9

THE WITNESS: Most of them are after school, yes.

10

THE COURT: Yeah. Okay, thank you.

11

MR. ROOS: Actually, I have a few other questions, Your

12 Honor, that were sort of prompted by yours.

13

THE COURT: All right, sure.

14

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION

15 BY MR. ROOS:

16 Q There were comments made by Padres concerning problems

17 with respect to secretaries who may not be able to

oo

18 communicate with parents. Do you remember those comments?

19 A Yes.

20 Q You agree that it's important that there be somebody in

21 a school at various levels who can properly inform parents as

22 to their rights, would you not?

cr

23 A Of course.

w

o

2

24 Q And will you be assuring us that if secretaries and

25 front line people who would ordinarily deal with parents do

Perea - Cross

114

1 not have those skills, that there will be other people around 2 who can be readily made available to parents?

3 A To the extent that those individuals are available, yes.

4 Q Okay. And it is a commitment of your office to try to

5 make" those people available?

6 A Yes.

7 Q And you would agree that informed parent involvement is

8 important, would you not?

9 A Yes.

10 Q And I gather that you would also agree with comments by

11 Padres that a number of parents are in fact are not literate

12 in Spanish, or their own language; that is true, is it not?

13 A That's correct.

14 Q And so it is important that there be contact people in

15 the schools who in fact can communicate with the parents; is

16 that correct?

17 A Yes.

oo

18 Q Comments were made concerning appeal processes, parent

s

s

19 appeal rights to the director of the--to you.

20 A Yes.

H EC

21 Q Are you familiar with those comments?

o

22 A Yes.

23 Q There was a suggestion that your office might merely

24 file those appeals. Is that what you would intend to do? Is

25 that what you envision the extent of your obligation is under

Perea - Cross

115

1 the decree?

2 A NOj absolutely_.,_not. My reputation would not allow me to

3 do such a thing. I would listen and make a decision.

4 Q And it is your understanding that if there were an

5 appeal, that it would be up to your office to make an

6

based upon the parent's

7 petition to you; is that correct?

8 A Yes.

9 Q And that's what you will do; is that correct?

10 A Yes.

11 Q You've heard conversation in this courtroom today about

12 the importance that we all place on the monitor, have you

13 not?

14 A Yes.

15 Q And would you agree with me that it is important that

16 parents have access to the monitor to set forth problems that

17 they might have?

oo

18 A Yes.

a

LL
19 Q Okay. And does the district, through your office,

20 intend to inform parents of the existence of the monitor and

21 the scope of his responsibilities and their ability to access

22 the monitor?

23 A Yes.

o

24

MR. ROOS: Nothing further, Your Honor.

25

MR. JACKSON: I have one question, Your Honor.

116

1

THE COURT: Please.

2

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

3 BY MR. JACKSON:

4 Q Mr. Perea, the plan itself imposes a duty on the

5 district to determine which language the parents prefer to

6 receive communications in, does it not?

7 A That's correct.

8 Q And imposes an obligation on the part of the district to

9 honor that to the extent that it is practicable, and they

10 have the provision in there that it will be done in Spanish

11 and Khamur and Russian and Vietnamese I believe is the other

12 one, and any other language spoken by at least 100 students

13 in the district; is that correct?

14 A That's correct.

15

MR. JACKSON: Thank you.

16

THE COURT: Thank you. You can step down.

17

MR. JACKSON: Call Ms. Sue Edwards.

oo

18

THE COURT: Okay.

o

s

19

MR. JACKSON: And this would be my last witness, Your

20 Honor.

21

j SUSAN EDWARDS

22 called as a witness on behalf of" the"defendant, having been

23 first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

o

24

THE CLERK: Would you state your full name for the

o

25 record, and spell your last name?

117

1

THE WITNESS: Susan Gayle Edwards, E-d-w-a-r-d-s.

2

THE CLERK: Thank you.

3

DIRECT EXAMINATION

4 BY MR. JACKSON:

5 Q -Ms. Edwards, you're a member of the Board of Education;

6 is that correct?

7 A I am.

8 Q And you hold an office on the Board?

9 A I do.

10 Q What is that office?

11 A I'm the President of the Board of Education.

12 Q How long have you served on the Board?

13 A I've been on the Board of Education since May of 1995,

14 just over four years.

15 Q And how long have you been its president?

15 A I've been president since November of 1996.

17 Q So you were president of the Board during the time that

18 the District entered into negotiations with respect to the

o

5

19 English language acquisition program?

20 A Yes.

O

21 Q During the time of those negotiations, were you and the

22 Board kept apprised of the elements of the negotiations, the

23 progress of it, and what was on the horizon, so to speak?

24 A Absolutely, yes.
O
25 Q Once the plan was completed, did you have a special

Edwards - Direct

118

1 meeting at which the plan was presented to the Board and

2 described in some extensive detail in terms of its provisions

3 and programs?

4 A Yes.

5 Q - And at the conclusion of that meeting, did the Board

6 take action with respect to the plan?

7 A Yes, it did.

8 Q And what did it do?

9 A The Board of Education voted unanimously to support and

10 adopt this plan.

11 Q And directed, did it not, its counsel to join with

12 counsel for the United States and for the plaintiffs to

13 submit the plan to the Court for approval and authorization

14 to implement the plan?

15 A That is correct.

16 Q We've heard lots of discussion today, Ms. Edwards, about

17 materials, about personnel, about commitments to the program,

oo

18 about resources necessary to implement the plan. As the

19 president of the Board of Education, please advise the Court

20 the extent to which the Board of Education is committed to

O

21 implementation of this plan and the processes that will be

22 followed in attending to its implementation.

23 A This Board of Education and the staff of Denver Public
wo
24 Schools are committed to meeting the needs of the children of
0
25 Denver, and to providing educational opportunities that will

Edwards - Direct

119

1 allow them to graduate as productive members of our society.

2 One of the needs of some of the children of our district, an

3 ever increasing number of children in our district, is the

4 need for English language acquisition, and the program that's

5 been' developed by the staff of the district, in conjunction

6 with the community and in conjunction with families and in

7 conjunction with the plaintiffs, is one that this Board of

8 Education supports wholeheartedly, will commit the resources

9 necessary to fully implement, will direct staff to fully

10 implement, and I have the full confidence that this plan will

11 provide what opportunities we are able to to meet the needs

12 of the students of this district.

13 Q You're familiar with the accountability provisions of

14 the plan and the reports that are required to be given to the

15 Board of Education?

16 A I am.

17 Q Is the Board prepared to both receive and to act upon

oo

18 those reports?

19 A I think those are important distinctions. We will do

20 more than just receive them. If we see problems with the

h
coc

21 implementation of this plan, staff will be directed to act

22 upon~-to make remedy of those situations. So we will not

23 simply be filing those reports away, but they will be an

2 a:

24 active document to allow us to best meet the needs of the

O

25 students.

Edwards - Direct

120

1 Q Have you had similar requirements and definitiveness

2 with respect to the type and frequency of reports before?

3 A One of the goals of this Board of Education has been to

4 review programs within our district to determine the ones

5 that- are successful, to determine the ones that are no longer

6 successful, to find means of improving all the programs that

7 are offered for our children, and then to act upon the

8 recommendations that are made and to follow up. So yes,

9 we've had many occasions within this district, in individual

10 programs and district-wide programs, where we have had the 11 opportunity to--where we've asked--accountability is the 12 issue and where we've asked for reporting on the success of 13 the programs, and then taken action to remedy any 14 deficiencies. 15 Q Is it fair to say that the accountability portion of the

16 plan under discussion today provides much greater specificity

17 with tKe~Eypeand manner of reports that must be presented to

o

18 the~ Board "with respect to the English language acquisition

o

19 program?

20 A I'd say that's a very fair statement.

o

21 Q The Board also had before it the monitoring proposal,

0.

22 and the fact that the Court, if it approved the program,

23 would be asked to approve a monitor, an outside person who

CO

O

2 CL

24 would be responsible for monitoring your implementation over

O

25 a period of three years. Is this a function and a process

Edwards - Direct

121

1 that the Board welcomes and looks forward to?

2 A I think it's a necessary component of this particular

3 plan, given the history of this situation and the, if you

4 will, adversarial setting in which this has all evolved. I

5 think that it is--there are trust factors, there are

6 implementation factors that I think we will be best served by

7 having a monitor, a highly skilled and well respected monitor

8 who will watch over this plan and make sure that we're doing

9 the job that we say that we're going to do to the

10 satisfaction of all parties.

11

MR. JACKSON: Thank you. Nothing further.

12

THE COURT: Now, you understand the monitor reports

13 here, too?

14

THE WITNESS: Yes.

15

THE COURT: And that the process, you referred to the

16 adversarial process, and of course that's what this is, and

17 that the effect of my approval of this plan is that the plan

oo

18 becomes an order of the Court?

19

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

0. OT

20

THE COURT: And can't be changed other than going

CC

111

I—

tt

21 through this process and seeking a change from the~Court?

o

22

THE WITNESS: That is correct.

23

THE COURT: Okay. Well, sometimes that's an advantage,

IE

M

O

5 OC

24 because I've known over the last 23 years the Board has said,

o

25 well, we'd all agree with that, but the Court ordered us to

122

1 do it. So I'm familiar with--

2

THE WITNESS: I know exactly what you're talking about.

3

THE COURT: Okay. Do you have any questions?

4

MR. ROOS: I have no questions, Your Honor.

5

-THE COURT: All right.

6

MR. GLASSMAN: None, Your Honor.

7

THE COURT: Thank you. You may step down.

8

Anything else by way of testimony or submissions of

9 documents?

10

MR. JACKSON: No further witnesses. At this time, I

11 would just simply renew the joint submission which has been

12 made on behalf of counsel, and urge the Court's approval of

13 the plan and monitor the process.

14

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Roos?

15

MR. ROOS: We would join in that, Your Honor. We have

16 no witnesses to present. I think that it is important, and I

17 think the Court has gotten a flavor of it from probably all

oo

18 sides actually, and as much from the District as elsewhere,

19 that there have been serious problems over the course of time

20 in terms of implementation, and we're looking forward--

21

THE COURT: Well, sure, I remember you were going to

22 seek contempt.

23

MR. ROOS: I wasn't going to mention it. As I remember,

24 that was to be very down-played. But in any event, we're

25 hoping that this is sort of a--this is a new beginning, and

123

1 we think we've got in place some of the processes that will

2 hopefully sort of stymie some of the activities that veer off

3 at times from full implementation, and we will be watching

4 very closely. But we think that this is a good plan and a

5 good- start, and we join in asking the Court to approve the

6 plan and approving the monitor.

7

THE COURT: Mr. Glassman?

8

MR. GLASSMAN: We join with Mr. Jackson and Mr. Roos.

9 We believe the plan is a fair, reasonable and adequate

10 settlement of the issues that were before all of us. We

11 think we have a good faith beginning in working in

12 cooperation with each other, and if this is fully and fairly

13 implemented, we think it will be successful. So we urge the

14 Court to approve it.

15

THE COURT: All right. Ms. Benavidez, do you have any

16 comment?

17

MS. BENAVIDEZ: Well, Your Honor, we would only add that

oo

18 you consider the recommendations on implementation of the

19 plan that Padres has made.

20

THE COURT: Well, here's where we are under the law.

o

21 The role of the Court of course, as I mentioned here, is to

CL

22 ensure that the statutory^et5mmand"~be implemented, and that is

23 under the Congress, 20 USC 1703 (f>T the Court must be sure

o

2
o

24 that the school district, in the words of the statute, takes

25 appropriate_^axitLioil_toovercome language barriers" that impede-.

uodn

T SI= :}uauiu.iaAo6 aqq.

aaaq 'quepuagap aqq SE

ux s s p i E d aq:} uaqw qeq:} sx Aes s a x n j aq:}

puv

aq:} 30 aAX^H^uasaadaa aq:} uaaq aAeq sao^Eonpa

30 ssajfiuoD aqj, •UOX^DP SSPXD e ST ST'm.V " (s)

13

o
3J

3M ^Hq^ axna aq^ Jtapun sx A^epo^ axoa Aui puv

03

• sx

61

' sqjaA 03UX sunou Buxuan^ o^ pauio^snooB os auiooaq

81

oo

iBxnox^jiHd puE 'auiooaq 9A,9M ^nq^ sx ^x AqM aans L\

a^xnb ^ou ui,i •aaaq paAXOAUj. sx ^eq^ ABoxouxuiaa^ aq^ go auios 91 o^ saiux^ ^e j o ^ e x s u B : r : l E papaau ^SOIUXB I asneoaq SI

l o ^ s o n p s u s ^ou ui, 1 ^eq^ aui o^ ^uaaedd'e AaaA suieoaq ^x frT

xaxduioo ^eqMauios--AjtaA sxq^ qBnojq^ peaj: 1 sv

El

•o:o^HDnpa UE 3 1

,1 'AxsnoxAqo

aq^ 30 axo;r aq^ uaq^ pu^e '

II

uBxsap oq

ux saxouan^x^suoo aq^ JCO

01

go s u a z p x o aq^ go sjox ^uaaaggxp aq^

6

8

aq^ Aq appui aq ^snui saoxoqo asaq^ os puv

L

9

S

auxuij:a^ap

auxuuaqap

-——•
10 axdoad

e

go uox^oung__aq^ 'asanoo go '^ou sx

3

'

.

i ux s^uapn^s Aq

I

125

1 issues, then it's up to the Court to determine whether that

2 is a fair settlement of those issues. And so we call this a

3 fairness hearing, or a hearing to determine whether first of

4 all what is being done meets the requirements of the law and

5 the issues in the case.

6

And, of course, the issues in this case have been,

7 since way back when, whether--and originally it was a

8 constitutional issue--whether there's equal educational

9 opportunity for all of the pupils in Denver served by the

10 program, the institutional program. And then of course when

11 this part of the case was carved out from Keyes, the

12 desegregation part of this case, by my determination that the

13 commands of the Constitution have been met and that there was

14 in place equal educational opportunities in the Denver School

15 System, and closed that part of the case out, this remaining

16 set of issues was considered as a separate case, a statutory

17 case dealing with this statute that I've just addressed.

oo

18

I am satisfied that what is presented here does

19 present a program that will avoid the language barriers

<

20 becoming an impediment to obtaining the benefit of the

a.

o

21 instructional programs.

22

Now, obviously whether it works or not is the

23 question, and I am particularly interested in the monitoring

o

2

24 part of this plan. And those of you who have been involved

25 with this over the years know that way back in 1974 when

126

1 Judge Doyle first ordered desegregation through a decree,

2 there was a monitor selected by the court. And then over

3 time, I utilized community education counsel, people

4 appointed by me, again to see what was happening actually in

5 the -schools. Now, that's_..jmy.understanding of the role that

6 this i^onitojs- Is gpins__tQ_jolay.

\

7

Ana it is important to recognize that people will )

8 have the opportunity to address the monitor, including

9 anonymously. That's the provision. And also that the

10 monitor will submit reports to the Court, at least an annual

11 report, and I would expect that I--it is understood that I

12 have the authority to request the monitor to report at any

13 time to me with respect to what's happening, and whether the^

14 school district is doing what it says it's going to do.

15

So I--and I'm glad that you've all agreed upon this

16 person who has this I think very difficult task ahead of him

17 so that I didn't have to draft somebody into this role. And

oo

18 certainly I reviewed his qualifications and I've had the

19 assurance from you counsel here that this is a person who

Q.

20 will do the job. And through what comes from him, I'm here

en

a:

21 to make sure that the school district does what they say

22 they'll do.

23

So I'm accepting this plan, and it should now be

o

<r

24 put into the form of a decree of the Court, consent decree

o

25 that the plan will be implemented, and the implementation

127

1 will begin with the beginning of the next academic year, 2 which I understand now to be the first week in September of

3 1999. So counsel will draft an order adopting this plan as a

4 decree of the Court, and directing its implementation.

5

And it is apparent to me, because how long has it

6 been, Mr. Roos, since you came in and were talking about

7 seeking a contempt order here? It's been--

8

MR. ROOS: It was in 1994, I went back. So this is five

9 years later that we're here.

10

THE COURT: Yeah. Well, a lot has gone on, and of

11 course one of the things that--you know, one of the things

12 that is really important I think for me to say publicly, I

13 think I said it back in 1995 when I cut out, so to speak, on

14 the jurisdiction, this school system is a lot different from

15 what it was in 1974. It's a lot different from what it was

16 in 1976 when I had first cut responsibility in this matter.

17 And it is a lot different over time, and one of the big

18 differences is, and I'm so pleased to see it in action, and

19 that is we have gone from a time 20 or more years ago when a

20 court had to protect people who were then considered

O

21 minority, racially, ethnically, because they couldn't--they

22 didn't have the levers of power to do things for themselves.

23 That's different.

o

S

24

£E

Today, as a result of so many changes in our

o

25 society and in the law governing us, including these civil

128

1 rights enactments by the Congress of the United States,

2 people have the power to help thejnseJLvgsJ__Jand Jthat's what's 3 obviously gone on here, and it is just such an encouraging

4 thing as a citizen, not a judge, to see this in play. And

5 that's what's happened, and of course no one plan is going to

6 be applauded by all people. Choices have to be made. And it

7 is this Court's responsibility again to ensure that as we go

8 forward with this plan, that nobody is going to get left

9 behind.

10

So in that spirit, I'm approving this plan, and

11 counsel will draft an appropriate order.

12

Thank you. Court's in recess.

13

(4:40 p.m. - Whereupon, the proceedings were concluded.)

14

15

16

17

I certify that the foregoing is a correct

18 transcript from the record of proceedings in the above-

"8

19 entitled matter.

20

0

o

21 July 5, 1999

22

Federal"^ Reporting Service, Inc. 174 54 E. Asbury Place

23
o
24
o
25

Aurora, Colorado 8 0 013 (303) 751-2777

1 2

3

4

5 WITNESSES:

6 Kathy Escamilla

7 Irving Moskowitz

8 Rita Montero

9 Wayne Eckerling

10 Jose Perea

11 Sue Edwards

12

13

14

15

FORM CSR - LASER REF ERS PAPER & MFG. CO. 800-626-6313

16

17

18

19

20

-

cc

21

o

22

23

24

25

129 INDEX
DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS

10

22/33

34

35

45/46

48

54/58

68

88/91

96

111

116

117

 
 Congress Hispanic Ed v. Sen. District No. 1

MJG 2 4 t i M

Civil Action No.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT0"*7*© STATESD« ^

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

DBNv(*.'

Chief Judge Richard P. Matsch

o 1999

95-M-2313

CONGRESS OF HISPANIC EDUCATORS,

Plaintiff,

and

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-lntervenor,

v.

SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, DENVER, COLORADO,

Defendant.

ORDER FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CLOSURE
On June 16, 1999, this court, after hearing, entered its Order Approving English Language Acquisition Program. That order constituted a final judgment resolving all matters at issue in this civil action. It directs implementation of an English Language Acquisition Program and monitoring as set forth as Joint Exhibit A and Joint Exhibit B filed with the court with the proposal to settle class action pursuant to Rule 23(e) on April 30, 1999. These programs provide that the court will receive annual reports from the Monitor, as required, and the court is to retain jurisdiction for 3 years beginning with the 1999-2000 school year, following which any party may apply to the court for an order of dismissal or

such other orders as may be appropriate. Because the case is no longer in active

litigation, it is, pursuant to D.C.COLO. LR41.1A,

ORDERED that the Clerk shall close this civil action administratively subject to

reopening for such action as may be necessary to oversee implementation of the program,

and to take such action as may be requested on the initiative of the Monitor or any parties

in interest. Dated: August

r
. 1999

BY THE COURT:

Rionarjb P. Matsch, Chief Judge

Case Number: 95-M-2313
I certify that I mailed a copy of the Order for Administrative Closure entered by Chief Judge Richard P. Matsch on August 18, 1999, to the following:
Dated:
JAMES R. MANSPEAKER, CLERK
By: Deputy Clerk
Stephen Taylor Assistant U.S. Attorney
Peter Roos Multicultural Education, Training & Advocacy 785 Market St. #420 San Francisco, CA 94103
Roger L. Rice Jane E. Lopez Multicultural Education, Training & Advocacy 240A Elm St. Suite 22 Somerville, MA 02144
Michael H. Jackson Peter Lawrence Vana, III Denver Public Schools 900 Grant St. Denver, CO 80203
Phil.C. Neal Neal Gerber & Eisenberg 2 N. LaSalle St., #2300 Chicago, IL 60602
Jeremiah Glassman Kathy Woodruff Lisa Evans U.S. Department of Justice Educational Opportunities Section P.O. Box 65958 Washington, DC 20035-5958

Adrienne Benavidez Riggs, Abney, Neal, Turpen, Orbison & Lewis 621 17th St. #600 Denver, CO 80293

 
 Congress Hispanic Ed v. Sen. District No. 1
OT-CO-001-013
In the United States District Court for the District of Colorado Chief Judge Richard P. Matsch

FILED UN!Tf;D STATES DISTRICT COURT
DFNVEn COLORADO
0 2 1999
JAMES R.
>DEP. CLERK

Civil Action Ntf 95-M-2313 CONGRESS OF HISPANIC EDUCATORS
Plaintiff, and
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-lntervenor v.
SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, DENVER, COLORADO, Defendant.

Monitor's Report on the Denver Public Schools' English Acquisition Program (ELA): Report 1 (£mest R. House^) Court Monitor August 30, 1999

This is an initial report on the progress of the Denver Public Schools' implementation of the English Language Acquisition (ELA) Program, which was agreed to by the plaintiffs and DPS earlier this year. This report is an overview of the plans and preparations for the ELA program at the beginning of the 1999-2000 school year. Future reports will examine the ELA program in more detail, including inspections of individual schools.
The Denver Public Schools seem to be off to a promising start, in spite of the search for a new _^i^e_nnte_ndent__of schools. I was favorably impressed with the staff working on the ELA program, from the top leadership to the teacher trainers to the data system developers, all of whom I met in monitoring visits in August. The staff seems dedicated, enthusiastic, and very able. They have been open and forthright in discussing implementation problems. I also spoke with the new superintendent on his third day on the job, as he tried to sort out his new work environment.
The ELA staff have produced detailed, explicit program manuals. These manuals outline the proper procedures to be followed when registering, assessing, classifying, and exiting students in the program. Key information from these procedures is

coded into the new management information system, discussed below. Orientation jnformation for parents has been translated into the appropriate languages. Considerable care has been taken to outline the workings of the program step-by-step.
In general, there are enough trainedjteachers to staff the ELA classes, though not all these teachers have full qualifications. Previously, the ELA program decided to hire^nJy_teac^hers who jspoke the native Janguage_jor_those^ classrooms requiring instruction in the native language. Allowing teachers to learn Spanish while on the job resulted in teachers not being fully fluent in the language. Precise numbers of teachers and students in the program await completion of the district's data processing.
The majority of ELA teachers are trained by the district itself throughout the year. In visits to some of these training classesj found the instructors to be sharp, practical, lively, and on target. All come with practical experience in such classrooms, and the focus is on how to get classroom tasks accomplished. The teachers attending the classes were attentive and engaged. Written evaluations of these classes by the teachers are very positive, with responses from teachers ranging from 80% to 95% positive. The

lower scores are responses to whether the teaching is practical and "hands on" enough.
The teacJiexJjJJJiiiig-JnaduLes_are_bejng__consJ^jTt!y_j^dsed_. by the district, and DPS is investing considerable resources in the training. The training materials for the modules are well developed. Whether there are gaps in the training must await further investigation by interviewing teachers who have received the district training to find out how it has prepared them. At the moment it appears the teachers are being well trained for their tasks.
For example, in learning how to administer the Language Assessment Scales (CAS)) teachers listened to the instructor's explanations, listened to tapes of student responses, and practiced recording student responses and scoring the results. The instructor estimated that almost all the teachers in the class attained 95% reliability in administering and scoring the test. However, the teachers need more practice on returning to their schools, more practice than they can attain in the module workshop.
The LAS_Ls__colic_aiJp_the ELA program. Students are identified at the school level through the use of the LAS, as well as

by other information about the student. For new students this assessment takes place wj^hjn_a_few_day_s of the beginning of classes. Such a decentralized system of student assessment and classification puts a burden on the schools to do the assessment quickly and correctly. Quick classification means the schools can proceed immediately with their placement and instructional tasks and that the classification is done by those closest to the student. There are advantages in such a decentralized approach, including speed, eff[ciejT^4_jand.p£rs_ojialization (ideally).
The downside is that decentralization makes monitoring and control by the central office difficult since assessment processes are proceeding in a hundred schools with hundreds of different students and teachers. How good are the assessment procedures? How accurate? Consistency and accuracy in assessment (which educational measurement experts call the "reliability" and "vajjdjtyljDf the testing procedure) can be checked, and possibly improved, in several ways. I have asked DPS to consider ways of further ensuring the reliability of the LAS assessment.
One way is through cojnsjstent trai_ninfiLof—the assessors-part of teacher training in this case. A second way might be through

repeated checking procedures, such as administering the tests twice and comparing results, or having other assessors conduct the testing to see if they obtain the same results. A third way might be through comparing_ test- results_ta. other inioimat[Q.n_about the students to see if the data are consistent, such as comparing the ELA test score to grades and teacher observations.
The training currently seems adequate for administering the LAS, although I want to check with teachers and others administering the tests to see how they fare. Some procedures for double checking test results are already in place, such as assessors from the ELA office checking student scores from time to time. Reliability is not likely to be as much a problem where students do not speak English at all, which is relatively easy to determine. However, when the level of student English is at issue, as in the exiting procedure, reliability may be more a problem.
It was pointed out (and evident in the student records) that significant numbers of students in the higher grades have not been exited from the program and yet are not receiving ELA services. I need to determine whether this discrepancy is a problem of the assessments not being accurate indicators of the students' English

ability, and hence the students are retained in the program, or whether the students have been lost in the system somehow. If the students are identified as being program eligible, they should be receiving services. These are not huge numbers of students but enough to worry about.
To cope with the decentralized nature of the ELA program, DPS has instituted a /management information system w>hich has potential for monitoring. According to current plans, information from the schools-test scores, parent responses to the key program qualification questions, and other student information-will be fed to the central ELA program__offjcethe day after Jii&iiala_.are__te_corded in the school. The ELA office would have immediate data available on the status of each student in the program. This information would provide for monitoring the classification and placement of students in the program school by school. The information also would facilitate monitoring the program for purposes of the court order.
This information system has been purchased from a major supplier of such systems nationally and is now being customized for the ELA program. (The basic information system includes all other
7

students in the district as well.) Getting such a large information system up and running is no trivial feat. Having been tutored in the system by ELA staff, I consider the progress good, though the system is bound to have many bugs that need to be worked out.
It is intended that the information be readily available to the schools and used by the schools to monitor their own activities. In one school that I visited, this availability and use was not the case with the current information system. The current system is up and down, and, from my experience in evaluating instructional uses of computers, educators will not bother if the computer system is not consistently up and running. Hopefully, the new information system will be consistently operational.
In the future I need to see if the information system is operating successfully, monitor the classification and placement of students more closely, examine teachers and classes to see that they fulfill the program requirements, and inspect other aspects of the program outlined in the agreement, such as the ISA teams, the Newcomer Center, and the parent advisory grojjps. I will be calling on other specialists for help in these monitoring endeavors.
8

Visits to schools will provide a picture of how the program looks at the operational level. The schools vary considerably in how they approach and implement the program. As promising a beginning as DPS has made, there is still a long way to go for full implementation. Having an active monitoring process may help the central office emphasize to the schools the necessity of implementing the program fully, if such emphasis is needed.
There is also a more subtle aspect to implementing the English Language Acquisition program. Considerable power in the Denver schools is exercised by ^x[nc^als__^lb^.scJiCiQLiey-£l. Implementing a program is noLjlojie^^ijiipiy^y^issj^ng directives frorrMhe central office. Principals have many things to do other than ELA. And teachers are the ones who do the actual work with students. Unless principals and teachers embrace the ELA changes enthusiastically, implementation will be less than one might hope. Some culture change over time is necessary for all schools to accept fully that the education of these new students should receive high priority.

 
 Congress Hispanic Ed v. Sen. District No. 1
OT-CO-001-014
In the United States District Court for the District of Colorado
Chief Judge Richard P. Matsch
Civil Action No. 95-M-2313 CONGRESS OF HISPANIC EDUCATORS
Plaintiff, and
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Intervenor
v.
SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, DENVER, COLORADO, Defendant.
Monitor's Report on the Denver Public Schools' English Language Acquisition Program (ELA): Report 2
Ernest R. House Court Monitor December 13,1999

Report 2: An Interim Report
Three months into the implementation of the English Language Acquisition (ELA) program in the Denver Public Schools, there are two major concerns. One is whether the authority of the ELA staff is sufficient to implement the program in all schools. The other concern is whether extreme external pressures will deflect the school district from its goal of implementation.
I anticipate that some schools will not be in compliance with the court agreement after three years unless these schools change what they are doing. The ELA program staff is well informed about the court agreement and knows how to implement it. The issue is whether the ELA staff has sufficient authority to induce principals to change. DPS has been operating under a philosophy of site-based management in which principals decide the direction for their schools. For many schools, this arrangement works fine for the ELA program. However, for some schools it does not.
In October I suggested to the superintendent and assistant superintendents that some steps are needed to rectify this situation. They agreed to consider how they might effectively induce principals to implement the ELA program in accord with the court agreement. For their part principals have many items on their agendas, understandably, and it is not surprising that in some circumstances the ELA program is not the top priority. Also,

some principals are not well informed about the agreement, even when they think they are.
Since October DPS has taken four concrete steps. First, the district has mandated ELA training for all principals so there is some assurance that the principals are better informed. Second, the ELA Executive Director has been invited to attend staff meetings of the Assistant Superintendent for Elementary Schools, thus having the opportunity to provide detailed information about particular schools to the line administrators.
Third, as a result of this closer staff-line coordination, one principal has taken the advice of the ELA staff more seriously and is attempting to bring his school into accord with the agreement. The capacity of the district to find schools not in compliance and correct them is critical. Fourth, a section on administering the ELA program has been added to the performance assessment form for secondary school administrators. This means that administrator performance will be judged in part on whether they implement ELA program. These are all positive steps to enhance implementation of the program.
The second major concern is the extreme pressure put on the district by the state. The state has mandated that all school districts should increase their performance on the state tests by twenty-five percent over the next three years. Not surprisingly, increasing these test scores has become the overriding goal of the district. The superintendent has based his own performance assessment, as well as the performance pay of other administrators,

on test score improvements. Efforts are underway in the district to mobilize resources to make this happen.
It is possible that the implementation of the ELA program will be slowed by this activity. Resources otherwise directed to ELA might be diverted to improving test scores, more by accident than by design. While the two goals are not incompatible, neither are they the same. And the district's resources are scarce compared to what it must accomplish. The possibility of diversion of effort bears some watching.
In the fall, registration of students (critical to placing them in the proper language classes) encountered some problems, at least in the recording of student data. There were inconsistencies in the registration data for 5,000 students, about one-third of those in the ELA program. ELA staff went to the schools to straighten out the inconsistencies, which seem to have stemmed from a number of causes, including misunderstanding by those who must record this information. Whether these problems have been solved permanently is unclear.
Finally, there is the LAS test, which is central to placing and exiting students from the program. Test results can be highly erratic, especially for tests that rely on different individuals administering them and interpreting results. Without standard administration of the tests, it is possible that test scores for students in one school will be quite different from those in another, even when their actual performance levels are the same.

After discussions with the ELA staff, it seems one reasonable approach to maintaining the reliability of LAS scores is to review the audio tapes that are recorded when school personnel administer the tests to individual students. If the ELA office can check these tapes for accuracy, they can ensure that the LAS results are consistent across the schools in the district. Also, those administering the tests would know their efforts are under review by the ELA office. The ELA office has begun to inspect these tapes to see how significant the reliability problem is. At the moment it appears the schools are not consistently collecting and keeping such tapes.
As part of the monitoring, I have asked Mary Strandberg, a former principal in DPS, now retired, to help me make visits to individual schools. She understands the schools, the ELA classrooms, and the local communities. Both the plaintiffs and the district have agreed to her participation in the monitoring activity. She and I are currently working out procedures to ensure that we are examining the relevant features of the program as we visit individual schools.

 
 RECWR21W9

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 95-M-2313

CONGRESS OF HISPANIC EDUCATORS, et al. , Plaintiff-Intervener,

, ~

and

-

M

I

H

D

STATe€ DISTRICT DENVFR.COLO.

COURTr

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Intervener
v ·

D .' ]999
i AiSISP£AKER CLERK

SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, DENVER, COLORADO, e t a l . ,
Defendants.

COMPLAINT-IN-INTERVENTION
The United States of America, plaintiff-intervener, alleges as follows:
1. This complaint-in-intervention is filed by the Attorney General of the United States on behalf of the United States, pursuant to the Educational Opportunities Act of 1974, 2 0 U.S.C. § 1701 et seq.. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.§ 2OOOd, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794, and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131-12134, as well as the implementing regulations of Title VI, Section 504, and Title II found, respectively, at 34 C.F.R. § 100, 34 C.F.R. § 104 et seq. and 28 C.F.R. § 35 et seq.
2. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1345 and 20 U.S.C. § 1708.

ìb

3. Defendant Board of Education of Denver Public Schools is a body public and as provided by 2 Colo. Rev. Stat. § 22-32103(1995) is responsible for the administration of services for limited English proficient (hereinafter "LEP") students and special education services for all persons within Denver Public Schools ("District") .
4. Defendant Irv Moskowitz is Superintendent of the Denver Public Schools and as such is chief executive officer of School District No. 1, and is sued in his official capacity.
5. Keyes v. School District No. 1. Denver, Colorado. Civil Action No. C-1499, was filed in 1969 seeking the desegregation of Denver Public Schools. The Congress of Hispanic Educators and individually named Mexican-American parents of minor children attending the Denver Public Schools intervened in 1974. 576 F. Supp. 1503 (1983). On November 3, 1980, the plaintiff-intervenors filed a supplemental complaint in intervention on behalf of LEP students. 576 F. Supp. at 1506.
6. On December 30, 1983, this Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order on Language Issues finding the District out of compliance with the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974, 20 U.S.C. 1703 (f) . 576 F. Supp. 1503 (D. Colo. 1983). Thereafter, the parties jointly submitted a plan entitled "Denver Public Schools: A Program for Limited English Proficient Students ("Program") to the Court as a settlement of the language issues, and the Court entered an Order on August 17, 1984 which required the District to implement the Program in accordance with

its terms. Subsequently, the District was found to have attained unitary; status and the desegregation component of_jthig__acJiioa-was dismissed by Order of September 12, 1995; the outstanding issues pertaining to LEP students were at that time split off from the original action and assigned a new civil docket number. 902 F.
, 1308 (1995) . Defendants remain subject to the August 17, 1984 Order.
7. The District is a recipient of federal financial assistance, and as such is subject to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and its implementing regulations. The District is also a public entity, within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 12131, and as such is subject to Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations. In addition, the District is an education agency, within the meaning of 20 U.S.C. § 1720, and as such is subject to the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974.
8 . In a ifetter of f indings```which was forwarded to the District on July 31, 1997, the District was found by the Office for Civil Rights of the United States Department of Education (DOE) to be in violation nf Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, due to the District's failure to provide equal educational opportunity to LEP students.
9. The District's actions and inactions, referred to in

the letter of findings and this court's orders, violate the statutes referred to in Paragraph 1., above, and their implementing regulations. In addition, the District's actions and inactions are inconsistent with this Court's August 17, 1984 Order, referred to in Paragraph 6., above.
10. The Department of Education determined that it was unable to obtain voluntary compliance, and in a letter dated_ Jul¾ 3¿j__JL9-£3-r-· notified the District that unless the District submitted an adequate plan within 10 days, it would refer the matter to the Department of Justice. On October 6, 1997,DOE referred this matter to the Department of Jujstj_Hf¾_, with a recommendation to intervene in this lawsuit.
11. The parties have resolved all outstanding issues by agreeing to submit two documents to the court for its approval. The first document, "English Language Acquisition Program," sets forth the substantive obligation of the District toward LEP students and includes certain reporting obligations. The second document, entitled "Monitoring," creates a position of monitor which will oversee implementation of the decree for a period of three school years, beginning in 1999-2000. The parties have jointly agreed on a monitor.
12. The referral from OCR is authorized by 42 U.S.C. § 2OOOd, 34 C.F.R. § 100.8 (a), incorporated into the Section 504 regulations at 34. C.F.R. § 104.61, and is authorized by the ADA regulations at 28 C.F.R. § 35.174. Intervention is also independently authorized by the Equal Educational Opportunities

Act of 1974, 20 U.S.C. § 1709. 13. Unless the relief requested herein is required by this
court, the Defendants will continue to operate its program for non and limited English proficient students in violation of federal law.
Wherefore, the United States prays that this Court: 1. Order the Defendants to timely implement the English Language Acquisition Program agreed to by the parties and submitted to the Court with the Proposal to Settle Class Action, requiring Defendants to take necessary actions to overcome language barriers that impede equal participation by its students in its instructional programs and ensure that such students can meaningfully participate in such programs; 2. Order the Defendants to comply with the terms of the Monitoring document agreed to by the parties and submitted to the Court with the Proposal to Settle Class Action, and appoint a monitor, Dr. Ernest House, the person agreed to by the parties, to monitor implementation for a period of three school years beginning in 1999-2000;

3. Retain jurisdiction of this action and grant any such additional relief as the needs of justice may require.
JANET RENO Gene
BI/LL LANN LEE Acting Assistant Attorn General
LINDA A. McMAHAN ( United States Attorney
2MIAH GLASSMAN [`HRYN WOODRUFF LISA EVANS Attorneys U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Educational Opportunities Litigation Section P.O. Box 65958 Washington, D.C. 20035-5958 (202) 514-4092

* * MAILING CERTIFICATE OF CLERK * *
True and correct copies of the attached were mailed by the clerk to the following:

Antonia Hernandez, Esq. Luis Wilmont, Esq.; Al Kauffman, Esq. , Carmen Rumbaut, Esq. Mexican American Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. 140 East Houston Street #300 San Antonio, TX 78205

Peter Roos, Esq. META, Inc. 785 Market Street #420 San Francisco, CA

94103

Jane E. Lopez, Esq. META, Inc. 24OA Elm Street #22 Somerville, MA 02144

Phil C. Neal, Esq. Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg Two North LaSalle Street #2300 Chicago, IL 60602

Michael Hodges Jackson, Esq. Denver Public Schools General Counsel 900 Grant Street Denver, CO 80203

Julie Ann Riege, Esq. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 3 03 East 17th Avenue #510 Denver, CO 80203

Linda A. McMahan, Esq. United States Attorney's Office Criminal Division 1961 Stout Street #1200 Denver, CO 80204

Jeremiah Glassman, Esq. Kathryn Woodruff, Esq. Lisa Evans, Esq. U. S. Dept of Justice Civil Rights Division, Educ Opp Litigation Section P. O. Box 65958

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Senior District Judge Richard P. Matsch
Civil Action No. 95-cv-02313-RPM CONGRESS OF HISPANIC EDUCATORS,
Plaintiffs, v. DENVER SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.1,
Defendant. v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Intervenors.
ORDER FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT DECREE AND FOR NOTICE OF FAIRNESS HEARING
Upon review of the Joint Motion of All Parties to Approve and Enter the Proposed Consent Decree (2012) in Place of the 1999 Court Order Regarding Denver Public Schools' ELA Plan (Doc. 56) and the Memorandum in Support of the Joint Motion to Approve Consent Decree 2012 (Doc. 57) (hereafter collectively referred to as "the Joint Motion to Approve Consent Decree"), and after the hearing held on November 16, 2012, and the submission of a certification that the Board of Education of Denver Public Schools approved the proposed consent decree at a Special Meeting on July 16, 2012, following proper public notice, public hearing and opportunity for public comment, thereby assuring the court that the proposed consent decree has been adopted as public policy by the governing board of Denver School District No.1, it is
ORDERED that the Joint Motion to Approve Consent Decree is preliminarily approved, subject to final approval following a Fairness Hearing to be held before this Court on January 25,2013, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom A, Second Floor, the Byron White United States

Courthouse, 1823 Stout Street, Denver, Colorado. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the Denver School District No.1 (Denver Public Schools)
shall provide written notice of the purpose and location of the Fairness Hearing, as described in the Notices attached hereto, by November 29, 2012, and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that all written objections specify the part(s) of the proposed Consent Decree to which the person objects, the basis for each objection, and whether the person intends to make objections in person at the Fairness Hearing on January 25, 2013, and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that all timely written objections received by counsel for the Parties shall be filed with the Court by the Parties on or before January 18, 2013.
DATED: November 20th , 2012 BY THE COURT:
~~* Judge
2

To be translated into Spanish, Vietnamese, Arabic and Somali, Amharic, Nepali, Russian, French, Karen and Burmese

Print and Email Notice to Parents

The Congress of Hispanic Educators ("CHE"), the United States, and the Denver Public Schools ("DPS") recently negotiated a revised plan for addressing the educational needs of students whose language is other than English ("English Language Learners" or "ELLs"), and
have submitted it to the U.S. District Court for approval. Our records indicate that you have a
child who is an English Language Learner and is eligible for English Language Acquisition ("ELA") services.

This revised plan, if approved by the Court, would replace the English Language Acquisition Program currently in place and which was approved in 1999 by the U.S. District Court in the case of Congress ofHispanic Educators v. Denver School District No.1. The revised plan: (a) clarifies how parents may choose program services for their ELL students, (b) provides a new approach to training teachers of ELL students, (c) ensures that parents from different language groups will receive translations of important school communications, (d) sets out processes governing placement of ELL students with disabilities, and (e) improves DPS's self-evaluation of its ELA Program to help ensure that ELL students are succeeding in school.

Before this revised plan is approved by the Court, parents of English Language Learners in the Denver Public Schools have a right to review it.

The proposed revised Consent Decree is available at the DPS homepage www.dpskI2.org and can be reviewed at the office of any school, and in DPS's administrative offices, at 900 Grant Street, 1st Floor, between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. A copy of the proposed Consent Decree will be available in English and Spanish. Speakers of other languages may bring a translator, or may obtain a list of translators proficient in other languages. You may also obtain a copy of the document for $3.00.

Parents of ELL students wishing to file an objection must do so in writing. Any such objections should state that you are a parent of an ELL student in Denver Public Schools, and indicate at the top of the page that the objection relates to the case CHE v. School District #1, CA #95-M-2313. All written objections must specify the partes) of the proposed Consent Decree to which the person objects, the basis for each objection, and whether the person intends to make objections in person at the Fairness Hearing on January 25, 2013. All written objections should be mailed to each of the following individuals so that it is received by close of business on January 4, 2013:

1. Walter 1. Kramarz, Esq. Denver Public Schools 900 Grant Street Suite 401 Denver, CO 80203

2. Laurel Pyke Malson, Esq. Crowell & Moring LLP 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20004 Fax: 202-628-5116

3. Roger L. Rice, Esq. META, Inc. 240A Elm Street, Suite 22 Somerville, MA 02144

•

English and Spanish

Print and Email Notice to Community Organizations

The Congress of Hispanic Educators ("CHE"), the United States, and the Denver Public Schools ("DPS") recently negotiated a revised plan for addressing the educational needs of students whose language is other than English ("English Language Learners" or "ELLs"), and have submitted it to the U.S. District Court for approval.

This revised plan, if approved by the Court, would replace the English Language Acquisition Program currently in place and which was approved in 1999 by the U.S. District Court in the case of Congress ofHispanic Educators v. Denver School District No.1. The revised plan: (a) clarifies how parents may choose program services for their ELL students, (b) provides a new approach to training teachers of ELL students, (c) ensures that parents from different language groups will receive translations of important school communications, (d) sets out processes governing placement of ELL students with disabilities, and (e) improves DPS's self-evaluation of its ELA Program to help ensure that ELL students are succeeding in school.

Before this revised plan is approved by the Court, parents of English Language Learners in the Denver Public Schools have a right to review it, file written objections, and may have the opportunity to present objections orally to the Court at a Fairness Hearing that will take place at 10 a.m. on January 25,2013 at: Byron White Courthouse, 1823 Stout Street, Courtroom A, 2nd Floor, Denver, Colorado.

The proposed revised Consent Decree is available at the DPS homepage www.dpskI2.org and can be reviewed at the office of any school, and in DPS's administrative offices, at 900 Grant Street, 15t Floor, between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. A copy of the proposed Consent Decree will be available in English and Spanish. Speakers of other languages may bring a translator, or may obtain a list of translators proficient in other languages. You may also obtain a copy of the document for $3.00.

Parents of ELL students wishing to file an objection must do so in writing. Any such objections should state that you are a parent of an ELL student in Denver Public Schools, and indicate at the top of the page that the objection that it relates to the case CHE v. School District #1, CA #95-M-2313. All written objections must specify the partes) of the proposed Consent Decree to which the person objects, the basis for each objection, and whether the person intends to make objections in person at the Fairness Hearing on January 25,2013. All written objections should be mailed to each of the following individuals so that it is received by close of business on January 4, 2013:

1. Walter J. Kramarz, Esq. Denver Public Schools 900 Grant Street Suite 401 Denver, CO 80203
3. Roger L. Rice, Esq. META, Inc. 240A Elm Street, Suite 22 Somerville, MA 02144

2. Laurel Pyke Malson, Esq. Crowell & Moring LLP 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20004 Fax: 202-628-5116

1

LIST OF COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS
• BUENO Center UeB 247 - School of Education University of CO, Boulder Boulder, CO 80309-0247 Attn: Leonard Baca
• Catholic Charities Immigration Services 4045 Pecos Street, Denver, CO 80211 Tel: 303-742-0828 Email: info@ccdenver.org
• CIRC-CO Immigrant Rights Coalition 2525 W. Alameda Ave., Suite 300 Denver, CO 80219 Email: (Julien Ross) julien@coimmigrant.org Website: http://www.coimmigrant.org/
• CLLARO, CO Latino Leadership, Advocacy and Research Organization 309 West 1st. Avenue Denver, CO 80223 Tel: 303-722-5150 ext. 108 (Kathy Maestas) Website: www.cllaro.org
• Colorado Association of Bilingual Educators (CABE) P.O. Box 33120 Northglenn, CO 80233 Email: hrileylal,cocabe.org
• Colorado Association of Latino/a Administrators & Superintendents 15701 E. 1st Ave., Suite 217 Aurora, CO 80011 Tel: 303 340-0864 Email: (JesusEscarcega)jdescarcega@aps.k12.co.us
• Coloradans for Immigrant Rights 901 W. 14th Avenue, Ste. 7 Denver, CO 80204 Tel: 303-623-3464 Email: (Jordan Garcia) jgarcia@afsc.org
2

• CO Statewide Parent Coalition 7150 Hooker Street, Ste B Westminster, CO 80030 Tel: 720-890-0123 Email: (Richard Garcia) richard@coparentcoalition.org
• Del Norte Neighborhood Development Corp 2926 Zuni Street #202 Denver, CO 80211 Tel: 303-321-1384 Email: (Alice Dent) adent@delnortends.org
• Escuela Tlatelolco 2949 North Federal Boulevard Denver, CO 80211 Tel: 303-964-8993 Email: (Nita Gonzales) nita@escuelatlatelolco.org
• Focus Points Family Resource Center 2501 East 48th Avenue Denver, CO 80216 Tel: 303-292-0770 Email: (CynthiaGallegos)cynrgal@yahoo.com
• Intercambio De Comunidades 2525 W. Alameda Ave., Room 130 Denver, CO 80219 Tel: 303-433-0190 Email: (Sarah Shikes) sarahs@intercambioweb.org
• Latino Education Advisory Council (LEAC) % Ms. Christina Montoya 3349 Alcott Street Denver, CO 80211 Email: christinam77@yahoo.com and Ms. Aubrey Valencia 2807 E. Pacific Dr. #302 Aurora, CO 80014
• Latin American Educational Foundation 561 Santa Fe Drive Denver, CO 80204 Tel: 303-446-0541 Website: info(alJaef.org
3

• Lulac League-United Latin 3034 W. Denver Place Denver, CO 80211 Tel: 303-892-8455
• Mi Casa Resource Center 360 Acoma Street Denver, CO 80223 Tel: 303-573-1302 Email: (Christine Marquez-Hudson) cmarguez@micasaresourcecenter.org
• Mile High United Way 2505 18th Street Denver, CO 80211 Tel: 303-433-8383 Website: www.unitedwaydenver.org
• Padres and Jovenes Unidos 3025 West 37th Ave. # 206 Denver, CO 80211 Tel: 303-937-3799 Email: (Ricardo and Pam Martinez) info@padresunidos.org
• Rocky Mountain Immigrant Advocacy Network 3489 West 72nd Ave Ste 211 Westminster, CO 80030 Tel: 303-433-2812 Email: (Mekela Goehring) mgoehring@.rmian.org
• Servicios De La Raza 4055 Tejon Street Denver, CO 80211 Tel: 303-458-5851 Email: rudyg@serviciosdelaraza.org
• YESS Institute 1029 Santa Fe Drive Denver, CO 80204 Tel: 303-525-3859 Email: (Carlo Kriekels) carlo@yessinstitute.org
• NEWSED Community Development Corp. 901 W. 10th Avenue, Suite 2A Denver, CO 80204 Tel: 303-534-8342 Fax: 303-534-7418
4

• Asian Educational Advisory Council 5491 S. Ireland Way Centennial, CO 80015 Attn: Ms. Priscilla Shaw Email: Tennisgalp@gmail.com
• Asian Roundtable of Colorado P.O. Box 1102 Denver, Colorado 80201 Attn: Mr. Peter Lee Email: peterl63@gmail.com
• Asian Pacific Development Center APDC Business & Programs Office 1544 Elmira St., Aurora, CO 80010 Attn: Ms. Jinny Kim Email: Jinnykim(a{apdc.org
• Organization of Chinese Americans-Colorado P.O. Box 44236 Denver, CO 80201 Email: Oacolorado@gmail.com
• Vietnamese Senior Center 1822 S. Sheridan Blvd Denver, CO 80232 Tel: 720-378 8818
• Vietnamese-American Cultural Alliance 986 S. Ventura Way Aurora, CO 80017
• Vietnamese Elderly Association of Colorado 615 S. Federal Blvd., #103-105 Denver, CO 80219 Attn: Linh Hoai Duong Email: Veacolorado(a{cs.com
• Vietnamese Veterans- USVAVA-CO 1693 S. Laredo St Aurora, CO 80017 Attn: Mr. Sum Cong Nguyen Tel: 303-548-2675 Email: scnI693@comcast.Net
5

• Vietnamese Community of Colorado President: Mr. Lu Pham 449 S. Osceola St Denver, CO 80219
• Colorado African Organization Kit Taintor, Director 6795 E Tennessee, Suite 250 Denver, CO 80224-1609
• African Community Center 5250 Leetsdale Dr., Suite 200 Denver, CO 80246
• Spring Institute for Intercultural Learning 1610 Emerson St. Denver, CO 80218 Attn: Ms. Myrna Ann Adkins, C.E.O.
• Colorado Providers for Integration Network 6795 E. Tennessee Ave., Suite 250 Denver, CO 80224 Attn: Meg K. Allen, Community Integration Director Email: Mega@caoden.org
• Lao-Hmong American Coalition 7051 Beacon Way Westminster, CO 80030 Attn: Yang Chee Email: Yang.chee@comcast.net
• MileHi Japanese American Citizens League 333 E. 16th Ave., #613 Denver, CO 80203 Attn: Suzy Shimasaki, President
• Filipino American Community of Colorado 1900 Harlan St. Edgewater, CO 80214 Email: Facc@filam-colo.org
• Cambodian Buddhist and Christian Society of Colorado 2950 S. Willow Street Denver, CO 80204
6

• Colorado Cambodian Community 1555 Grove Street, Suite 101 Denver, CO 80204
7

English and Spanish "Educa" KXPK-FM 96.5 KJMN-FM 92.1 KMXA-AM 1090
Class Notice - Radio Announcement
This is a notice for Spanish-speaking parents and the parents of Spanish-speaking students in the Denver Public Schools. Recently the Congress of Hispanic Educators, the United States Department of Justice, and Denver Public Schools, reached an agreement to improve the educational program for Spanish-speaking students. The agreement has been presented to a Federal judge for his approval. Parents of Spanish-speaking students have a right to review the new agreement and may have an opportunity to tell the judge about any objections they may have. A hearing has been scheduled for January 25,2013 at 10 a.m. You can read the proposed new agreement in Spanish and English and get more information at the Denver Public Schools office on 900 Grant Street or at your neighborhood school. This information will also be available on the website of the Denver Public School, www.dpsk12.org.

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 95-cv-02313-RPM CONGRESS OF HISPANIC EDUCATORS,
Plaintiff,
v.
DENVER PUBLIC SCHOOLS, Defendant, v.
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Intervenor.
ORDER APPROVING CONSENT DECREE (2012) WITH CONDITIONS
On November 20, 2012, this Court preliminarily approved the proposed Consent Decree (2012) ("Consent Decree") submitted by the Parties to the Court on September 28,2012, regarding Denver Public Schools' English Language Leamer Program. The Court required the Parties to provide notice to the class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, and set a hearing for Final Approval on January 25, 2013. At that hearing, the Court, after receiving testimony from members of the Denver Public Schools' Board of Education ("Board of Education"), continued consideration of Final Approval to April 15, 2013, to allow for consideration of certain conditions for approval. Specifically, the Court directed the Board of Education, together with the other Parties, to consider what "additional monitoring" of Denver
DCACTIVE·22798126.2

Public Schools' ("DPS's") implementation of the Consent Decree would be appropriate, and further, to propose language that would provide DPS with greater flexibility in meeting its obligations under federal law. See Dkt No. 81.
After consultation, and pursuant to this Court's Order, the Parties, on March 29,2013, jointly submitted a proposed Order to the Court, setting forth proposed conditions of approval for the Consent Decree. See Dkt. No. 85. The proposed Order outlined the proposed role of an independent Monitor, and a mechanism for selecting the Monitor. Id. Additionally, the Parties submitted to the Court a March 21,2013 Resolution ofDPS's Board of Education approving unanimously the proposed Consent Decree (2012), and providing for "enhanced collaboration with the Congress of Hispanic Educators and other stakeholders on policy formation regarding the implementation and flexibility provisions on a semi-annual basis[.]" Dkt. No. 85-1.
As this Court previously has noted, the proposed Consent Decree provided extensive accountability measures to ensure compliance with its terms, including, e.g., detailed annual and semi-annual reporting by DPS to the United States Department of Justice ("United States") and to the Congress of Hispanic Educators ("CHE") as to DPS's compliance with all requirements of the Consent Decree; mandatory conferences among the Parties following DPS's submission of the written reports to Plaintiffs' counsel; and annual multi-day site visits to DPS schools by the United States and counsel for CHE to monitor DPS's compliance. Additionally, under the terms of the proposed Consent Decree, DPS is required to conduct its own monitoring to assess compliance with its obligations under the Consent Decree. This Court, therefore, believes that an independent Monitor will function most effectively if its role is to receive and review the reports prepared by DPS and transmitted each January 15 and July 15 to counsel for the United States and CHE and, based on those reports and any further information provided to the Monitor,
2
DCACTIVE-22798126.2

provide semi-annual written reports to the Court regarding DPS's compliance with the Consent Decree.
ACCORDINGLY, having reviewed the proposed Order, the Parties' submissions in support of the proposed Consent Decree, and the entire record ofthese proceedings, it is hereby
ORDERED that Pursuant to the hearing held on April 15,2013, and according to the Court's findings, the proposed Consent Decree with conditions is fair and reasonable and in accordance with the law; The Consent Decree [Dkt No. 56-1] is approved and is effective immediately, and the 1999 Court Order approving Denver Public Schools English Language Acquisition Program and Monitor [Dkt. Nos. 22, 33] is hereby nullified; As soon as practicable, the Court will appoint an independent Monitor to review and report to the Court on DPS's compliance with the Consent Decree. The role and responsibilities of the independent Monitor are set out more fully in Attachment "A." The Parties shall submit to the Court the names and curriculum vitae of up to five individuals recommended to serve as Monitor by May 30, 2013; and The Monitor shall serve until the Consent Decree is lifted, or otherwise ordered by the Court.
SENI JUDGE RICHARD P. MATSCH
Date
3
DCACTIVE-22798126.2

Duties

Independent Monitor

Attachment A

A. The Monitor shall evaluate DPS's compliance with the Consent Decree and report to the Court in writing regarding such compliance. To perform in that role, the Monitor shall:

1. Receive and review the annual and semi-annual reports submitted by DPS each January 15 and June 15 to counsel for the United States and CHE.

2. Participate in the post-report teleconferences and meetings outlined in Chapter 9.V.D. and E ofthe Consent Decree.

3.

Confer with counsel for any party as necessary to carry out his or her monitoring

duties.

4. Provide to the Parties the Monitor's proposed written report(s) thirty (30) days before such reports are filed with the Court; allow the Parties the opportunity to respond to concerns raised in the report prior to the filing; and consider the Parties' responses and make any appropriate modifications to the report prior to filing. The Parties may file objections with the Court regarding any provision of the report.

5. Upon petition to the Court, be subject to removal or replacement for cause.

B. The Monitor also, ifslhe deems necessary and appropriate to evaluate DPS's compliance with the Consent Decree, may:

1. Accompany the Parties on site visits, pursuant to Chapter 10.F of the Consent Decree.

2. Attend regularly scheduled meetings of the District-Wide and school-level parent advisory committees.

3. Receive information from and confer with DPS personnel and other stakeholders regarding DPS compliance with the Consent Decree.

4. Access and review documents reflecting personally identifiable information of DPS's students and staff, and accordingly shall treat such information as confidential.

Monitor Compensation

The Monitor shall be compensated for his or her services by DPS. Upon review ofthe proposed Monitor's qualifications and rates of service, the Parties will propose a range of compensation to be approved by the Court.

DCACTIVE·22798126.2

 
 Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 56-1 Filed 09/28/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 57
Consent Decree (2012) of the U.S. District Court DENVER PUBLIC SCHOOLS ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION PROGRAM

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 56-1 Filed 09/28/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 57
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION PROGRAM Table of Contents
Definitions ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 6 Chapter 1: Instructional Services ........................................................................................... 7
I. Elementary Services.................................................................................................... 7 II. Secondary Services...................................................................................................... 8 III. Newcomer and SIFE Services .................................................................................. 10 IV. Program Services Provided by Supplemental and Support Staff ........................ 10 V. Response to Instruction and Intervention .............................................................. 12 VI. Curriculum and Materials ....................................................................................... 12 VII. Progress in Program Schools Offering a Transitional Native Language
Instructional Model .................................................................................................. 13 VIII. Progress Toward Instruction in English................................................................. 14 IX. Spanish-Language Assessments............................................................................... 14 Chapter 2: Instructional Services Advisory Team .............................................................. 16 Chapter 3: Parent Communication, Student Screening and Provisional
Placement, Assessments for Eligibility, and Monitoring of Students who Decline Services........................................................................................... 17 I. Parent Communication ............................................................................................ 17 II. Student Screening and Provisional Placement....................................................... 19 III. Parent Permission for Initial Placement................................................................. 21 IV. Assessments for Students Provisionally Identified as English Language Learners ..................................................................................................................... 22 V. Monitoring the Progress of Students Who Decline Services................................. 23 Chapter 4: Redesignation and Exiting the Program............................................................ 25 Chapter 5: Personnel and Training ...................................................................................... 26 I. General Policy ........................................................................................................... 26 II. Teacher Qualifications.............................................................................................. 26
Consent Decree (2012) i

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 56-1 Filed 09/28/12 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 57
III. Teacher Training Program ...................................................................................... 27 IV. Program Teacher Assignments................................................................................ 30 V. Training and Designation of ELA-T Teachers....................................................... 31 VI. Teacher Recruitment ................................................................................................ 31 VII. Teacher and Staff Appraisal .................................................................................... 32 VIII. Training of Teacher Evaluators .............................................................................. 33 IX. Principal Appraisal ................................................................................................... 34 X. Training for Supervisors of Principals ................................................................... 35 XI. Instructional Services Advisory Team Training .................................................... 35 XII. Paraprofessionals ...................................................................................................... 35 XIII. Counselors ................................................................................................................. 36 Chapter 6: Parental Oversight .............................................................................................. 37 I. Parent Advisory Committees (PACs)...................................................................... 37 II. District-wide Advisory Committee .......................................................................... 37 III. Parent Training ......................................................................................................... 38 Chapter 7: Considerations Related to Special Education and Section 504 Services
for English Language Learners ..........................................................................39 Chapter 8: Charter Schools ................................................................................................... 42 Chapter 9: Accountability ..................................................................................................... 43
I. Effective Program Implementation......................................................................... 43 II. Student Progress ....................................................................................................... 44 III. Procedures for Parental Request for Review of Services...................................... 44 IV. Evaluating Program Effectiveness .......................................................................... 44 V. Reports to the United States and to Private Plaintiffs........................................... 46 Chapter 10: Duration of Consent Decree, Enforcement, and Remedies for
Noncompliance .................................................................................................... 51
Consent Decree (2012) ii

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 56-1 Filed 09/28/12 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 57
Definitions
Core subject areas are language arts, social studies, mathematics, and science.
Designated describes a teacher eligible to teach English Language Learners (in the case of ELAE and ELA-S designation, ELLs in the Program; and in the case of ELA-T designation, ELLs who opt out of the Program or are redesignated or exited FEP), who is either fully qualified or is working toward becoming a fully qualified ELA teacher.
The District-wide Advisory Committee is a District-level committee of parents1 with children in the ELA Program. It may operate as a standing subcommittee of another parent committee.
ELA-T teachers are core subject area Mainstream English language classroom teachers who have successfully completed the District’s Teacher Training Program for ELA-T teachers outlined in Chapter 5 and address the academic needs of English Language Learners who are transitioning to, or otherwise participating in, the Mainstream English Language Instructional Program.
English as a Second Language (ESL/ELA-E) is the English Language Acquisition Program for providing services to English Language Learners that includes Supported English Content Instruction and English Language Development.
The English Language Acquisition (ELA) Program (Program) provides services to English Language Learners, including Transitional Native Language Instruction (TNLI) services and English as a Second Language (ESL/ELA-E) services. The goal of the Program is for students to transition to the Mainstream English Language Instructional Program.
English Language Development (ELD) is the provision of direct instruction in English language usage including: content vocabulary development, survival vocabulary development, oral language development, listening comprehension, and the development of reading and writing skills in English.
An English Language Proficiency (ELP) test is a valid and reliable test of English Language Proficiency to determine ELL students’ proficiency in all four language domains of listening, speaking, reading, and writing.
An English Language Learner (ELL) is a student who does not demonstrate proficiency in English on a valid and reliable ELP assessment of all four language domains (i.e., listening, speaking, reading, and writing). ELL students (or ELLs) are eligible for Program services and include students who are Limited English Proficient (LEP), those who are LEP but opt out of services (i.e., PPF3), and redesignated but not exited FEPs.
1 Throughout this document, the definition of “parent” and “parents” includes legal guardians.
Modified Consent Decree (2012) 1

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 56-1 Filed 09/28/12 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 57
The Executive Leadership Team refers to the District’s Superintendent, Chief Academic Officer, and those Cabinet-level administrators designated by the Superintendent.
An exited FEP is a student who, following two years of monitoring as a redesignated FEP, and absent a determination that the student should be reentered into Program services, is exited from the Program and enrolled in the Mainstream English Language Instructional Program.
A Fluent English Proficient (FEP) student is a redesignated ELL or exited FEP student who has sufficient English language skills to meaningfully and equally participate in the Mainstream English Language Instructional Program.
Fully qualified refers to a teacher who is State-endorsed in teaching the linguistically and culturally diverse,2 has earned a Masters or doctorate degree in teaching the linguistically diverse, or has completed the appropriate training requirements described in Chapter 5 to serve ELLs.
 A fully qualified ELA-E teacher is one who is State-endorsed in teaching the culturally and linguistically diverse, has earned a Masters or doctorate degree in teaching the linguistically diverse, or has completed the approved District ELA-E training described in Chapter 5.
 A fully qualified ELA-S teacher is (1) one who is State-endorsed in teaching the culturally and linguistically diverse, has earned a Masters or doctorate degree in teaching the linguistically diverse, or has completed the approved District ELA-S training described in Chapter 5; and (2) demonstrates proficiency in speaking, reading, writing, and listening Spanish on a valid and reliable assessment of Spanish Language Proficiency.
 A fully qualified Secondary ELA-S Resource Teacher is one who meets the requirements of a Fully Qualified ELA-S teacher and provides the services referenced in Section II.D of Chapter 1.
 A fully qualified ELA-T teacher is one who is State-endorsed in teaching the culturally and linguistically diverse, has earned a Masters or doctorate degree in teaching the linguistically diverse, or has completed the approved District ELA-T training described in Chapter 5.
2 The State offers an endorsement in Linguistically Diverse Education (LDE) that will be replaced as of January 1, 2013, by a Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Endorsement (CLDE). If the State changes the requirements for the CLDE endorsement during the term of the CD such that it would significantly lessen training as compared to what is required for the District’s ELA-E or ELA-S training described in Chapter 5, the State endorsement would no longer provide an independent basis for recognizing a teacher as fully qualified.
Modified Consent Decree (2012) 2

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 56-1 Filed 09/28/12 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 57
The Home Language Questionnaire/Screening Questionnaire (HLQ) is a questionnaire used by trained staff at registration with parents and students new to the District to determine whether the student’s primary or home language is a language other than English (PHLOTE) and to preliminarily assess the students’ potential status as an ELL.
Initial Fluent English Proficient (IFEP) students are those students identified by the Home Language Questionnaire as having a primary or home language other than English who test proficient on their initial ELP assessment and therefore are never identified as ELLs.
The Instructional Services Advisory (ISA) Team is a team that makes recommendations to the Department of English Language Acquisition regarding Program entry, redesignation/exit, and services for ELLs.
A Limited English Proficient (LEP) student is one who does not demonstrate proficiency in English in all four language domains (i.e., listening, speaking, reading, and writing) based on a valid and reliable ELP assessment. LEP students are eligible for Program services.
A Limited English Proficient Parent (LEP parent) refers to a parent of a District student who has limited or no ability to read, speak, write, or understand communications in English. A parent may be a LEP parent even if his or her child is not an ELL.
Mainstream English language classrooms are those designed to serve native English-speaking students and otherwise English-proficient students, including those identified as IFEP on a valid and reliable ELP test and those who have been redesignated as FEP or exited from the Program.
The Mainstream English Language Instructional Program is the instructional program designed for native English-speaking, and otherwise English-proficient, students, including IFEPs and those who have been redesignated FEP or exited from the Program.
Meaningful and equal participation refers to the ability of redesignated FEPs and exited FEPs to participate in and benefit from the Mainstream English Language Instructional Program without ELA supports in a manner comparable to their never-ELL District, and State peers.
Native language instruction includes the provision of instruction in one or more core subject areas in a student’s native language. The development of native language arts includes oral language development, reading, and writing. The purpose of native language instruction is to provide a foundation for literacy in English and/or opportunities for learning in core subject areas until instruction in English is appropriate. Native language instruction will follow the District’s research-based language allocation guidelines. At the Elementary level, the native language instruction portion of the day includes activities that promote literacy and cognitive development in a student’s first language in a manner comparable to their never-ELL District peers. At the Secondary level, the native language instruction portion of the day includes activities that promote content acquisition in science, social studies, and/or math.
Native language support includes curricular resources in the native language, paraprofessional support in the native language, preview/review in the native language, and appropriate strategies
Modified Consent Decree (2012) 3

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 56-1 Filed 09/28/12 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 57
to support the transition to English for ELLs. Native language support is not a substitute for native language instruction, where such instruction is required by the Program or this Consent Decree (CD).
Never-ELLs are IFEP students and native English-speaking students who have no ELP scores. Never-ELLs do not include ELL, LEP, redesignated FEP, or exited FEP students.
The Newcomer and SIFE (Students with Interrupted Formal Education) Center (Newcomer Center) serves ELLs who are new to the District and/or whose formal education has been interrupted, and who have been identified as very limited in literacy in their native language and English. The Newcomer Center provides intensive instruction in reading, writing, speaking, and understanding English for such students. Identified students generally are served for one to two semesters in the Newcomer Center to prepare them for participation in an ESL/ELA-E or a Transitional Native Language Instruction (TNLI) program.
Non-Program schools are schools with fewer than 15 ELLs that do not provide Program services in the form of ESL/ELA-E or Transitional Native Language Instruction (TNLI) programs but that must nonetheless take appropriate action to overcome the ELLs’ language barriers, as required by the EEOA, Title VI, and this CD. The District makes available transportation for ELLs, in accordance with District transportation guidelines, to Zone schools offering Program services.
On track refers to designated teachers who are not fully qualified but are working toward achieving full qualification and have met the requirements such that they will achieve full qualification within the applicable timeline referenced in Section I of Chapter 5, including any extensions granted pursuant to Section III.F of Chapter 5.
Paraprofessionals are teacher support staff who assist students in the classroom. Paraprofessionals must meet qualification standards as set forth in State and federal guidelines.
A Parent Advisory Committee (PAC) is a school-based committee chosen by parents with children in the ELA Program at the school. The PAC may operate as a standing subcommittee of another parent committee.
The Parent Permission Form (PPF) is the form used by parents of ELLs to indicate a preference regarding ELA Program services. PPF1 indicates a preference for Transitional Native Language Instruction. PPF2 indicates a preference for ESL/ELA-E instruction. PPF3 indicates a waiver of ELA Program services. A parent may indicate a preference for particular services but choose to enroll their student in a non-Program school or a school that offers services other than those indicated by the choice reflected on the PPF.
A PHLOTE (Primary or Home Language Other Than English) student is one whose native language, or for whom the primary language used in the home, is a language other than English.
A professional judgment is made by a professionally-trained educator and is based on factual information, objective assessment, and a sound model of English language acquisition.
Modified Consent Decree (2012) 4

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 56-1 Filed 09/28/12 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 57
A qualified interpreter or translator is one who is fluent in the language in which he or she is communicating (in addition to English), has a demonstrated ability to employ the mode of interpretation appropriate to the given situation (e.g., simultaneous interpretation for hearings or large-group parent meetings), and has received training in specialized issues such as confidentiality and any applicable technical vocabulary. A redesignated FEP is a student who meets valid, reliable, and objective criteria for FEP, including demonstrating English proficiency on a valid and reliable ELP assessment as prescribed by this CD, and moves from the designation of LEP to FEP. Redesignated students are monitored for two years prior to exit from the ELA Program. Following two years of monitoring, absent a determination that the student should be reentered into Program services, the redesignated FEP student is exited from the Program. A regular classroom is the classroom in which a student’s core subject area instruction is provided primarily. A resource classroom is a classroom where instruction to supplement regular classroom instruction is provided. Supported English Content Instruction is instruction in core subject areas in sheltered English, which is the use of specialized strategies to make the content accessible to, and increase the likelihood that content in English will be comprehended by, ELLs. When content cannot be adequately explained in English, an explanation or feedback in the student’s native language may be given. Transitional Native Language Instruction (TNLI) is the program in which services, including native language instruction in Spanish, supported English Content Instruction, and ELD, are provided to ELLs. For purposes of this CD, dual language programs qualify as part of the TNLI program. A Zone school is a school that provides services for ELLs and to which ELLs from other attendance areas who seek Program services may be assigned.
Modified Consent Decree (2012) 5

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 56-1 Filed 09/28/12 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 57
Introduction
The English Language Acquisition (ELA) Program (Program)3 serves students who are English Language Learners (ELLs). The Program is transitional in that its goal is to use efficient and effective techniques to provide students with the English language skills they need to meaningfully and equally participate in the District’s Mainstream English Language Instructional Program. The District shall ensure that all ELLs in the Program, like all District students, at each school, in each educational program, and at each grade-level and ELP level, receive grade-appropriate content instruction that is designed to enable them to perform at grade level, reach their full potential, and be on track to graduate from high school prepared for success in life, work, civic responsibility, and higher education.
The District shall offer Transitional Native Language Instruction (TNLI) services and English as a Second Language (ESL/ELA-E) services. The designation for program services is determined by the number of ELLs at each school, as described herein. Components of the program services shall include native language instruction in Spanish (TNLI only), Supported English Content Instruction, and English Language Development (ELD).
Transition to English begins when a student enters the Program. Students traditionally progress from native language instruction (if provided), to Supported English Content Instruction, to Mainstream English Language Instruction, where there is the opportunity for additional support through ELD. Language development in the areas of speaking, understanding, reading, and writing English shall be measured through the District’s progress reporting system, which shall include the Standards-Based Progress Reports. This shall provide a basis for monitoring both student progress and Program effectiveness at each school.
The District recognizes the value of teachers who speak the language of the students that they serve. The District shall intentionally recruit such teachers and refer them to school principals in need of ELA-qualified teachers.
The Department of English Language Acquisition (ELA Department) shall oversee and monitor Program implementation and Program effectiveness at each school. ELA Program services at schools are supported by additional District departments including, but not limited to: Instructional Supervision; Principal Supervision; Assessment, Research, and Evaluation (ARE); Teaching and Learning; Planning and Analysis; Choice and Enrollment; Office of School Reform and Innovation; Federal Programs; Human Resources; and Professional Development.
3 Phrases in italics are defined in the Definitions Section preceding the Introduction.
Modified Consent Decree (2012) 6

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 56-1 Filed 09/28/12 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 57
Chapter 1: Instructional Services
In an effort to target the instructional needs of all ELLs in each grade level at a school, the District shall provide a combination of ELA Program services within one school. The number of ELLs in a school defines the Program services for that particular school, through a TNLI program and/or an ESL/ELA-E program, as set forth herein. The District shall provide to all ELLs in the TNLI program (1) ELD and (2) native language instruction in Spanish and/or Supported English Content Instruction, consistent with TNLI program implementation and research-based language allocation guidelines. The District shall provide to all ELLs in the ESL/ELA-E program (1) ELD and (2) Supported English Content Instruction, with written native language supports through curricular resources, and, as needed and unless not feasible, oral native language support. The District shall ensure that that all ELLs at all schools are integrated with non-ELLs for recess, art, music, physical education, lunch, and library and that ELLs are integrated, to the extent practicable, with mainstream education students in school functions, cocurricular activities, and extracurricular activities.
I. Elementary Services
A. The District shall provide ESL/ELA-E program services for ELLs in each elementary school where there are 15 or more ELLs. Schools with fewer than 15 ELLs are nonProgram schools. For ELLs in non-Program schools, and for Spanish-speaking ELLs who desire TNLI services but are in schools where such services are not offered, the District shall make available transportation in accordance with District Transportation guidelines to Zone schools offering Program services.
B. The ESL/ELA-E program components, teacher qualifications, staffing, and instructional program organization shall be as follows:
1. ELD, in the areas of reading, writing, speaking, and understanding English, shall be provided by an on track or fully qualified ESL/ELA-E teacher. These components shall be provided for up to 30 percent of the school day, depending on the student’s skills in English. Time requirements may be reduced proportionately for half-day programs. To the extent practicable, no more than 15 students shall be instructed at one time in a resource classroom.
2. If 15 or more students at a school speak Spanish, the resource classroom teacher shall be an on track or fully qualified ELA-S teacher.
3. Whenever possible, if more than 15 students at a school speak a language other than Spanish, the resource classroom teacher assigned to provide instruction shall be orally proficient in the language spoken by the students.
4. Supported English Content Instruction shall be provided by an on track or fully qualified ELA-E teacher. At least one ELA-E classroom teacher position in the
Consent Decree (2012) 7

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 56-1 Filed 09/28/12 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 57
Program shall be assigned for each grade level that serves ELLs in ESL/ELA-E classrooms in that grade.
5. Paraprofessionals shall be assigned as outlined in Sections IV.C-IV.E of this Chapter.
C. In schools where 60 or more ELLs who speak Spanish are enrolled, the District shall provide TNLI program services. The program service components, teacher qualifications, staffing, and instructional program organization in such schools shall be as follows:
1. Native language instruction, Supported English Content Instruction, and ELD shall be available at each grade level in regular classrooms staffed by an on track or fully qualified ELA-S teacher. Teachers providing Supported English Content Instruction and English Language Development shall be on track or fully qualified ESL/ELA-E.
2. When providing TNLI services, the District shall adhere to research-based language allocation guidelines.
3. Paraprofessionals shall be assigned as outlined in Sections IV.C-IV.E of this Chapter.
D. At each school where the District offers an Early Childhood Education (ECE) Program, TNLI schools shall provide TNLI Pre-K services and ESL/ELA-E schools shall provide ESL/ELA-E Pre-K services.
II. Secondary Services
A. The District shall provide ESL/ELA-E program services for ELLs in each secondary school where there are 15 or more ELLs who elect or desire Program services (i.e., PPF1 or PPF2). Secondary schools with fewer than 15 ELLs who elect Program services are non-Program schools. For ELLs in non-Program schools, and for Spanish-speaking ELLs who desire TNLI services but are in schools where such services are not offered, the District shall make available transportation in accordance with District Transportation guidelines to Zone schools offering Program services.
B. The components, teacher qualifications, staffing, and instructional program organization of ESL/ELA-E programs in secondary schools shall be as follows:
1. ELD, primarily in the areas of reading, writing, speaking, and understanding English, shall be provided by an on track or fully qualified ESL/ELA-E teacher, for up to 90 minutes per school day.
2. Whenever possible, if more than 15 students at a school speak a language other than Spanish, the classroom teacher assigned to provide instruction shall be orally proficient in the language spoken by the students.
Consent Decree (2012) 8

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 56-1 Filed 09/28/12 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 57
3. Supported English Content Instruction shall be provided by an on track or fully qualified ESL/ELA-E teacher. At least one ESL/ELA-E classroom teacher position in the Program shall be assigned for each core content area at each grade level that serves ELLs in ESL/ELA-E classrooms in that grade.
4. Paraprofessionals shall be assigned as outlined in Sections IV.C-IV.E of this Chapter.
C. In schools where more than 15 but fewer than 100 Spanish-speaking ELLs are enrolled, as feasible, ESL/ELA-E teachers shall demonstrate Spanish Language Proficiency as determined by a valid and reliable assessment of Spanish Language Proficiency.
D. In secondary schools where 50 to 99 Spanish-speaking ELLs are enrolled, a fully qualified Secondary ELA-S Resource Teacher shall provide additional support as practicable for all students at the beginning, early intermediate, and intermediate levels of ELP as determined by a valid and reliable ELP assessment.
E. Beginning with the 2013-14 school year,4 the District shall provide TNLI program services in secondary schools with 100 or more Spanish-speaking enrolled ELLs whose ELP is at the intermediate level or below.5 The program components, teacher qualifications, staffing, and instructional program organization shall be as follows:
1. Native language instruction, Supported English Content Instruction, and ELD shall be available at each grade level in core content classrooms staffed by an on track or fully qualified ELA-S teacher. If only Supported English Content Instruction and ELD are provided in a classroom for students who are part of the TNLI program, a fully qualified ELA-E teacher shall be provided. Native language support services may be provided to ELLs at all levels, but should not be used as a substitute for native language instruction where such instruction is required by the relevant program services or this CD.
2. Paraprofessionals shall be assigned as outlined in Sections IV.C-IV.E of this Chapter.
F. Nothing in this CD shall be interpreted to prohibit the District from offering TNLI services, as described above, at schools with fewer than 100 Spanish-speaking ELLs whose ELP level is at the intermediate level or below.
4 The TNLI-designated secondary schools for the 2012-13 school year are: DCIS at Montbello MS, Kepner MS, Trevista at Horace Mann, West Generation Academy MS, West Leadership Academy MS, Abraham Lincoln HS, DCIS at Montbello HS, West Generation Academy HS, West Leadership Academy HS. 5 The District also shall undertake an annual strategic regional analysis of Spanish-speaking ELLs’ geographic residency to identify Spanish-speaking ELLs whose ELP is at the intermediate level or below in particular geographic areas and use such analysis to plan for designation of TNLI schools.
Consent Decree (2012) 9

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 56-1 Filed 09/28/12 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 57
III. Newcomer and SIFE Services
A. Newcomer and SIFE Centers (Newcomer Centers) shall provide services to students new to the United States who have had limited or interrupted formal education, and have been identified as very limited in literacy in their native language and English. Generally, students assigned to the Newcomer Centers will transition to an ESL/ELA-E or TNLI model, as described in Sections I and II of this Chapter, within two semesters. Transportation shall be provided to Newcomer Centers in accordance with District Transportation guidelines.
B. The program components, teacher qualifications, staffing, and instructional program organization in Newcomer Centers shall be as follows:
1. Supported English Content Instruction and ELD shall be provided.
2. If 15 or more students at a Newcomer Center speak the same language, wherever practicable, at least one teacher proficient in the language shall be assigned.
3. Core subjects and ELD shall be taught by on track or fully qualified ESL/ELA-E teachers.
4. Paraprofessionals shall be assigned as outlined in Sections IV.C-IV.E of this Chapter.
C. Newcomer Centers shall maintain a low student-teacher ratio. Computer-assisted instruction may be used in the instructional program but shall not be a substitute for instruction by teachers qualified to provide newcomer Program services. Additionally, the Newcomer Centers shall provide support for a student’s socio-cultural transition to schools in the United States.
IV. Program Services Provided by Supplemental and Support Staff6
A. Classroom support for ELA Program teachers shall be provided by staff development professionals or by administrators who have responsibility for oversight and coordination of Program implementation in elementary, middle, or high schools. Further supervision of Program implementation and support shall be provided by the District’s Executive Leadership Team and the ELA Department. Classroom support staff shall provide services including the following:
1. Coaching and mentoring teachers working with ELLs, demonstrating appropriate lessons and strategies as needed;
2. Reviewing ELL assessment data in each school;
6 Requirements for teachers of Program classrooms are addressed in Chapter 5.
Consent Decree (2012) 10

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 56-1 Filed 09/28/12 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 57
3. Serving as resources for the Instructional Services Advisory (ISA) Team;
4. Assisting schools in the selection and purchase of available quality curricular materials that support meaningful and equal participation in Mainstream English Language Instruction and, as available, are comparable to materials provided to never-ELLs; and
5. Clarifying explanations of the Program and Program services provided to parents, and ensuring that such communications are in a language LEP parents can understand.
B. In selecting supplemental staff (e.g., librarian, physical education teacher, student counselor or advisor, music teacher), consideration shall be given to hiring qualified staff who are proficient in the native languages spoken by ELLs at the school.
C. Using spring projections and fall adjustment data, for every 15 ELLs in a Program school who speak the same language, and the language is other than Spanish, paraprofessionals who speak that language shall provide six hours of tutoring and classroom assistance per day to ELLs. A maximum of 24 hours per day of such assistance shall be provided in each school for a given language group. Implementation of this provision is dependent on the availability of qualified paraprofessional applicants, if insufficient numbers of incumbent employees are available.
D. Annual paraprofessional hours shall be allocated to individual schools with ELA programs based on the number of Spanish-speaking ELLs projected in the spring to be enrolled in the following school year. At a minimum, whenever there are 24 or more Spanish-speaking ELLs in a school and services are provided in that school for ELLs, three hours per day of assistance by Spanish-speaking paraprofessionals shall be provided to tutor students and help them in class. For each additional eight Spanishspeaking ELLs in a school, an additional hour of paraprofessional assistance shall be provided.
E. Paraprofessional hours allocated pursuant to Section IV.D of this Chapter may be served by teachers, consistent with District guidelines, if the following conditions are met:
1. The teachers serve the ELLs for whom the paraprofessional hours were allocated;
2. If appropriate, the core subject area teachers are proficient in the language spoken by the ELLs that they serve;
3. The overall resources to serve ELLs are not otherwise diminished; and
4. The planned use of the converted paraprofessional hours is approved by the ELA Department.
Consent Decree (2012) 11

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 56-1 Filed 09/28/12 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 57
V. Response to Instruction and Intervention
A. The District shall offer to students identified as needing intervention or remediation to achieve their full potential opportunities for extra assistance through a “Response to Instruction and Intervention” (RTI) system. RTI provides a continuum of evidence-based instruction and interventions, with increasing levels of intensity and duration, based on identified student need. RTI includes three levels of instruction and/or interventions which are designed to be fluid and accessible, based on current student needs:
 The Universal Level refers to differentiated core curricular instruction provided in the classroom for all students, incorporating ongoing universal screening, formative assessments to monitor student progress, and prescriptive assessments to design instruction strategies to support students identified as not meeting their full potential;
 The Targeted Level refers to supplemental instruction provided to students who, because of academic and/or social challenges, are at risk of not making adequate progress at the Universal Level;
 The Intensive Level refers to intensive instructional interventions and strategies to address strengths and needs identified through ongoing progress monitoring and/or diagnostic assessment data, which are provided to students with intensive and/or chronic academic and/or behavior needs in order to make sufficient progress in general education.
B. RTI is intended to address students’ academic deficiencies. RTI is not a trajectory to special education services for ELLs. Before ELLs are recommended for Targeted Level or Intensive Level services, the District shall ensure that these students have had sufficient access to ELD and core content instruction by on track or fully-qualified ELA teachers in an environment that is supportive of their language development.
C. Decisions to refer ELLs for RTI services are made by on track or fully qualified ELAdesignated teachers and are reviewed by an intervention team that includes a fully qualified ELA teacher. In all cases, the unique linguistic needs of ELLs are considered in the provision of RTI services (including in the selection of assessment methods and the interpretation of results).
D. The District may provide RTI services as a supplement to, not a replacement for, the Program services provided for in this CD and required by the EEOA and Title VI.
VI. Curriculum and Materials
A. The curriculum for ELLs shall be the same as that used for the Mainstream English Language Instructional Program. Appropriate curriculum and instructional strategies shall be used to make the curriculum accessible to ELLs.
Consent Decree (2012) 12

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 56-1 Filed 09/28/12 USDC Colorado Page 16 of 57
B. The District shall provide a meaningful opportunity for ELLs to be considered for admission to Gifted and Talented programs and other advanced classes, using criteria that do not screen out ELLs because of their limited English language proficiency. In addition, a modified curriculum and instructional strategies (e.g., “acceleration” or “expansion”) shall be used, where appropriate, with Gifted and Talented ELLs.
C. The District shall provide, wherever available, grade- and subject-appropriate Spanishlanguage core content materials, comparable to the English-language content materials used in Mainstream English language classrooms, for ELLs who are taught in Spanish in ELA-S and dual language classes. To the extent practicable, the District also shall make such materials available as instructional supports for Spanish-speaking beginning and early intermediate ELLs in ELA-E content classes.
D. “Comparability” shall be determined with reference to Common Core State Standards. “Availability” shall be determined with reference to commercial availability for purchase by the District. In the event the United States or private plaintiffs notify the District of its/their view that certain Spanish-language materials utilized by the District are not comparable to their English-language counterparts, the United States and/or private plaintiffs may identify and propose comparable materials that are available commercially. The District shall review the proposed available materials for comparability and availability and respond to the United States and/or private plaintiffs within a reasonable period of time.
VII. Progress in Program Schools Offering a Transitional Native Language Instructional Model
A. Transition to English begins when students enter the Program. Students traditionally progress from native language instruction in schools where these services are offered to Supported English Content Instruction, to Mainstream English language classrooms.
B. The ELA-S teacher shall use a variety of factors to determine when a student has the ELP skills to be moved from the transitional native instruction component to the Supported English Content Instruction component. The teacher shall consider the student’s abilities to: (1) understand academic English vocabulary; (2) engage in classroom conversation in English; and (3) understand classroom materials in English. Evidence regarding these factors may come from the following sources:
1. ELP, as measured by a valid and reliable ELP assessment at the intermediate or equivalent level and higher;
2. Classroom performance;
3. Interim and State Assessments;
4. Standards-Based Progress Report(s);
5. Attendance; and
Consent Decree (2012) 13

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 56-1 Filed 09/28/12 USDC Colorado Page 17 of 57
6. Classroom behavior.
C. Nothing in this CD precludes a Spanish-speaking ELL with intermediate-level ELP from eligibility for native language instruction if the professional judgment of the ELA-S teacher is that such assignment is in the best interests of the student and is consistent with the provisions of this CD.
D. Ongoing communication between the ELA-S and Supported English Content Instruction teachers shall be maintained to determine whether the assignment is appropriate or should be reconsidered.
E. The District shall maintain a database accessible to each school reflecting the language skills of each ELL enrolled in the school.
F. Parents shall be informed of any changes in Program services provided to the student.
VIII. Progress Toward Instruction in English
A. ELLs annually shall be assessed and monitored using a valid and reliable ELP assessment to determine their current proficiency levels in the language domains of listening, reading, writing, and speaking, and overall proficiency level.7
B. The District shall monitor the ELP and academic progress of ELLs regularly and shall include this progress as a factor in the District’s ELA Program school monitoring schedule adopted by the District’s Executive Leadership Team each year.
C. Students who cannot meaningfully and equally participate in a Mainstream English language classroom, or one where Supported English Content Instruction is provided, may continue to receive native language instruction consistent with research-based language allocation guidelines.
D. Students who can meaningfully and equally participate in a Mainstream English language classroom are redesignated, monitored for two years, and exited under the procedures and standards set forth in Chapter 4.
IX. Spanish-Language Assessments
A. The District shall utilize available grade- and subject-appropriate reading, writing, math, science, and social studies content assessments in Spanish, that are developed for and normed with a grade-appropriate student population, to assess the knowledge of ELLs in those subjects in which they have been instructed in Spanish.
7 The District uses State ELP assessments. If the District fails to comply with this provision because the State requires the District to use and score an assessment that does not measure ELP in this manner, the United States and private plaintiffs will attempt to resolve any inconsistencies with this provision with the State and the District.
Consent Decree (2012) 14

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 56-1 Filed 09/28/12 USDC Colorado Page 18 of 57 B. The District shall make good faith efforts to obtain, by 2013, available Spanish-language grade- and subject-appropriate writing, reading, mathematics, and science assessments for high school ELLs who receive instruction in Spanish for those subjects. For grades 18, when the District provides science assessments in English, the District also shall make good faith efforts to obtain available grade-appropriate science assessments in Spanish for those students in each grade who receive science instruction in Spanish (e.g., assessing ELLs in an 8th-grade ELA-S science class in Spanish when science content is assessed for non-ELL 8th-graders in English).
Consent Decree (2012) 15

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 56-1 Filed 09/28/12 USDC Colorado Page 19 of 57
Chapter 2: Instructional Services Advisory Team
A. All District schools shall be assigned an Instructional Services Advisory (ISA) Team. The ISA Team shall make recommendations to the ELA Department consistent with this CD, supported by objective evidence, regarding Program entry, redesignation, exit or reentry, and change(s) in services. The ISA Team assigned to each school shall provide a foundation for that school’s accountability for identifying and serving all ELLs.
B. The ISA Team’s responsibilities shall include: 1. Reviewing services provided to identified ELLs, for consistency with this CD; 2. Monitoring identification of ELLs to address potential inappropriate identification and placement; 3. Reviewing the ELP and academic progress of all ELLs, including those who have declined services (i.e., PPF3) and making recommendations regarding changes in language acquisition service, supported by evidence, which may include formal and informal assessments, observations, and information provided by the classroom teacher or parent; 4. Identifying all ELLs in need of intervention and collaborating with appropriate staff to address these students’ instructional needs; 5. Reviewing ELL student information and making recommendations to the ELA Department regarding the redesignation or exit of ELLs and reentry into the Program (see Chapter 4);
C. The composition of the ISA Team shall include, at a minimum, the following staff: 1. ELA Program School: a. The principal or an administrator designated by the principal; and b. Two teachers, at least one of whom is fully qualified as ELA-S or ELA-E. 2. Non-Program School: a. The principal or an administrator designated by the principal; and b. Two teachers, at least one of whom is fully qualified as ELA-T.
D. Training of the ISA Team shall be provided by the ELA Department, as described in Section XI of Chapter 5.
Consent Decree (2012) 16

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 56-1 Filed 09/28/12 USDC Colorado Page 20 of 57
Chapter 3: Parent Communication, Student Screening and Provisional Placement, Assessments for Eligibility, and Monitoring of Students who Decline Services
I. Parent Communication
A. The District shall provide Limited English Proficient parents (LEP parents) with meaningful access to information provided to non-LEP parents, as set forth below. To identify LEP parents, the District shall ask the parent registering a child in a District school, in a language that he/she understands, whether he/she needs oral and/or written communications in a language other than English. Once the District becomes aware of parents’ communication needs, the District shall record such information in a student information database and communicate with such parents in a manner that provides them with meaningful access to information that is provided to other parents.
B. The District shall use the information recorded pursuant to paragraph I.A above, to identify the language(s) for which it needs qualified translators and interpreters.
C. As determined by students’ PHLOTE (Primary or Home Language Other Than English) data generated by the Home Language Questionnaire/ Screening Questionnaire (HLQ), the District shall provide translation and interpretation services to LEP parents as follows:
1. Starting in the 2012-13 school year:
a. For languages spoken by 100 or more District students, the District shall provide written translation and oral interpretation to LEP parents who request communications in those languages, or whose need for communications in such languages otherwise becomes apparent, of: (i) ELA Program materials; (ii) information about matters arising under the Individuals with DisabilitiesEducation Act (“IDEA”) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“Section 504” or “504”) (except that translation of Individualized Education Plans (IEPs) and plans developed pursuant to Section 504 (“504 Plans”) is governed by Chapter 7); and (iii) information about how to obtain translation and interpreter services from the District free of charge to the parent.
b. When documents containing other “District-level essential information”8 are distributed by the District or the school, the District shall ensure that such
8 Documents containing “District-level essential information” include, but are not limited to: (a) the Parent/Student Policy Handbook; (b) information about matters arising under the IDEA or Section 504 (e.g., IEP and 504 meetings) (except that translation of IEPs and 504 Plans is governed by Chapter 7); (c) announcements that contain information about District programs and activities for which notice is needed to participate or for which parent
(continued…)
Consent Decree (2012) 17

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 56-1 Filed 09/28/12 USDC Colorado Page 21 of 57
documents are translated into Spanish (effective immediately upon entry of this CD), followed by the next two most common non-English languages spoken by District students (before January 2013), and distributed to LEP parents who request communications in those languages or whose language needs otherwise become apparent.
c. When documents containing “school-specific essential information”9 are distributed at the school, the District shall provide to each school templates for these documents in Spanish (effective immediately upon entry of this CD), followed by the next two most common non-English languages spoken by District students (before January 2013) for the school to complete and distribute, with translation support from the District as needed.
d. For languages other than the languages referenced above, the District shall provide a written translation or oral interpretation of documents containing District-level or school-specific essential information within a reasonable period of time after receiving a LEP parent’s request or the parent’s language need becoming apparent.
e. When a District employee(s) communicate(s) with LEP parents orally regarding essential information, the communication shall be by means of a qualified interpreter in a language the parent understands. With respect to non-essential information, the District shall provide written translation or oral interpretation upon receiving reasonable, specific parental requests. Translation of a document upon request shall not create a presumption that the document contains essential information.
2. In the 2013-14 and 2014-15 school years, in addition to the obligations outlined in Section I(C)(1) of this Chapter:
a. When documents containing District-level essential information are distributed by the District or the school, such documents shall be translated
(continued…)
permission is required (e.g., Gifted and Talented courses, advanced opportunities and prerequisites, charter or magnet schools); (d) documents related to the ELA Program (e.g., screening procedures, HLQ, and Program and opt-out options); (e) information related to public health and safety (e.g., vaccination requirements, emergency protocols); and (f) any other written information that would be provided to non-LEP Parents describing the rights and responsibilities of parents or students and the benefits and services available to parents and students (e.g., information about the disciplinary process, information regarding free- and reduced-price lunch, access to student records, graduation requirements, and post-secondary readiness and financial aid information). 9 Documents containing “school-specific essential information” include, but are not limited to: (a) Standards-Based Progress Reports and other academic progress reports; (b) announcements that contain information about school programs and activities for which notice is needed to participate or for which parent permission is required (e.g., advanced and Gifted and Talented opportunities and prerequisites, remedial or tutoring options, field trips, school performances); and (c) disciplinary notices.
Consent Decree (2012) 18

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 56-1 Filed 09/28/12 USDC Colorado Page 22 of 57
into the next three (in 2013-14) followed by an additional two (in 2014-15) most common non-English languages10 spoken by District students in each school year, and shall be distributed to LEP parents who request communications in such languages or whose need for communications in those languages becomes apparent.
b. When documents containing school-specific essential information are distributed at the school, the District shall provide to each school templates for such documents in the next three (in 2013-14) followed by an additional two (in 2014-15) most common non-English languages spoken by District students in each school year, for the school to complete as appropriate in the language of the document, with translation support from the District as needed.
c. The District’s obligations to translate documents as referenced in the previous two paragraphs are effective at the beginning of the applicable school year.
d. For languages other than the most common languages referenced above, the District shall provide written translation or oral interpretation of essential District-level and school-specific information within a reasonable period of time after receiving a parent’s request or the parent’s language need becoming apparent.
3. Once the District has translated a document or created a template, if changes are made to the English version of the document, the District shall update the translated document within a reasonable period of time to ensure consistency with the English version. Beginning in the 2012-13 school year, the District will provide central office and school-based staff with electronic access to an inventory of translated District-level and school-specific documents.
II. Student Screening and Provisional Placement
Beginning in August 201311:
A. The District shall ask the parents of each student the following screening questions on a HLQ at the time the student registers to enroll in a Denver Public School:
1. What is the primary language used in the home, regardless of the language spoken by the student?
10 Because the ranking of the languages most commonly spoken by District students may change from year to year (e.g., Arabic may be ranked the third most common in year one of the CD and the fourth most common in year two), the District shall apply this provision to cover three additional languages in the 2013-14 school year and two additional languages in the 2014-15 school year, in order of commonality. 11 For the 2012-13 school year, the District will continue to use the screening questions agreed upon by the parties in April 2007.
Consent Decree (2012) 19

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 56-1 Filed 09/28/12 USDC Colorado Page 23 of 57
2. What is the language most often spoken by the student?
3. What is the language that the student first acquired?
B. The District shall make this HLQ available in written form in each language spoken by 100 or more District students, and in other languages to the extent practicable. The District shall provide parents who are registering new students with assistance in their native language, as needed, to complete the HLQ.
C. The District shall track parent responses to the HLQ in the student information database where the answers indicate a language other than English in response to one or more of the HLQ questions.
D. The District shall identify as PHLOTE, provisionally identify as ELL, and timely assess the ELP of those students for whom the answers indicate a language other than English in response to one or more of the HLQ questions. Notwithstanding the timeline referenced in Section IV of this Chapter, the District recognizes the importance of assessing a student’s ELP at the earliest possible opportunity and shall make a good faith effort to assess it as soon as practicable following registration.
E. In a TNLI school, when a parent’s response to the HLQ indicates Spanish to one or more of the questions, the District shall offer the parent a provisional placement of their child in an ELA-S classroom, unless one is not desired, in which case the District shall offer a placement in an ELA-E classroom.
F. In an ESL/ELA-E school, when a parent’s response to the HLQ indicates a language other than English to one or more of the questions, the District shall offer the parent a provisional placement of their child either in an ESL/ELA-E classroom, or in a TNLI program in another school if the other language spoken is Spanish.
G. In a non-Program school, when a parent’s response to the HLQ indicates a language other than English to one or more of the questions, the District shall offer the parent the option to have their child receive Program services at the designated Zone school. The parent may instead select a different school with Program services or receive a provisional Mainstream placement in the neighborhood school.
H. The District shall designate at least one school administrator or administrator-designee at each school to oversee registration of ELLs. The designated administrator or designee shall meet with all parents who have questions about, are considering, or have elected to place their child in an ELA program not offered at the site, to discuss Program options.
I. At non-Program schools, a school administrator or administrator-designee familiar with all available District Program options shall provide information regarding Program options at the identified Zone school closest to the home school, or at other schools, as warranted, and shall communicate to the parent that the District will provide transportation to such schools consistent with District Transportation guidelines.
Consent Decree (2012) 20

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 56-1 Filed 09/28/12 USDC Colorado Page 24 of 57
J. The District shall provide information about the Program to parents of students for whom the HLQ indicates a language other than English in response to one or more of the questions through the procedures described in Section III.B of this Chapter.
III. Parent Permission for Initial Placement
A. Parents of Spanish-speaking students provisionally identified as ELLs complete a Parent Permission Form (PPF) indicating their desire for their child to receive TNLI services (PPF1) or ESL/ELA-E services (PPF2). Parents of students provisionally identified as ELLs of languages other than Spanish complete a PPF indicating their desire for their child to receive ESL/ELA-E services (PPF2). The District shall ensure that the designated administrator or designee at the school registration site has been trained to explain ELA Program services accurately to parents.
B. The District shall use the following procedures to inform parents about the Program so that they can make informed decisions on the PPF regarding appropriate ELA Program services:
1. At registration, the District shall give parents the parent brochure that corresponds with the ELA program at the school registration site, translated into languages spoken by 100 or more District students, which describes available Program services. The parent brochure shall explain the program at that school, and provide guidance on the availability of alternative programming at other schools. For parents who need a communication in a language that fewer than 100 District students speak, the District shall ensure that written translation or oral interpretation of the information in the brochure is provided to LEP parents prior to their completion of the PPF.
2. Schools shall play a video that reviews the various ELA Program services in English and Spanish.
3. A school administrator or designee shall be available at registration to further clarify the ELA Program options available and to answer questions from parents. For LEP parents, the District shall answer the questions through an interpreter prior to the parents’ completion of the PPF.
4. All students provisionally identified as ELLs, based on the HLQ, shall be provisionally placed in the Program, unless the parent registered his/her child at a non-Program school and elects provisional placement at that school.
5. All parents shall be notified of a student’s placement in the Program.
6. In addition to the written description of the Program services referenced above, the District shall provide the following information to parents:
a. Parents may choose whether to have their child participate in the Program. Parents may withdraw permission to participate (or maintain placement in the
Consent Decree (2012) 21

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 56-1 Filed 09/28/12 USDC Colorado Page 25 of 57
neighborhood non-Program school) after ELP assessments have been conducted, provided this withdrawal is recorded as a PPF3 (or, in the case of a student remaining in the neighborhood non-Program school, changed to PPF3) after the parent has had a consultation with a District employee trained to explain, in a language the parent understands, the benefits of the Program.
b. To the extent that more than one Program component is available in a school, including native language instruction in Spanish, parents of ELLs may choose from among them (see Sections I and II of Chapter 1).
c. To the extent that different Program components are available at schools other than an ELL’s neighborhood school, parents of ELLs may choose to enroll the ELL in such a school, subject to the Choice policies of the District and District Transportation guidelines.
d. The factors determinative of whether a school offers TNLI program services (e.g., at the secondary level, 100 or more Spanish-speaking ELLs whose ELP is at the intermediate level or below).
e. Further concerns or questions about parent permission for initial placement shall be answered by the ELA Department.
IV. Assessments for Students Provisionally Identified as English Language Learners
A. For each student for whom an answer to the HLQ indicates a language other than English, following provisional placement as outlined in Section II of this Chapter, the District shall: 1. Conduct an ELP assessment using a valid and reliable ELP assessment tool,12 as soon as practicable, but no later than twenty-five (25) calendar days after registration; and
2. Notify parents of the results of that assessment no later than thirty (30) calendar days after registration at the beginning of the school year, or fifteen (15) calendar days following enrollment if after the beginning of the school year.
12 If the District seeks to change its current ELP test for identifying and classifying ELL students (i.e., CELA Placement), the District shall notify in writing the United States and private plaintiffs of any such new test. If the United States and/or private plaintiffs object to the proposed test on the grounds that it does not meet the terms of this CD, the EEOA, or Title VI, they shall notify the District in writing, and the parties shall endeavor to resolve the objections within sixty (60) calendar days of the written notice. If they fail to do so, the parties may seek judicial intervention pursuant to Section B of Chapter 10.
Consent Decree (2012) 22

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 56-1 Filed 09/28/12 USDC Colorado Page 26 of 57
B. Students for whom the provisional placement, based on the classroom teacher’s professional judgment, appears inappropriate because of the student’s English language proficiency shall be assessed within fifteen (15) calendar days of enrollment.
C. If the student’s provisional placement at a Program or non-Program school appears inappropriate, a school administrator shall contact the student’s parents no more than fifteen (15) calendar days following the student’s enrollment, to discuss the reasons that the provisional placement appears inappropriate. As soon as practicable following receipt of the student’s initial ELP assessment results, the school administrator shall make a good faith effort to meet with the parents.
1. If the student’s ELP assessment reveals that the student is IFEP, the student may be assigned to a Mainstream English language classroom.
2. If the student’s ELP initial assessment reveals that the student is LEP, the student’s program assignment will remain the same unless the parents opt to change programs by selecting a different option than initially elected on the PPF. In non-Program schools, the designated administrator shall explain to parents the benefits of the ELA Program and recommend to parents of an ELL that the student be enrolled in a Program school.
D. The District shall offer parents the opportunity to opt their ELL child out of the ELA Program by selecting Option 3 on the PPF (PPF3), but only after the student has taken the initial ELP assessment. Parents may not waive ELA Program services at registration if their response to the HLQ indicates a language other than English for one or more of the questions, unless they registered the student at a non-Program school and elect provisional placement at that school.
E. To the extent practicable, the District shall place PPF3 students with on track or fully qualified ELA-T teachers for all content area classes.
F. At Program schools, if requested at any time during the school year, a school administrator familiar with the District’s ELA Program and/or a fully qualified ELA-S or ELA-E teacher shall meet with the parents of each assessed student to explain the results of the initial ELP assessment and discuss placement options.
G. At non-Program schools, if requested at any time during the school year, administrators familiar with ELA Program options shall meet with parents of each assessed student to explain the results of the initial ELP assessment and discuss placement options. The District shall make a reasonable effort to identify a bilingual or fully qualified ELA teacher to accompany the administrator in parent meetings whenever practicable.
V. Monitoring the Progress of Students Who Decline Services
A. District schools shall monitor, at least twice annually, the ELP and academic progress of ELLs who have declined services (PPF3s) to assess (i) their ability to meaningfully and equally participate in the Mainstream English Language Instructional Program and,
Consent Decree (2012) 23

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 56-1 Filed 09/28/12 USDC Colorado Page 27 of 57
(ii) when necessary, their need to enter into the Program to enable them to meaningfully and equally participate in the Mainstream English Language Instructional Program. Whenever appropriate, including whenever such monitoring reveals that a PPF3 is struggling academically or not making ELP progress, the District shall inform parents of PPF3s of the opportunity to have their child placed in the Program. The District shall require ISA Teams to use a standard form for monitoring PPF3s, and generate and provide the ISA Teams with a list of PPF3s along with ELP and content assessment data for each student. B. The ISA Team shall periodically contact the teachers of PPF3s regarding the students’ ELP and academic performance to assess whether one or more teachers recommend(s) enrollment of the student in the Program. If the ISA Team concurs in the teacher’s recommendation, the ISA Team and the classroom teacher shall communicate, in person whenever practicable, that recommendation to the PPF3’s parents and offer them the opportunity to change the placement of the student. The ISA Team shall keep a record of the recommendation, the contact with the parent, and the parent’s placement decision. A school administrator or teacher may refer a PPF3 to the ISA Team at any time to determine whether a recommendation to enter the student in the Program should be made to the parent(s).
Consent Decree (2012) 24

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 56-1 Filed 09/28/12 USDC Colorado Page 28 of 57
Chapter 4: Redesignation and Exiting the Program
A. The ISA Team shall make recommendations as to whether ELLs should be redesignated from LEP to FEP. Redesignated FEP students shall be monitored for two years from redesignation to ascertain their meaningful and equal participation in the Mainstream English Language Instructional Program and possible recommended re-entry into the Program. The ISA Team shall review a student’s speaking, listening, reading, and writing skills in English, and performance in grade-level content instruction and on assessments in English, to evaluate the student’s ability to meaningfully and equally participate in the Mainstream English Language Instructional Program.
B. The District shall use valid, reliable, and objective criteria that meaningfully measure ELP in each of the four language domains of listening, speaking, reading, and writing, and ensure that each ELL has attained proficiency in English before being redesignated and exited from Program services.
C. The District shall administer a valid and reliable ELP assessment as a required criterion for identifying ELLs, determining their level of English language proficiency, and redesignating or exiting them from Program services. The District may use a conjunctive or composite score to measure when a student has achieved proficiency in English on a valid and reliable ELP test, as long as the District can demonstrate that any such composite score (i) requires sufficient grade-level proficiency in each of the four language domains to permit students to participate effectively in grade-level academic content instruction and assessments in English, and (ii) overall is a valid and reliable measure of the student’s proficiency in English that enables students’ meaningful and equal participation in the educational program without Program services.
D. For students who achieve proficiency on a valid and reliable ELP assessment, the District may consider additional factors, such as standardized test information, grades, and teacher recommendations, to determine whether to continue or discontinue providing Program services to these students.
Consent Decree (2012) 25

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 56-1 Filed 09/28/12 USDC Colorado Page 29 of 57
Chapter 5: Personnel and Training
I. General Policy
A. To fully implement its Program, the District shall make a good faith effort to hire, train, and retain a sufficient number of fully qualified teachers to serve all ELLs in the Program. To that end, the District shall take the actions outlined in this Chapter.
B. Subject to the provisions in Section IV of this Chapter, the District shall staff ESL/ELA-E and TNLI/ELA-S classrooms with teachers who are on track or fully qualified to address the specific needs of ELLs, in alignment with Program services offered in that classroom.
C. All teaching positions in the Program shall be identified as such (i.e., ELA-E and ELA-S). Teaching positions shall be further identified according to whether Spanish Language Proficiency is necessary. In assigning teachers to the Program, the District recognizes the value of teachers who speak a language also spoken by a significant number of the students they serve.
D. Except as otherwise provided in Section III.F of this Chapter, all ELA-E and ELA-S teachers must complete the training required to become fully qualified within two years of their initial designation date. Pre-kindergarten Program teachers in schools with ECE programs shall be on track or fully qualified.
E. Except as otherwise provided in Section III.F of this Chapter, all newly-hired teachers are designated ELA-T and must complete ELA-T qualifications within one year of hire.
F. Except as otherwise provided in Section III.F of this Chapter, Mainstream teachers who are not newly-hired must complete ELA-T qualifications within one year of designation as an ELA-T teacher.
II. Teacher Qualifications
A. Teachers in the Program and designated ELA-T teachers must meet all requirements of this CD, including those related to: (1) the ELA Training Program and/or State endorsement/advanced degree program; and (2) State certification and/or licensure, or enrollment in a State-approved alternative program.
1. A fully qualified ELA-T teacher is one who is State-endorsed in teaching the culturally and linguistically diverse, has earned a Masters or doctorate degree in teaching the linguistically diverse, or has successfully completed the District’s prescribed ELA Training Program for ELA-T qualification as described in this Chapter.
2. A fully qualified ELA-E teacher is one who is State-endorsed in teaching the culturally and linguistically diverse, has earned a Masters or doctorate degree in
Consent Decree (2012) 26

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 56-1 Filed 09/28/12 USDC Colorado Page 30 of 57
teaching the linguistically diverse, or has successfully completed the District’s ELA Training Program for ELA-E qualification as described Section III of this Chapter.
3. A fully qualified ELA-S teacher is one who is: (1) State-endorsed in teaching the culturally and linguistically diverse, has earned a Masters or doctorate degree in teaching the linguistically diverse, or has successfully completed the District’s prescribed ELA Training Program for ELA-S qualification; and (2) demonstrates proficiency in speaking, understanding, reading, and writing Spanish on a valid and reliable assessment of Spanish Language Proficiency.
B. No sooner than one full school year following the entry of this CD, the District may develop and utilize alternative criteria by which experienced teachers may be deemed fully qualified ELA-T teachers, upon demonstration that such criteria adequately measure the teacher’s effectiveness in teaching the culturally and linguistically diverse. The District shall notify in writing the United States and private plaintiffs of any such alternative criteria, and the bases for the adequacy of such criteria, at least sixty (60) calendar days before they are instituted. If the United States and/or private plaintiffs object to the alternative criteria on the grounds that they do not meet the terms of this CD, the EEOA, or Title VI, they shall notify the District in writing, and the parties shall endeavor to resolve the objections within sixty (60) calendar days of the written notice. If they are unable to do so, the parties may seek judicial intervention pursuant to Section B of Chapter 10.
III. Teacher Training Program
A. To support teacher qualification and meet the staffing needs of the Program, the District shall provide an ELA Training Program for teachers who: (1) are not State-endorsed in teaching the linguistically different; (2) have not earned a Masters or doctorate degree in teaching the linguistically different; or (3) have not completed the requirements to become fully qualified ELA teachers as outlined by this CD. Unless they have received an extension pursuant to Section III.F of this Chapter, these teachers shall commence participation in this ELA Training Program within one semester of hire or designation and complete training consistent within the timelines provided for in Sections I.D-I.F of this Chapter.
B. Subject to Section III.G of this Chapter, the District’s ELA Training Program shall be structured as follows:
1. Training for ELA-T qualification for newly-hired ELA-designated teachers consists of: (i) either the District’s ELA Summer Academy (which includes a practicum component), or, for new teachers for whom participation in the Summer Academy is not possible, ELA coursework and practicums, plus the “ELA Foundations” online course; (ii) the New Educator Institute; and (iii) the District’s “ELA 101” online course.
Consent Decree (2012) 27

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 56-1 Filed 09/28/12 USDC Colorado Page 31 of 57
2. Training for ELA-T qualification for Mainstream teachers redesignated as ELA-T consists of (i) ELA coursework and practicums, plus the “ELA Foundations” online course; and (ii) the District’s “ELA 101” online course.
3. Training for ELA-E and ELA-S designated teachers shall consist of: (1) the courses required for ELA-T qualification, as defined by Sections III.B.1 and II.B.2 of this Chapter;13 and (2) the training described in Sections III.C of this Chapter. Training for ELA-S designated teachers also shall include training in the use of the District’s research-based language allocation guidelines.
4. Early Childhood Education teachers shall be subject to the same ELA Program training requirements as other Program teachers in the District, as required by this CD, and the District shall tailor such training to the nature of the program implemented in the teacher’s classroom (e.g., Early Childhood TNLI services, Early Childhood ESL/ELA-E services).
C. The District’s ELA Training Program shall be designed to provide teachers with the following knowledge and skills:
1. Foundations of Bilingual and ESL education at the federal, State, and District levels;
2. Theoretical framework of core instructional components for addressing the needs of ELLs;
3. Methods for organizing instruction to meet the needs of ELLs;
4. Teaching ELLs at different proficiency and grade levels how to write in each core content area;
5. Differentiation and sheltering strategies for providing Supported English Content Instruction, including:
a. grouping ELLs by ELP level and using adapted materials and texts, visual displays, cooperative learning and group work, primary language support, and clarification to make content lessons understandable to ELLs;
b. using speech that is appropriate for the ELLs’ ELP level(s) and clearly explaining academic tasks to ELLs;
c. using supplementary materials to support content objectives and contextualize learning;
13 If an alternative qualification system for ELA-T teachers is adopted under Section II.B of this Chapter, it shall not alter the requirements in Section III of this Chapter for ELA-E and ELA-S teachers.
Consent Decree (2012) 28

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 56-1 Filed 09/28/12 USDC Colorado Page 32 of 57
d. explicitly teaching academic vocabulary that is relevant to the content and appropriate to the ELLs’ ELP level(s);
e. adapting content, including texts, assignments, assessments, and presentation of content in all modalities, within the ELLs’ ELP level(s);
f. affording ELLs regular opportunities to practice and apply new language and content knowledge in English;
g. teaching reading comprehension skills (e.g., prediction, summarizing, making inferences, and identifying important information); and
h. using reading strategies that are effective with ELLs (e.g., partner reading, reading aloud, and teacher think-alouds) and that include phonemic awareness, phonological awareness, decoding, word knowledge, and fluency, while taking into account the ELLs’ ages and ELP level(s);
6. Methods for teaching ELD in all four language domains;
7. Use of appropriate tools to identify ELLs;
8. Assessment skills to identify and diagnose the educational needs of ELLs;
9. First- and Second-language acquisition theories;
10. Culturally responsive teaching as a facilitator of language acquisition for ELLs;
11. Information about how to challenge and motivate at-risk ELLs;
12. Methods of working with the parents of ELLs and methods of improving schoolcommunity relations; and
13. Use of technology to instruct ELLs.
D. Satisfactory completion of the District’s ELA Training Program requires that the participant successfully demonstrate knowledge of the material covered during the training. The District shall assess the knowledge of each training participant within twenty-one (21) calendar days of the completion of each training. The District shall require additional training for any participant who fails to demonstrate sufficient knowledge of the material covered in the training and shall retest the participant following such supplemental training. Additional training and support services shall be provided until the participant demonstrates proficiency in the required ELA competencies or the District takes action as set forth below in Section III.F of this Chapter.
E. The District’s ELA Training Program shall be taught by instructors who are either (1) State-endorsed in teaching the culturally and linguistically diverse or (2) have successfully completed the approved District ELA-E or ELA-S Training Program and are eligible for Adjunct Designation by an accredited institution of higher education.
Consent Decree (2012) 29

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 56-1 Filed 09/28/12 USDC Colorado Page 33 of 57
F. The District shall track the progress of its designated teachers toward fully qualified status. Those teachers not on track to become fully qualified within the required time period shall be subject to corrective action, up to and including termination of employment. As set forth below, designated teachers who receive approved extensions of the applicable timelines shall be considered on track.
1. Extensions for teachers designated ELA-E and ELA-S shall be granted only where the teacher has conflicting training, educational, or certification obligations in connection with ELA-specific licensure/degreed programs (e.g., Masters degree in Teaching the Linguistically diverse);
2. Extensions for ELA-T teachers shall be granted only where the teacher has conflicting training, educational, or certification obligations in connection with licensure/degreed programs that are identified to the United States and private plaintiffs by July 15 of each year for the duration of this CD;
3. The District shall grant only those extensions permitted by Sections III.F.1 and III.F.2 of this Chapter except that a teacher, on an individual basis, may be granted an extension for good cause, consistent with the District’s obligations in Sections I.A and I.B of this Chapter; and
4. The District shall not grant extensions that exceed one year in total for any individual teacher.
G. Material changes to the ELA Training Program must be supported by evidence-based findings accepted within the field. The District shall notify in writing the United States and private plaintiffs of any such material changes to the ELA Training Program and the purpose of such changes at least sixty (60) calendar days before they take effect. If the United States and/or private plaintiffs object to the proposed changes on the grounds that they do not meet the terms of this CD, the EEOA, or Title VI, they shall notify the District in writing, and the parties shall endeavor to resolve the objections within sixty (60) calendar days of the written notice. If they are unable to do so, the parties may seek judicial intervention pursuant to Section B of Chapter 10.
IV. Program Teacher Assignments
A. An on track or fully qualified ELA-E teacher shall be assigned to all teacher positions in the Program unless Spanish language skills are necessary.
B. The District shall use best efforts to staff classrooms where instruction is provided in Spanish with on track or fully qualified ELA-S teachers.
C. Where there are not a sufficient number of on track or fully qualified ELA-S teachers for identified Program classrooms requiring such qualifications, on track or fully qualified ESL/ELA-E teachers shall be assigned. The District also shall do one or both of the following, to the extent administratively feasible, if the assigned teacher is not proficient in Spanish:
Consent Decree (2012) 30

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 56-1 Filed 09/28/12 USDC Colorado Page 34 of 57
1. Assign a Spanish-speaking paraprofessional to the classroom during core subject area instruction; and/or
2. Regroup students for instruction, through use of such strategies as resource teachers and pairing of classrooms, so that core subject area instruction is provided in Spanish, if appropriate, by a teacher qualified in Spanish on a valid and reliable Spanish Language Proficiency test.
D. To increase the number of fully qualified Program teachers, the District shall use the measures outlined in Attachment 1, “Interim Measures to Increase the Number of Fully Qualified ELA Teachers at Underserved Schools” (“Interim Measures”) for the 2011-12, 2012-13, and 2013-14 school years. Starting in the 2014-15 school year, where there are not fully-qualified ELA-designated teachers for all ELA-E and ELA-S classrooms requiring such qualification, the District shall propose a plan for addressing those insufficiencies consistent with paragraph H of the Interim Measures.
E. ELA-T teachers are core subject area, Mainstream English language classroom teachers who have successfully completed the DPS ELA Training Program for ELA-T teachers outlined in this Chapter and address the academic needs of ELLs who have opted out of Program services or are redesignated FEPs. The District shall make a good faith effort to assign ELLs who decline Program services (i.e., PPF3s) and redesignated FEPs to classrooms with teachers who have been designated ELA-T. ELA-T teachers are not a substitute for ELA-E or ELA-S teachers.
V. Training and Designation of ELA-T Teachers
A. All newly-hired District teachers who are not designated ELA-E or ELA-S shall automatically be designated ELA-T teachers and shall be required to successfully complete District ELA Training requirements for ELA-T qualification within one year of hire date, unless they receive an extension pursuant to Section III.F of this Chapter.
B. Other Mainstream English language classroom teachers within the District, on a rolling basis, shall be designated ELA-T teachers and shall be required to successfully complete District requirements for ELA-T teachers within one year of designation, unless they receive an extension pursuant to Section III.F of this Chapter. The District shall designate as ELA-T at least 100 such Mainstream teachers each year. Where feasible, the District shall prioritize such designations first by the schools with the highest percentage of not fully qualified teachers, and then by the number of PPF3s enrolled in the school.
VI. Teacher Recruitment
A. The District shall annually assess the need for fully qualified ELA-S teachers, fully qualified ELA-E teachers, and paraprofessionals at each school to meet the needs of the Program and the requirements of this CD.
Consent Decree (2012) 31

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 56-1 Filed 09/28/12 USDC Colorado Page 35 of 57
B. Based on this assessment, the District shall annually develop a plan to obtain additional staff, including those who are proficient in languages other than English spoken by ELLs. The plan shall include out-of-state recruitment and advertisements, if sufficient numbers of qualified teachers are not available in Colorado.
C. To the extent that the District has the need for additional fully qualified ELA-S teachers and reasonable means to obtain more, the District shall make a good faith effort to maintain a collaborative arrangement with one or more institutions of higher education for Spanish-speaking paraprofessionals to complete the requirements for teacher certification and become teachers in the District.
D. The District shall maintain records of its annual assessment and activities related to its recruitment of teachers and other staff.
VII. Teacher and Staff Appraisal
A. The District shall use multiple measures to evaluate teachers’ progress and effectiveness, including their effectiveness in providing ELA Program services consistent with this CD, and, where appropriate, research-based language allocation guidelines. The District shall appraise each teacher assigned to the Program on the teacher’s effectiveness in providing instructional services to students in accordance with this CD, as measured by the expectations listed in Section VII.B below.14
B. The District shall include in the teacher appraisal the following expectations:
1. Differentiation of instruction according to students’ levels of language proficiency;
2. Development of ELP through instruction focused on language functions and forms;
3. For lessons taught in Spanish, use of native language instruction to develop strong content knowledge in Spanish;
4. Use of classroom resources and space to reflect students’ cultures and backgrounds and promote their learning; and
14 If the District seeks to make material modifications to its appraisal expectations that impact the evaluation of ELA-E and ELA-S teachers, the District shall notify in writing the United States and private plaintiffs of such modification at least sixty (60) calendar days before they take effect. To the extent the modifications are necessary to comply with State law, the District shall so indicate. If the United States and/or private plaintiffs object to the proposed modifications on the grounds that they do not meet the terms of this CD, the EEOA, or Title VI, the party shall notify the District in writing, and the parties shall endeavor to resolve the objections within sixty (60) days of the written notices. If they are unable to do so, the parties may seek judicial intervention pursuant to Section B of Chapter 10.
Consent Decree (2012) 32

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 56-1 Filed 09/28/12 USDC Colorado Page 36 of 57
5. Accessibility of content for ELLs, including:
a. grouping ELLs by ELP level and using adapted materials and texts, visual displays, cooperative learning and group work, primary language support, and clarification to make content lessons understandable to ELLs;
b. using speech that is appropriate for the ELLs’ ELP level(s) and clearly explaining academic tasks to ELLs;
c. using supplementary materials to support content objectives and contextualize learning;
d. explicitly teaching academic vocabulary that is relevant to the content and appropriate to the ELLs’ ELP level(s);
e. adapting content, including texts, assignments, assessments, and presentation of content in all modalities, within the ELLs’ ELP level(s);
f. affording ELLs regular opportunities to practice and apply new language and content knowledge in English;
g. teaching reading comprehension skills (e.g., prediction, summarizing, making inferences, and identifying important information); and
h. using reading strategies that are effective with ELLs (e.g., partner reading, reading aloud, and teacher think-alouds) and that include phonemic awareness, phonological awareness, decoding, word knowledge, and fluency while taking into account the ELLs’ ages and ELP levels.
C. Teachers who do not show acceptable progress may be subject to contract nonrenewal or corrective action up to and including termination of employment.
D. The appraisal of each paraprofessional and tutor who assists in the instruction of ELLs shall include an evaluation of the paraprofessional’s or tutor’s effectiveness in assisting in the instruction of ELLs, consistent with the ELA Program, this CD, and research-based language allocation guidelines where appropriate.
VIII. Training of Teacher Evaluators
A. The District shall provide administrators, and others who evaluate ELA-E and ELA-S teachers, appropriate training in ESL/ELA-E and/or TNLI programming, which is tailored to the skills necessary to conduct effective evaluations of Program services. Each observation of an ELA-S instructor’s instruction in Spanish shall be conducted by an evaluator who is fluent in Spanish.
Consent Decree (2012) 33

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 56-1 Filed 09/28/12 USDC Colorado Page 37 of 57
B. To ensure that instructional techniques appropriate to the Program are implemented in the teacher’s classroom, administrators and others who evaluate ELA-E and ELA-S teachers (including principals and assistant principals) shall receive:
1. District-approved ELA Program training, modified for evaluators and corresponding to the Program classrooms to be evaluated;
2. Training on how to accurately observe and document teacher implementation of the Program prescribed by this CD, including the expectations listed above in Section VII.B of this Chapter; and
3. Training on communicating effective feedback to teachers and providing them with additional support where needed.
C. The District shall provide administrators and others who evaluate teacher implementation of the Program a minimum of 20 hours of training on the topics identified above during the 2012-13 school year or the first school year after hire. The District also shall provide refresher trainings each year for such individuals.
IX. Principal Appraisal
A. Principals shall be responsible for oversight of effective implementation of the ELA Program at their schools and receive regular professional development regarding appropriate assessment and implementation of ELA programming. Principals’ supervisors shall review and evaluate principals in part based on their implementation of the ELA program at their school.
B. The appraisal of each principal whose school provides services to ELLs shall include information about the effectiveness of the school in providing services consistent with the terms of the Program and this CD. The District shall evaluate principals at all District schools based in part on whether they effectively implement the requirements of the ELA Program offered at their school, as well as other District policies regarding the instruction of ELLs. The District’s evaluation of principals shall consider expressly whether the principal:
 leads for the linguistic and academic success of culturally and linguistically diverse students;
 provides school leadership on evidence-based “best practices” for culturally and linguistically diverse students, including practices for supervision of teachers and staff to ensure they meet the requirements of the District’s ELA Training Program; implementation of research-based language allocation guidelines where appropriate; supervision and implementation of District policies and the CD’s requirements governing the registration, identification, placement, instruction, and monitoring of ELLs; and the provision of appropriate curricular materials for ELLs; and
Consent Decree (2012) 34

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 56-1 Filed 09/28/12 USDC Colorado Page 38 of 57
 ensures the timely completion of all training and evaluation of Program teachers as required by the CD.
C. The District shall require the signature of the principal’s supervisor on each principal performance evaluation. The ELA Director shall provide input on elements of principal evaluation related to the implementation of the Program.
D. Principals who do not receive a satisfactory rating regarding the implementation of the ELA Program during a rating period are required to take appropriate action as outlined by their immediate supervisor. The District shall continue to evaluate the principal’s progress in monitoring the academic success of ELLs in the school. In addition, the ELA Department shall provide supervisors of principals with assessments of the quality of the ELA Program at each District school. Supervisors shall take the ELA Department’s assessments into account in identifying areas of remediation for the principal. Principals who do not show acceptable progress may be subject to contract nonrenewal or corrective action up to and including termination of employment.
X. Training for Supervisors of Principals
The District shall provide evaluators and supervisors of principals training in those aspects of the ELA Program that are part of the evaluation of principals including, but not limited to, implementation of the ELA Program.
XI. Instructional Services Advisory Team Training
The ELA Department shall provide members of each school’s ISA Team the following training during their first year on the ISA Team, and once every two years thereafter:
A. Comprehensive review of the ELA Program;
B. Description of ISA Team duties and responsibilities, including those under this CD;
C. Description of the types of Program data that shall be provided to and considered by the ISA Team; and
D. How to use these data to drive recommendations regarding ELLs.
XII. Paraprofessionals
A. Individuals employed as paraprofessionals in the Program must meet federal qualification requirements, and, if the assignment is an ELA-S classroom, demonstrate proficiency on a valid and reliable test of Spanish Language Proficiency.
B. Though important, paraprofessionals shall not be a substitute for fully qualified ELA teachers in the Program.
Consent Decree (2012) 35

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 56-1 Filed 09/28/12 USDC Colorado Page 39 of 57 XIII. Counselors
A. At least one counselor who has demonstrated proficiency on a valid and reliable test of Spanish Language Proficiency shall be assigned to each high school that offers a TNLI program.
B. The District shall provide annual training to counselors to support the needs of ELLs, including training on how to communicate appropriately with ELLs about applicable District policies and requirements (e.g., graduation requirements).
C. At the beginning of each school year, the District shall provide written notification to parents of ELLs enrolled in TNLI schools of the names of Spanish-speaking counselors at their child’s school or of Spanish-speaking teachers or administrators who are fulfilling the counselor role at their child’s school.
Consent Decree (2012) 36

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 56-1 Filed 09/28/12 USDC Colorado Page 40 of 57
Chapter 6: Parental Oversight
I. Parent Advisory Committees (PACs)
A. Each Program school has a Parent Advisory Committee (PAC), chosen by the parents of students receiving Program services at the school. The purpose of the PAC is to provide information regarding the Program, increase communication between ELL parents and the District, review implementation of the Program, and listen to concerns of parents. The PAC may be a subcommittee of a larger committee.
B. It is expressly understood that the District discharges its obligation under this provision if it makes a good faith effort to organize a PAC at each applicable school. The District shall maintain records of its efforts to organize PACs, and shall maintain documentation of PAC meetings that occur at each school, including the date and number of parents in attendance at each meeting.
II. District-wide Advisory Committee
A. The District shall establish a District-wide Advisory Committee that shall be reconstituted each year. The District shall provide the opportunity for a parent representative from each Program school to participate in the District-wide Advisory Committee. The parent representative must have a child in the Program. The representatives, chosen by the parents, choose a chairperson.
B. The District-wide Advisory Committee meets at least monthly during the school year. Translators shall be made available to facilitate Committee meetings and to assist with the development of required reports.
C. The District-wide Advisory Committee:
1. Reviews and comments on annual reports provided by the ELA Department to the Board of Education;
2. Reviews and comments on student assessment results made available for each school;
3. Provides input regarding the District’s efforts to increase parental involvement in activities sponsored by the Program;
4. Discusses the structure and operation of the school-based PACs; and
5. Helps parents understand ELA Program services and the benefits of such services, and provides the opportunity for parents to discuss concerns about the Program.
Consent Decree (2012) 37

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 56-1 Filed 09/28/12 USDC Colorado Page 41 of 57 D. The District-wide Advisory Committee reports at least once annually on its activities, including the activities enumerated above, to the Board of Education. III. Parent Training A. The District-wide Advisory Committee provides an annual training program for parents regarding their rights and responsibilities in connection with the Program.
Consent Decree (2012) 38

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 56-1 Filed 09/28/12 USDC Colorado Page 42 of 57
Chapter 7: Considerations Related to Special Education and Section 504 Services for English Language Learners
A. School-based IEP and 504 teams shall determine appropriate Program and Special Education (“SPED”) services, services under Section 504, and/or accommodations, as appropriate, for students with disabilities (“SWDs”) who are identified as ELLs. IEP and 504 teams for ELLs shall include a fully qualified ELA-E or ELA-S teacher and a fully qualified special education teacher. The IEP and 504 teams shall make their determinations based on information from a wide variety of sources, including results of assessments conducted in the language(s) of the student, record review, classroom and social observation, work samples, data collection, formal and informal evaluations, and family and student interviews, as appropriate. The process for identifying ELLs eligible for SPED services and services under Section 504 shall be consistent with federal guidelines.
B. The District shall provide SPED services and/or services under Section 504, and ELA Program services, to all ELL SWDs. Similarly, all students who qualify for a 504 Plan and ELA Program services shall receive both sets of services. The District shall provide such services using the classroom structures and strategies designed to provide the student a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment by appropriately qualified personnel in a manner that adequately and appropriately addresses both the identified language and the identified disability needs of the student. The District shall not deny Program services due to the nature or severity of the student’s disability, and shall not deny any ELL SPED or 504 services due to his or her ELL status.
C. The District shall conduct SPED and 504 assessments in the student’s native language or other mode of communication and in the form most likely to yield accurate information, as to what the student knows and can do academically, developmentally, and functionally, unless it is clearly not feasible to do so. SPED and 504 ELL assessments shall be conducted by a qualified evaluator who is proficient in the student’s native language, or, where not practicable, assisted by a qualified interpreter. The SPEDrelated qualifications of those individuals shall be made available to the United States and to private plaintiffs upon request, consistent with applicable laws and regulations concerning those individuals’ privacy.
D. Consistent with applicable federal law and regulations, all IEPs and 504 Plans shall consider the language needs of the ELL as such needs relate to the student’s IEP or 504 Plan.
E. Consistent with the Colorado Accommodations Manual and the Colorado Accommodations Guide, the District shall provide the appropriate accommodation(s) for all ELL SWDs who so require.
F. ELLs’ IEPs and 504 Plans shall document that the student is an ELL, the student’s language proficiency level, the Program services the student is currently receiving (i.e.,
Consent Decree (2012) 39

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 56-1 Filed 09/28/12 USDC Colorado Page 43 of 57
ESL/ELA-E, TNLI), and all accommodations needed for testing and assessments, including accommodations needed for standardized assessment instruments.
G. The District shall maintain in an ELL’s IEP or 504 Plan: (a) written records of its SPED/504 evaluations of the student; (b) an analysis of the effect of proficiency in English and other languages on the student’s learning, including an analysis of the student’s assessment results in relation to the student’s language proficiency; (c) modifications, if any, of standard test and assessment procedures, including the use of translators or interpreters, and their possible impact on the validity of the assessment results obtained; (d) the student’s most recent ELP assessment results; (e) the languages in which SPED/504 assessments were conducted; and (f) a statement by the IEP or 504 team that the ELL’s level of English proficiency is not determinative of the decision to administer SPED/504 services.
H. The District shall translate documents about matters arising under the IDEA or Section 504 (e.g., information regarding IEP or 504 meetings) as set forth in Section I of Chapter 3. In addition, the District shall translate all IEP and 504 Plan forms (i.e., the blank templates into which student information is filled) into the four most common languages spoken by ELL SWDs in the District, as determined by the PHLOTE data generated by the HLQ.
I. Prior to conducting an IEP or 504 meeting, the District shall review parental responses reflecting parents’ communication needs. The District shall contact LEP parents who indicated a need for a translator or interpreter or whose need otherwise becomes apparent to the District to notify them of the availability of interpreters for IEP and 504 meetings and the availability of a translated IEP and 504 Plan, and shall provide qualified interpreter and translator services upon request and free of charge to the parent.
J. Upon request by a LEP Parent, the District shall translate requested portions of an ELL SWD’s IEP or 504 Plan (including the entire IEP or 504 Plan, if requested) into the parent’s native language.15 The request for translation may be made before, at, or after an IEP or 504 meeting, and the District shall provide the requested translation within a reasonable period of time, but no later than twenty (20) school days following the IEP or 504 meeting. When the District translates an entire IEP or 504 Plan into a language other than the four most common languages, the District, wherever practicable, shall maintain the translated portions of the template to use in response to requests for translation in that language from other LEP parents of SWDs.
K. In exceptional circumstances where the District is unable to provide a translation of an IEP or 504 Plan for a low-incidence language, the District shall provide an interpreter and maintain documentation of the District’s efforts to secure a written translation of the IEP or 504 Plan.
15 The IEP and 504 Plans originally drafted in English are the official legal documents.
Consent Decree (2012) 40

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 56-1 Filed 09/28/12 USDC Colorado Page 44 of 57 L. At IEP and 504 meetings, the District shall remind LEP parents that they may, but are not required to, sign IEP or 504 Plan documentation if they have requested translated documentation. M. For all SPED- and 504-related translation and interpretation, the District shall provide a qualified translator or interpreter who is trained in the specialized vocabulary needed to provide SPED- or 504-related translating and interpreting. N. SPED teachers must complete ELA training requirements as outlined in Chapter 5. Where applicable and to the extent practicable, SPED staff shall be assigned according to their ability to speak the language of the students they serve.
Consent Decree (2012) 41

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 56-1 Filed 09/28/12 USDC Colorado Page 45 of 57
Chapter 8: Charter Schools
A. The District shall ensure that all District schools, including charter schools, take appropriate action to overcome language barriers that impede meaningful and equal participation by all students enrolled in the District’s instructional programs. To that end, the ELA Department shall work collaboratively with the District’s Office of School Reform and Innovation to monitor the identification of, services for, and assessment of ELLs enrolled at District charter schools. The offices also shall work collaboratively to ensure that the District makes educational alternatives available to all ELLs, without regard to language proficiency level, by, among other things, providing notice of such alternatives to LEP parents in their native language. To the extent a charter school fails to meet its legal obligation to provide meaningful and appropriate language acquisition services, the District shall take steps to remedy the charter school’s ELA program deficiencies within a reasonable period of time.
B. The District shall require all charter schools offering ELA services to identify a school administrator, or an administrator-designee, with ELA expertise to provide oversight and evaluate the effectiveness of ELA services provided by the school.
C. The District shall not approve an application for a new or renewed charter that fails to propose an ELA Program reasonably designed to enable the District’s ELLs to overcome their language barriers in a reasonable period of time so that they can meaningfully and equally participate in the educational programs offered by the school.
Consent Decree (2012) 42

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 56-1 Filed 09/28/12 USDC Colorado Page 46 of 57
Chapter 9: Accountability
I. Effective Program Implementation
To support the effective implementation of the Program, the District shall: A. Develop an inventory of available subject-, grade-level-, and language proficiency-
appropriate instructional materials, including supplementary materials, for ELA-E and ELA-S classrooms and non-Program schools enrolling ELLs. For any school that does not have appropriate materials in sufficient quantities to serve its ELLs, the District shall ensure that the school has the requisite materials (when available) as soon as practicable. If the materials are commercially available but must be ordered, the District shall make a good faith effort to obtain the materials no later than six (6) months from the date the issue regarding the materials is identified; B. Evaluate annually the effectiveness of all training programs utilized, basing the evaluations, in part, on objective evidence provided by participants and trainers; C. Monitor staffing assignments to ensure that they are consistent with this CD; D. Monitor each school’s compliance with this CD and take action to remedy any noncompliance as soon as practicable and within a reasonable period of time; and E. Identify staff members who are responsible for each of the following: 1. Recruiting teachers; 2. Developing and implementing the training requirements of this CD; 3. Monitoring the availability of appropriate and adequate materials in Program
classrooms; 4. Implementing the Program entry, redesignation, and exit procedures in
accordance with this CD; 5. Implementing the instructional Program in accordance with this CD; 6. Overseeing and implementing parent communication requirements; 7. Implementing SPED and Section 504 requirements as they relate to ELLs; 8. Monitoring the curricula taught in Program classrooms; and 9. Preparing reports to the United States and private plaintiffs pursuant to Section V
of this Chapter.
Consent Decree (2012) 43

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 56-1 Filed 09/28/12 USDC Colorado Page 47 of 57
II. Student Progress
A. ELLs’ progress toward achieving the District’s curricular goals shall be measured in a variety of ways including, but not limited to, the following:
1. Ongoing classroom assessments, i.e., individual reading assessments, writing assessments, and benchmark assessments;
2. Teacher observation of student performance; and
3. Student performance on interim and State assessments.
B. Parents of ELLs shall receive information in a language they understand about student performance on a regular basis through Standards-Based Progress Reports, conferences with teachers, and the results of District assessments.
C. The District shall monitor the progress of ELLs in schools and classrooms, and recommend changes to their services as appropriate to support high student achievement.
III. Procedures for Parental Request for Review of Services
A. Whenever parents believe that their child or children are not being served in accordance with the terms of this CD, the following procedures shall be used:
1. The parents discuss the concerns with the principal of the school and attempt to reach satisfactory resolution; and
2. If a satisfactory resolution is not reached with the principal, the parents may ask the ELA Department to investigate Program implementation as it relates to services for their child. The ELA Department collaborates with both the school and the family to reach a satisfactory resolution and keeps a record of the concern and the resolution.
B. If parents desire further review, they may request that the matter be referred to the principal’s supervisor.
IV. Evaluating Program Effectiveness
A. The District shall evaluate Program effectiveness to determine whether the District’s language services are overcoming language barriers within a reasonable period of time and enabling students to participate meaningfully and equally in educational programs.
B. To measure Program effectiveness, the District shall (1) evaluate the progress of District ELLs overall, and by program services (e.g., TNLI, ESL/ELA-E), as they progress from LEP to redesignated FEP to exited FEP; and (2) monitor the academic performance and participation of the District’s redesignated and exited FEP students in the District’s
Consent Decree (2012) 44

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 56-1 Filed 09/28/12 USDC Colorado Page 48 of 57
educational programs in relation to their District and State (where information is available at the State level) never-ELL peers. The District’s self-evaluation shall include, at a minimum, a review of the following data:
1. ELP assessment results, standardized test scores (including COACT scores), retention-in-grade rates, dropout rates, graduation rates, eligibility for and enrollment in enrichment programs (e.g., advanced courses16 and Gifted and Talented classes), and referrals to and services received through RTI, disaggregated by school, program services (e.g., ESL/ELA-E; TNLI), and status as ELL, FEP, and never-ELL;
2. information related to special education services, disaggregated as set forth in Paragraphs 6 and 7 of Section V.C of this Chapter; and
3. the total number of, and the number and percentage of, ELL, FEP, and never-ELL, students who (i) passed the 8th grade Accelerated Opportunities exam; (ii) enrolled in 9th grade Geometry; and (iii) enrolled in 9th grade Algebra.
C. The District shall consider in its self-evaluation of Program effectiveness the total number of ELLs for whom there is no ELP assessment score, and the number of ELLs to whom each “no score” explanation provided by the State applies (e.g., 50 ELLs did not complete the test due to absence).
D. The District shall analyze longitudinally a cohort of students by school level and program to assess whether ELLs enrolled in each program are overcoming language barriers within a reasonable period of time and participating meaningfully and equally in educational programs when exited from Program services. The District shall complete its current longitudinal study by the end of the 2011-12 school year and provide the results of that study to the United States and private plaintiffs by July 16, 2012. The District shall complete an additional longitudinal study following the end of the 2014-15 school year. This longitudinal study shall include data from the 2012-13, 2013-14, and 2014-15 school years. The District shall provide the results of this longitudinal study to the United States and private plaintiffs no later than sixty (60) calendar days prior to the filing of the motion referenced in Section C of Chapter 10.
E. The District shall use the results of current and future longitudinal studies to inform Program decisions and improve Program effectiveness. The District shall notify the United States and private plaintiffs in writing of all proposed material changes to the Program, including those based on the results of the 2011-12 longitudinal study, at least sixty (60) calendar days before they take effect. If the United States and/or private plaintiffs object to the proposed changes on the grounds that they do not meet the terms of this CD, the EEOA, or Title VI, they shall notify the District in writing. The parties
16 “Advanced courses” include Advanced Placement, honors, dual/concurrent enrollment, and International Baccalaureate courses.
Consent Decree (2012) 45

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 56-1 Filed 09/28/12 USDC Colorado Page 49 of 57
shall endeavor to resolve the objections within sixty (60) calendar days of the written notice. If they are unable to do so, the parties may seek judicial intervention pursuant to Section B of Chapter 10.
V. Reports to the United States and to Private Plaintiffs
A. Beginning in 2013 and for the duration of the CD, each January 15 and July 15 the District shall provide reports to the United States and to private plaintiffs17 pertaining to the previous one-semester period of time, with the following information:
1. By school and school level (i.e., elementary, K-8, middle school, or high school) and level of English proficiency, the number of ELLs who speak (a) Spanish, or (b) a language other than English (to be characterized as “other”); and each school’s total student enrollment;
2. By school, PPF selection results (i.e., numbers of PPF1, PPF2, and PPF3 selections) by language (i.e., Spanish or “other”) and level of English proficiency, and for each selection, the program or classroom to which the students are assigned, and the number and percentage of ELL SWDs;
3. For each ELA-E and ELA-S elementary teacher who is not on track to be fully qualified, the total number of ELLs enrolled in classes with that teacher; and
4. For those ELA-E and ELA-S secondary teachers who are not on track to be fully qualified, the number of ELLs in each ESL, Supported English Content Instruction, and TNLI/ELA-S classroom (including core content areas), including ELP proficiency level;
B. For the duration of the CD, each January 15, the District shall provide reports to the United States and to private plaintiffs with the following current information:
1. By school and language background (as indicated by Spanish or “other”), the number of students enrolled in (a) Newcomer and SIFE Centers and their ELP levels or, where ELP levels are not available, their language placement scores; (b) ECE ELA-S or ELA-E; and (c) dual language program services;
2. A list of languages spoken by ninety (90) or more students in the District and the number of students who speak each language; and
17 The parties acknowledge that any data or information that includes personally identifiable student or personnel data will be provided by the District in accordance with applicable federal and state law, including the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1232g.
Consent Decree (2012) 46

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 56-1 Filed 09/28/12 USDC Colorado Page 50 of 57
3. By school, the number of ELLs for whom there is no score on State assessments, and the number of ELLs to whom each justification for the “no score,” as provided by the State, applies.
C. In January 2013, and thereafter for the duration of the CD each July 15, beginning in July 2013, the District shall provide reports to the United States and to private plaintiffs with the following information pertaining to the previous one-year period of time:18
1. By school, the number of students for whom there is no ELP test score, and the numbers of those students who selected PPF1, PPF2, and PPF3;
2. A list of designated Zone schools;
3. A list of non-traditional public schools (e.g., charter schools) that were approved or renewed, the number of applicants that were not approved or renewed based (in whole or in part) on issues related to the applicant’s ELA services; the school administrator or administrator-designee at the non-traditional school designated to oversee the school’s ELA services; and the ELL enrollment by language proficiency level at each school;
4. For the first report following entry of the CD, the District’s entry, redesignation, and exit criteria and procedures used for the ELA Program; for each subsequent report, any material changes to entry, redesignation, and exit criteria and procedures;
5. By language background (as indicated by “Spanish” or “other”) and school, numbers of ELLs who were redesignated and exited; and the number of redesignated students who were reentered into the Program;
6. By school level (i.e., elementary, K-8, middle school, or high school), the number and percentage of (a) ELLs and (b) non-ELLs (i) referred for, (ii) evaluated for, and (iii), by disability category, identified as eligible for SPED services;
7. By disability category and school level (i.e., elementary, K-8, middle school, or high school), the number and percentage of (a) ELLs, (b) FEPs, and (c) neverELLs provided SPED services;
8. ELA Program personnel information, including (a) a copy of the District’s annual assessment of Program personnel needs, pursuant to Section VI.A of Chapter 5, (b) a copy of the teacher recruiting plan, (c) the number of ELA-S and ELA-E
18 In July 2012, the District shall provide the reports provided each July prior to the entry of this CD. The reports required by Section V.C of this Chapter provided to the United States and private plaintiffs by January 15, 2013 shall pertain to the previous one-semester period of time, except that the information in Paragraph 8 shall pertain to the 2011-12 school year, and the information in Paragraph 12 shall pertain to both the 2011-12 school year and the fall 2012 semester.
Consent Decree (2012) 47

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 56-1 Filed 09/28/12 USDC Colorado Page 51 of 57
designated teachers hired (by endorsement/content area), and (d) the number of ELA-S and ELA-E teachers hired during that school year in the Alternative Licensure Program, Teach for America, Denver Teacher Residency, Denver Teacher Fellows, and J-1 Exchange Program;
9. A narrative update on the ELA Training Program; the number of teachers (identifying separately SPED teachers and Gifted/Talented teachers of record) who participated in each course or component, including, where applicable and available, their ELA designation; and, for new training opportunities provided by the District pursuant to Section III.G of Chapter 5 during the school year preceding the report, course descriptions and outlines;
10. Documentation of the following training opportunities, including copies of the training agenda reflecting the date and duration of the training, number of attendees, and the format of the training (e.g., live, web-based, etc.):
a. Training for interpreters that is provided by the District’s SPED or Multicultural Office;
b. ISA Team training;
c. Training for evaluators of ELA teachers (including principals and assistant principals); and
d. Training for supervisors of principals;
11. By school, the total number of teachers at each school, the number of fully qualified ELA-T, ELA-E, and ELA-S teachers, the number of designated teachers who are on track to become fully qualified, and the number of teachers who are designated but not on track to become fully qualified. For each category of teachers, the report will indicate those teachers who teach SPED, early childhood, and Secondary ELA-S Qualified Resource Teachers, and Gifted/Talented teachers of record;
12. By school, the number of teachers by designation who have been granted an extension of the period for completing ELA training, the period of the extension, and the reasons for such extensions;
13. For each TNLI middle and high school, a list of Spanish-speaking counselors, and for those middle schools lacking a Spanish-speaking counselor, the name and position of the Spanish-speaking teacher serving in the role of counselor;
14. By school, the number of paraprofessionals assigned to the ELA Program, the allocation of funding of paraprofessional hours in the ELA Program, and whether those hours were fully compensated during the reporting period;
15. Updates on the implementation of the District’s Interim Measures, including: by school, the number of teachers participating in the Plan, the number of those
Consent Decree (2012) 48

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 56-1 Filed 09/28/12 USDC Colorado Page 52 of 57
teachers who are on track to become fully qualified pursuant to the Interim Plan’s expedited training program, and the number of teachers who are designated but not on track; upon request by the United States or private plaintiffs, the District shall provide additional information regarding teachers who are not on track, consistent with applicable federal and state laws and regulations concerning those teachers’ privacy;
16. For the first report following the entry of the CD, a copy of the teacher and principal appraisal instruments that comply with the requirements of Sections VII and IX of Chapter 5; for each subsequent report, documentation of any material changes to the appraisal instruments related to ELA Program implementation;
17. The results of teacher appraisals, by the number of teachers falling within each range of rating, by school level and ELA designation;
18. The total number of principals appraised, by school level and school ELA program designation; for each principal who received a less than satisfactory rating regarding ELA Program implementation, the school name, ELA program designation, the specific corrective action required, and what action, if any to date, has been taken;
19. A narrative discussion of issues identified during the preceding school year regarding comparability (as compared to the materials provided to District students who are not ELLs) of: (a) curriculum and materials provided to ELLs; and (b) commercially available Spanish Language books and materials provided to ELLs, and steps taken by the District to address such issues;
20. Summary of District-Wide Advisory Committee work, including a copy of the annual report to the Board of Education (see Section II.D of Chapter 6);
21. A list of documents containing District-level essential information translated by the District and the languages into which each document is translated; and by language, the total number of requests to the District’s Multicultural Outreach Office and Department of Special Education for translation and interpreter services, the number of such requests that were denied, and the basis for the denial (e.g., unable to identify a qualified interpreter for a low incidence language);
22. A list of schools monitored onsite by the ELA Department by date(s) of monitoring, and the results of that monitoring, including corrective action required by the District to address any concerns regarding compliance with this CD; and
23. An evaluation of Program effectiveness conducted pursuant to Section IV of this Chapter, with supporting data attached.
D. Within sixty (60) calendar days of the United States and private plaintiffs receiving the District’s January 15 and July 15 reports, the District (including ELA Department staff),
Consent Decree (2012) 49

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 56-1 Filed 09/28/12 USDC Colorado Page 53 of 57 the United States, and private plaintiffs shall meet telephonically or in person to address questions or concerns regarding the District’s compliance report. The United States and private plaintiffs shall make a good faith effort to provide the District with notice of topics for discussion in advance of such meetings and to obtain clarifying information regarding the compliance reports during these meetings. The United States and private plaintiffs retain their right to call to the attention of the District additional concerns related to compliance with the CD as they arise, and the parties will endeavor to meet and confer in good faith to resolve material concerns.
E. The District also shall meet in person at least once annually with the United States and the private plaintiffs, at a time convenient to all parties, to discuss the status of the District’s implementation of the Program.
Consent Decree (2012) 50

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 56-1 Filed 09/28/12 USDC Colorado Page 54 of 57
Chapter 10: Duration of Consent Decree, Enforcement, and Remedies for Noncompliance
A. This CD is effective immediately upon its entry by the Court in this matter, Congress of Hispanic Educators v. School District No. 1, Denver, Colo., Civ. A. No. C-1499 (69-M1499) (D. Colo.), and shall replace and nullify the 1999 Consent Decree in this matter.
B. For the duration of this CD, the United States and/or private plaintiffs shall provide the District with reasonable notice of any alleged material noncompliance with this CD, and with a reasonable opportunity for the District to cure such noncompliance. The parties thereafter shall attempt to resolve the allegation(s) of material noncompliance in good faith without the need for judicial intervention. If the parties are unable to resolve any allegation(s) of material non-compliance within sixty (60) calendar days of the United States or private plaintiffs providing such notice, any party may file a motion seeking relief from the Court (e.g., motion to enforce, motion to extend, motion for discovery).
C. No sooner than ninety (90) calendar days following the submission of the District’s July 2015 report or sixty (60) calendar days following the submission of the District’s 2015 longitudinal study, whichever is later, the District shall have the right to move this Court to dismiss all or any part of this CD. The standard for dismissal requires the District to show that the District has complied substantially and in good faith for a reasonable period of time with its obligations under the CD and that this record of compliance demonstrates that the remedy implemented is durable. The District may rely on the reports submitted pursuant to Section V of Chapter 9 and other data provided to the United States and private plaintiffs to support this showing. The parties have not agreed on any additional procedures governing the dismissal of this case and each reserves the right to exercise any and all rights at that time (e.g., the right to seek discovery or request a hearing).
D. The District shall make reasonable efforts to preserve electronic and hard copy records of information and data related to its compliance with this CD and understands that during the monitoring of this CD, the United States and/or private plaintiffs may request information or data related to determining whether the District has complied and is in compliance with this CD. The United States and private plaintiffs shall make a good faith effort to raise any such requests for information and/or data at the meetings referenced in Sections V.D and V.E of Chapter 9. The District shall provide such information or data, if reasonably available, to the United States and/or private plaintiffs within thirty (30) calendar days. The United States shall make reasonable efforts to preserve relevant electronic and hard copy records of information received from external correspondents.
E. The District acknowledges that the United States, through its representatives and any consultant or expert it may retain, has the right to evaluate the District’s compliance with the terms of this CD. This right includes the right to conduct on-site visits upon reasonable notice and consultation with the District, to minimize any disruption to the education process in District schools. The District further acknowledges that the United
Consent Decree (2012) 51

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 56-1 Filed 09/28/12 USDC Colorado Page 55 of 57
States, consistent with its responsibility to enforce Title VI and the EEOA, retains the right to investigate, including requesting information and conducting site visits and may, where appropriate, initiate judicial proceedings concerning any existing or future violations of Title VI or the EEOA by the District, except that matters covered by this CD are governed by the provisions of this CD. See 34 C.F.R. § 100.6(c); 20 U.S.C. §§ 1706, 1710. F. Upon request by the United States and private plaintiffs, the District shall coordinate annual site visits by the United States and private plaintiffs (accompanied by any consultants/experts) of up to six (6) school days per school year; the United States may conduct additional days of site visits to ensure compliance with this CD. The United States and private plaintiffs shall make a good faith effort to identify for the District, reasonably in advance of such visits, areas of inquiry, including schools, individuals to interview, and documents to review, to the extent practicable. All site visits will be conducted in a manner that ensures that the integrity of the school day is maintained. G. Notwithstanding the provisions in Section C of this Chapter, if at any time the parties agree that the District has complied substantially and in good faith with one or more provisions of the CD for a reasonable period of time, and the parties agree that the remedy provided by those provisions is durable, the parties may jointly move to lift any provision of this CD. H. The Court shall retain jurisdiction over this matter until such time as the CD is dismissed, at which time the Court’s jurisdiction shall end and this matter shall be dismissed with prejudice, unless this CD is modified pursuant to Court order.
ATTACHMENTS 1. Interim Measures to Increase the Number of Fully Qualified ELA Teachers at Underserved Schools
SO ORDERED:
__________________________ Honorable Richard P. Matsch United States District Judge
DATED: _____________________
Consent Decree (2012) 52

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 56-1 Filed 09/28/12 USDC Colorado Page 56 of 57
Attachment 1
Interim Measures to Increase the Number of Fully Qualified ELA Teachers at Underserved Schools
A. In support of its commitment to ensure equal access to educational opportunities for English Language Learners (ELLs), Denver Public Schools (DPS) has targeted and will target for intensive teacher training efforts certain schools where the numbers of fully qualified ELA-E and ELA-S teachers are low compared to the numbers of ELLs enrolled. The measures outlined in this document will serve as a short-term plan to address the insufficient number of fully qualified ELA- E and ELA-S teachers in Program schools.
B. DPS’s Interim Plan will be in effect for three school years (i.e. 2011-12, 2012-13, and 2013-14). In targeting schools, DPS will prioritize those schools with the largest ELL population and highest number of ELA-E and ELA-S teachers who are not fully qualified (starting with schools with less than 60 percent of their ELA-E and ELA-S teachers fully qualified).
C. Targeted schools are offered several options to increase the numbers of fully qualified teachers in their schools, including, but not limited to, live onsite training and online training, with established cohorts identified by campus, to be completed via DPS channels or through UCD. This school-based approach allows DPS to concentrate its efforts to reach a large number of Program teachers, and thus the largest number of ELL students.
D. ELA-E and ELA-S teachers at targeted schools who are not fully qualified must complete their ELA training within three semesters, rather than the two-year timeframe available to Program teachers serving at non-targeted schools.
E. Each summer during the term of its Interim Plan, DPS will identify the targeted schools for the following school year. The ELA Director will work collaboratively with the supervisors of the principals at those schools to develop plans of action with observable and measurable objectives to ensure timely implementation. Options and alternatives will be discussed with the principals to be implemented at the start of the following school year.
F. As of the 2011-12 school year, DPS has the resources to service approximately 150 teachers per year for the 2011-12, 2012-13, and 2013-14 school years. Nothing in the Interim Plan prohibits DPS from determining at any point that it has the resources to service more teachers through this expedited training program. Based on its review of the data, DPS targeted the following five highest-need elementary schools in the 2011-12 school year: Castro, McGlone, DCIS at Ford Elementary, Farrell B. Howell, and Cole Arts & Science. DPS targeted the following five highest-need secondary schools in the 2011-12 school year: Rachel Noel Middle School, Montbello High School, Martin Luther King Jr. Early College High School, North High School, and Bruce Randolph

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 56-1 Filed 09/28/12 USDC Colorado Page 57 of 57
High School. Initial measures to increase the number of fully qualified teachers were implemented at McGlone Elementary, DCIS at Ford, and Montbello High School, during the fall semester of the 2011-12 school year. The measures were implemented at the remainder of the targeted schools beginning in the spring semester of the 2011-12 school year. G. Analyses of updated data will be repeated prior to the 2012-13 and 2013-14 school years to identify the highest-need schools that will be targeted in order to reach approximately 150 additional ELA-E and ELA-S teachers each school year. H. Starting in the 2014-15 school year, by October 1 of each school year that the CD is in effect, DPS shall report the number of ELA Program classrooms that do not have a fully qualified teacher and DPS’ proposed plan for addressing those staffing insufficiencies. If the United States and/or private plaintiffs have concerns regarding the proposed plan, they shall notify DPS and the parties shall work together in good faith to develop a mutually-agreeable plan. If they are unable to do so, the parties may seek judicial intervention pursuant to Section B of Chapter 10 of the CD.
2

 
 Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 100 Filed 02/28/16 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 15
INDEPENDENT MONITOR REPORT
CONGRESS OF HISPANIC EDUCATORS ET AL., PETITIONERS, V. SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, DENVER, COLORADO
Submitted to
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE RICHARD MATSCH & ALL FORMAL PARTIES TO THE CASE
Hon. Richard P. Matsch Byron White Courthouse 1823 Stout Street, Courtroom A Denver, CO 80294 (303) 844-4627
FEBRUARY 26, 2016
Submitted by
DR. PAUL E. MARTINEZ COURT APPOINTED INDEPENDENT MONITOR
PO Box 4036 Fairview, NM 87533 505-852-4652 dpscourtmonitor@outlook.com

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 100 Filed 02/28/16 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 15
CONTENTS
ADVANCE SUMMARY................................................................................................................ii Issues........................................................................................................................................ii
INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................1 CONTEXT AND CONTENT.........................................................................................................2
Issue 1........................................................................................................................................2 Issue 2........................................................................................................................................4 Issue 3........................................................................................................................................5 Issue 4........................................................................................................................................6 Issue 5........................................................................................................................................7 Issue 6........................................................................................................................................8 SUMMARY......................................................................................................................................9 RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................................................10
i

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 100 Filed 02/28/16 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 15
ADVANCE SUMMARY
This is my fourth six-month report as Independent Monitor (IM) in the case Congress of Hispanic Educators et al., Petitioners, v. School District No. 1, Denver, Colorado. The report covers the period of January 1 - June 30, 2015.
This report is shorter in length than previous ones for several reasons. First, during the six months covered by this report, I made only two site visits to Denver. The first visit took place during April, and the second one during the last week of June. Two site visits planned to Denver prior to April were cancelled due to illness of the IM, and the second visit was cancelled due to inclement weather. I did, however, remain in frequent contact with all parties during the first four months of 2015, including participation in multiple conference calls, maintaining written correspondence, and making several requests for information or data. As always, the purpose of my onsite visits, information gathering, and data collection activities was directed at assessing to what extent the DPS continues to meet the requirements of the Consent Decree.
In February, I initiated conversations with Dr. Chris Nelson, Professor of Special Education at New Mexico Highlands University. Dr. Nelson and I worked together previously, and he has a wealth of experience in numerous areas, including program evaluation. Additionally, he had some familiarity with this case, and for several years, worked with the Missouri v. Jenkins Federal District Court desegregation order as a program evaluation specialist in the Kansas City, Missouri Public Schools. In March, Dr. Nelson agreed to join me on a sub-contractual basis to provide some assistance to me in my role as IM. He participated in the April meeting of the parties in Denver.
In my previous three reports, I noted that DPS continues to make progress across many of the items in the CD. That progress certainly continued to be evident throughout this reporting period. Of significance is the fact that both CHE and the DOJ have publicly acknowledged to DPS that they have seen how hard the district is working at meeting CD requirements, while also noting that there is still a great deal of work needing to be done. Conversely, DPS has expressed its appreciation for that feedback and also acknowledged that they realize that much work remains.
My third report was submitted after our April meeting of the parties in Denver. There was some discussion between the parties and the IM as to whether this fourth report should take the form of an addendum to the third report so that several significant issues that arose at the April meeting could be identified and discussed. Ultimately, I chose to prepare this report separately and although it is shorter in length, it serves as a transition of sorts. In all three previous reports submitted, I have included in the Advanced Summary, a series of findings and recommendations. For the purposes of this report, however, I am going to list six major issues that emanated from our April meeting. The narrative of this report, which follows, will center on a discussion of these six issues. While not all-inclusive, these six topics represent continued points of interest or concern moving forward.
Issues
1. A preliminary self-assessment by DPS of progress made on all items comprising the CD referenced in Finding and Recommendation 2 was not presented in the April meeting as had been intended by DPS. The District instead offered a plan for a self-assessment of CD items based on a prioritizing and sequencing of those items that aligns with the order in which DPS is addressing the actions specified in the CD. That plan, which is referred to as the CD Implementation Tracker, is under development by the District and has been the focus of discussion by the parties since DPS proposed it. The Implementation Tracker was discussed by the parties on a conference call scheduled for early June.
ii

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 100 Filed 02/28/16 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 15
2. Concerns regarding the lack of appropriate Spanish language and English language development (ELD) materials. 3. Questions as to whether CD provisions regarding ISA team monitoring of students whose parents opted for no services is taking place in meaningful way. 4. Questions about how ISA teams weigh conflicting data in a student's file. 5. Announcement by DPS that it was implementing "Engage/New York" as the Common Core aligned curriculum for grades 4-6. A concern is that at present, there is no comparable Spanish curriculum. 6. Concerns regarding key features (or lack of) in the Longitudinal Study including: students in grades K-2 are not included in the study, key features such as extent of teacher training, fidelity to CD program requirements, and, while several student outcome measures are included, it is not clear how long-term EL student success compared to never-ELLs will be examined.
iii

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 100 Filed 02/28/16 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 15
INTRODUCTION
During the reporting period, I conducted onsite visits during April and June. Dr. Chris Nelson joined me for both visits. It is important to acknowledge, as I have done previously, that all parties continue to be cooperative with me. The parties have been generous with their time and expertise. I have begun the practice of publicly thanking DPS, in general, and individual school sites that I visit, more specifically, for the time and resources they expend in preparing for my visits to Denver. The ELA Department should also be acknowledged for their efforts in arranging school site visits, for facilitating informational meetings on various topics and issues related to the CD during each visit, and for logistical support.
During almost every visit to Denver, I have met personally with members of the Congress of Hispanic Educators (CHE), and DPS has been supportive of these meetings. These meetings with CHE members have been extremely valuable for me. I cannot stress enough the dedication, astuteness, and commitment of the members of CHE. I take their observations, insights, and recommendations quite seriously. It is my belief that mutual trust exists between CHE members and the IM, and that information shared with me, often in confidence, is maintained in that way.
As noted previously, the district continues to maintain a focused and coordinated level of effort in its attempts to meet CD requirements. Although, at times, interviews with district personnel during school site visits demonstrate varying levels of knowledge about specific CD requirements, such as the implementation of the Language Allocation Guidelines (LAGs) or English Language Development (ELD), or the role and responsibility of Parent Advisory Committees (PACs), awareness of the CD is more integrated district-wide than it had been two years ago, at least from the perspective of the IM.
During the April meeting, all representatives of the parties were apprised by Dr. Darlene LeDoux of her decision to leave her position as Executive Director of the ELA Program and accept another position with DPS as an Instructional Superintendent. Because of Dr. LeDoux's involvement with this case, almost since its inception, her announcement and the response by those attending our meeting was emotional. More importantly, it gave an opportunity for those participating in our meeting to thank her personally, to offer a favorite memory or special recollection, and collectively, to honor her for years of commitment and service. She committed to remain in the position until the district appoints her successor. There is no doubt, however, that her departure will leave a void in the ELA Program and in this case moving forward.
One observation that I made after the April meeting of the parties relates to the form and substance of communication that now frequently occurs between the DOJ and CHE with DPS. More specifically, communication in-person is more frequently of a supportive nature in terms of specific suggestions and recommendations to the district. Although disagreements still occur and frustrations are often expressed, for example, in the case of the longitudinal study being conducted by DPS, there is now a greater air of collegiality among the parties, which I did not find present at the onset. Part of this is due, I believe, to the recognition that DPS is demonstrating some serious effort in meeting CD requirements while acknowledging that substantial work and progress yet need to be made.
A second observation is based on proactive comments made to DPS by the DOJ and CHE during the April meeting and in conference calls after that site visit. CHE and the DOJ have expressed a willingness to meet with DPS and review specific items in the CD at that point when the district believes it has sufficient supporting data to demonstrate they've met a requirement. Creating systems that build capacity to accomplish the substantive requirements of the CD (e.g., proper recruitment, hiring and training of ELA teachers)—which in turn demonstrate that the CD requirements have been met?
1

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 100 Filed 02/28/16 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 15
CONTEXT AND CONTENT
In my 2 site visits to DPS, I made 9 school site visits. During June, we visited schools that were participating in the ELA Summer Academy, several of these were through unique partnerships with Boys and Girls Club and the University of Denver's Center for Multicultural Excellence. The other two summer school programs visited in June were at Swansea and Centennial Elementary. The schools visited in April were:
• Ashley Elementary • Cheltenham Elementary • Florida Pitt-Waller ECE-8 School • Marrama Elementary • Merrill Middle School
During the April school visits we joined CHE members, DOJ representatives, and staff from the BUENO Center at the University of Colorado at Boulder who participated as part of the CHE team. Dr. Nelson and I used the Classroom Teacher Observation Protocol that I've used as a tool during all other previous school visits. During the June school visits, we modified the Protocol to guide our observations because of the nature of the ELA Summer Academy.
Even though we observed multiple classrooms, at many school sites, in April and June, and gained valuable insight into the details of CD implementation at the school level, we find the data insufficient to draw any significant inferences or conclusions regarding district-wide progress toward implementing the CD. This was a consideration in the decision as to how to structure this current report. In addition, there were a number of significant issues that were either not fully addressed or required additional discussion. Six of those issues were cited in my third report and referenced once more in the Advanced Summary. Consequently, I made the decision to organize the remainder of this report around these six issues. All six issues are central to meeting the requirements of the CD and are useful in helping DPS organize many of their efforts in moving forward, particularly the Unified Checklist and Implementation Tracker.
Below are the six issues, listed and discussed separately. Although these six issues were raised in April, during and after the meeting of the parties, we used a part of the June visit to discuss them further with DPS and to hear their thinking and plans for addressing the issues as they move forward. After the discussion on Issue 6, a short summary is provided as well as a series of recommendations for DPS to consider.
ISSUE 1
A preliminary self-assessment by DPS of progress made on all items comprising the CD referenced in Finding and Recommendation 2 (Third IM Report) was not presented. Instead, the District offered a plan for a self-assessment of CD items based on a prioritizing and sequencing of those items that align with the order in which DPS is addressing the actions specified in the CD. That plan, which is referred to as the CD Implementation Tracker, is under development by the District and should prove useful as a means to document the progress that DPS is making toward meeting the CD requirements.
One of my first actions after being appointed as Independent Monitor was to create a tool that I labeled the Consent Decree Checklist. My initial intent in creating the document was to organize all of the requirements of the CD by chapter, in a checklist I could use to document progress. I shared
2

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 100 Filed 02/28/16 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 15
the CD Checklist with all parties and the Court in my first report. The Checklist is lengthy due to the number of requirements, but as a graphic organizer, it has helped me track progress in various ways. During early 2015, I recommended to DPS that they use the CD Checklist or a similar tool and conduct a careful self-assessment of its progress against as many requirements as is possible. Additionally, I offered to facilitate small working sessions of ELA program staff, a suggestion that was shortly thereafter withdrawn after I conferred with Attorney Roger Rice and ELA Director, Dr. Darlene LeDoux. They accurately pointed out that my involvement in any form of facilitation could lead to the impression of a conflict of interest; I agreed.
DPS later made the decision to create its own checklist and organize it in a way that aligned with the district's actions to address the CD requirements. I fully supported that decision since my overriding goal was for the district to create a snapshot, even if incomplete, of their progress to date across requirements of the CD. Due to the importance that I placed on this task, I requested that DPS report to the parties, in April, regarding their progress. In my third report, I identified requirements from the CD and actually used a modified form of the Checklist, reported my impressions of the progress the district had made under each requirement that I had previously identified, and listed the evidence gathered to support my assessment.
Although I was apprised that the self-assessment would be presented to the parties in April, it was not. In fact, the topics related to my request for a presentation on the status of a district selfassessment were allotted 30 minutes on the agenda, on April 30th. In fairness, it should be noted that the agenda for that day consisted of 19 separate items and this dictated the time allotted for discussion of each item. We were informed that the district had created two tools, one called the Unified School Visit Checklist (USVC) and the second tool labeled as the Implementation Tracker. In their presentation to the parties, DPS noted that their USVC provided a common metric for everyone in DPS and viewed it as a standard school review form that all parties, including the IM would use to monitor CD requirements through school- level observations. The Implementation Tracker would become a data collection schedule, thus making it easier for the district to track its progress and create a timeline by CD chapter to collect evidence. Furthermore, ELA staff described the purpose of the Implementation Tracker as "ELA's monitoring and prioritization process for ensuring all CD requirements are implemented across the District with fidelity and sustainability."
After the Denver meeting, both CHE and DOJ expressed concern that the district self-assessment I requested had not been presented. I apprised the district of my disappointment that a selfassessment had not been presented, and most especially since I had informed the ELA Program with sufficient time; it was clearly my expectation that this important task would take place. DPS' position was that rather than devote time and resources to an unfocused data collection effort, it would be better to develop a framework (the Implementation Tracker) that could be agreed on by all parties as an approach to organize the district's data collection efforts. At about this time, I began to make plans to return to Denver in June and informed the ELA Program that I anticipated a presentation from them regarding the status of their USVC and a more concise overview of the Implementation Tracker, with specific timelines for collection of evidence across all ten chapters of the CD.
On June 30th, Dr. Nelson and I met in Denver with ELA program staff, led by newly appointed Director Jorge Robles, and the presentation (or a version of it) that I had requested for the April meeting was made. We examined the prototype of the USVC available at that time with the stated goal that the checklist would be used in school visits beginning September of last year. I was aware that the current version of the USVC had been distributed to the DOJ and CHE for their review and feedback. Jorge Robles apprised us that the ELA Program was close to hiring someone who would be assigned the task of documenting district efforts, beginning with Chapter 7, Special Education, from the CD. Mr. Robles also outlined the Phase 1 Methodology and sequential plans for completing
3

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 100 Filed 02/28/16 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 15
Phases 2-4. DPS closed its presentation by detailing its next steps including an update on their planned documentation efforts during my August or September visit to the district. In my fifth report, which follows and covers the timeframe from July 1 to December 31, 2015, I'll discuss additional progress made by the district around this very important task.
Although DPS has undertaken a significant amount of work on this task and plans to hire someone to assist with collection of documentation, I am somewhat concerned that DPS has not presented more data to document CD implementation. For example, I expected the district to collect and present preliminary data as part of a pilot that would utilize the USVC. Recommendations specific to this issue will follow once all six issues have been discussed.
ISSUE 2
Concerns regarding the lack of appropriate Spanish language and English language development (ELD) materials.
During previous meetings of the parties, conference calls, and through written correspondence, concerns over the lack of quality ELD materials and appropriate Spanish language materials have been expressed to the district by CHE and the DOJ. I have seen that lack of materials first-hand during many of my school site visits and have noted this in previous reports. Those concerns became an agenda item and critical topic of conversation during the April meeting in Denver.
To be more specific, the CD requires that the District provide, wherever available, grade- and subject-appropriate Spanish-language core content materials, comparable to the English-language content materials used in Mainstream English language classrooms, for ELLs who are taught in Spanish in ELA-S and dual language classes. To the extent practicable, the District also shall make such materials available as instructional supports for Spanish-speaking beginning and early intermediate ELLs in ELA-E content classes.
The needs, therefore, are at two levels. There is a need for ELD materials, especially given the district's focus this school year on assuring that each ELL is receiving English language development instruction in every classroom. A major concern, as expressed by CHE, is that many schools either have no ELD materials or have access only to Avenues, an older set of ELD materials produced by National Geographic Learning for pre-k through grade 5. Apparently, many schools no longer have the materials to implement Avenues. DPS is partially responding to this concern by piloting a new program called E.L. Achieve in 8 schools. E.L. Achieve provides materials and support that focus on providing explicit instruction in advanced uses of English to facilitate more complex thinking. E.L. Achieve tries to accomplish this through two initiatives: Systemic ELD and Constructing Meaning. The fact that this pilot is occurring in only 8 DPS schools suggests that, until the results of the pilot are known and new materials have been distributed district-wide, far too many teachers at the other DPS schools are currently using older curricular materials or limited materials at best.
The second level of need which is concerning is the lack of Spanish language materials in ELA-S classrooms. My observations in numerous schools show a mixed bag of Spanish language materials. Some classrooms have adequate Spanish materials, others have fewer materials, and in some classrooms, I have seen a very limited number of materials in Spanish. It appears that some Spanish literacy programs are being considered and piloted within DPS. The Curriculum and Instruction Department has indicated previously that a Spanish literacy adoption will occur this year, however, that is a commitment that was made beginning in 2013.
This issue regarding a lack of quality ELD and Spanish language materials is concerning to me. The lack of quality materials raises the issue as to whether effective ELD and/or Spanish language
4

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 100 Filed 02/28/16 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 15
instruction is taking place. It is important to acknowledge that the lack of quality ELD and Spanish language materials is a nationwide concern. My recommendation at the end of the Issues sections will focus on the need for greater district action in order to address this problem.
ISSUE 3
Questions as to whether CD provisions regarding ISA team monitoring of students whose parents opted for no services is taking place in meaningful way.
This third issue is tied to several requirements from Chapter 3 of the CD dealing with parent communication, student screening, provisional placement, and assessments for eligible students who decline services. The nature of the questions raised by the DOJ and CHE relate to monitoring the progress of students who decline services (PPF3s) and ultimately, if parents are ever apprised of the results of that monitoring and provided with the opportunity to change the student's placement.
The CD requires that schools in DPS monitor twice a year, both the English language proficiency and academic progress of PPF3 students, essentially those who declined services. Furthermore, if students are struggling academically, DPS is required to inform the parents that they have the opportunity to have their students placed in the ELA program. Per the CD, ISA Teams are required to use a standard form for monitoring PPF3 students, and DPS is supposed to provide to them a list of PPF3s, along with ELP and content assessment data for each student.
Based on site visits to schools in Denver and interviews with CHE, DOJ, and the IM with ISA Team members, it was determined that monitoring, as identified in the CD, was not occurring twice a year and no instrument for the purpose of doing that monitoring existed. Additionally, ISA Team members noted during interviews that they weren't receiving lists of PPF3s from the ELA Department on a regular basis. Ultimately, the district corrected this problem when CHE and the DOJ brought it to their attention, and evidence of the generation of the lists of PPF3s was documented.
What is at issue presently, however, is the nature of the monitoring that currently exists and the lack of a standard for judging student performance. A review of data presented by DPS in its July reports shows that many PPF3 students at the secondary level are not proficient in English in reading and writing. However, based on the ISA team monitoring that took place, students were determined to be doing "well enough." Further, ISA teams reported that they based their determination of students doing well enough on conversations with classroom teachers of the PPF3 students rather than on objective assessments used by DPS. According to CHE and the DOJ, some schools that were visited appeared not to be aware of, or were not acting upon, the CD definition that former ELLs should be able to perform to the standards of statewide, never ELL students. An accurate determination regarding performance of PPF3 students as compared to never ELs depends on the use of valid and reliable assessments as the basis for the comparison, and should not be based on subjective judgment.
A review of several DPS reports suggests that very few PPF3s re-enter the ELA program, and those same students lag behind other students in terms of graduation rates. Requirement B, from Chapter 3, of the CD, notes that ISA team members should confer with PPF3 students' teachers periodically, and if one or more of those teachers recommend that a student be enrolled in the ELA Program, that information should be communicated in person to the parents of the student. While DPS reports that this currently occurring. There is no evidence that this was occurring during the
5

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 100 Filed 02/28/16 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 15
timeframe covered by this report. There is also a lack of documentation of discussions with and decisions by parents.
Attorney Roger Rice informed me that to the district's credit, Susana Cordova and Darlene LeDoux "made a major push a number of years ago to reduce the number of new PPF3s" through provision by DPS of effective ELA instruction. The concerns that frame this issue, however, bring into question the status of potentially thousands of legacy PPF3s. In short, have those students succeeded academically, mastered content, and gained proficiency or are these students failing and moving closer to becoming long term and permanent ELLs, at risk of dropping out with longer-term consequences into adulthood?
ISSUE 4
Questions were also raised about how ISA teams weigh conflicting data in a student's file.
During all of the school visits that I have made to Denver, I have interviewed ISA team members. In all of the meetings of the parties that I have participated in previously, ISA team members have also been interviewed. As a matter of practice, I will typically ask ISA teams to provide me with their records and a sample of student files during our interviews. In the case of the meetings of the parties, both CHE and the DOJ review ISA team files in a more comprehensive manner prior to the interviews with team members, a practice that is usually quite thorough.
The Colorado Department of Education (CDE) has issued guidance on redesignation and exit for ELLs during the 2015-2016 school year. DPS follows this guidance and continues its practice of compiling for each student a body of evidence to confirm proficiency in English and grade level reading, writing, and other content area proficiencies. It is precisely those bodies of evidence that are reviewed by the IM, CHE and DOJ, as noted above. The CDE Guidance specifies: "a body of evidence should represent local data that is used to define academic growth and grade level proficiency as well as the student's linguistic growth and English language proficiency."
In DPS, it is the primary responsibility of the ISA teams at each school to compile the body of evidence for students. Further, as outlined in Chapter 2 of the CD, the ISA team makes recommendations to the ELA Program based on that body of evidence, "regarding Program entry, redesignation, exit or reentry, and changes in services. " What is at issue here however, is how ISA teams weigh conflicting data in some student files that have been reviewed.
One example that I have frequently seen is the case where a student file is reviewed and the corresponding body of evidence confirms that the student scored a 5 overall (i.e. proficient) on the ACCESS, which is the state's mandated English language proficiency assessment. However, further review of additional assessment data, in the body of evidence for that student, might show scores that demonstrate lower than grade level proficiency in reading or writing. When ISA team members are interviewed and asked how that student was recommended for redesignation from the program, inconsistencies in responses are often evident. Some ISA teams have suggested that more weight was given to ACCESS scores in each language domain, or writing samples from student journals, or perhaps observation protocols. This variance in responses suggests a need to develop clear criteria and guidance on the weight that specific data in a body of evidence should carry. These criteria and guidance should then be explicitly stated in writing, communicated to all ISA team members, and incorporated into the training that the ELA Department provides every school year.
6

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 100 Filed 02/28/16 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 15
ISSUE 5
Announcement by DPS that it was implementing "Engage/New York" as the Common Core aligned curriculum for grades 4-6. At present, there is no comparable Spanish curriculum.
From the outset of my involvement in this case, issues regarding curricular materials aligned to the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) have been discussed in different forums. During the April meeting of the parties, rather heated discussion took place regarding the lack of a Spanish curriculum that is aligned to the CCSS. In numerous conversations and meetings with DPS staff over time, the district has maintained the position that after a substantive review of textbooks and other resource materials aligned to the common core for ELLs, none of the materials were of high enough quality to justify the millions of dollars that it would cost to adopt and purchase them. The lack of a comparable Spanish curriculum has frustrated teachers, principals, and DPS central office staff as well as representatives of the parties.
What brought this issue to the forefront in April was the announcement by DPS that it was implementing a grades 4-8 language arts curriculum called Engage/New York. The concerns expressed primarily by members of CHE were twofold. First, Engage/New York is an English only curriculum. Second, DPS apprised the parties that teachers were going to be asked to develop their own lessons in Spanish for this curriculum. Engage/New York has book sets that accompany each module that comprises the curriculum; however, they are available only in English. Many teachers of ELL students have strongly opposed the adoption of Engage/New York as being unsuited to the needs of ELL students. To address this issue, the district announced it planned to conduct a weeklong professional development session in July on Engage/New York with training for paired literacy modules in Spanish.
Subsequent to the discussions that took place during the April meeting, DPS contacted the BUENO Center at the University of Colorado and asked them to retrofit the Engage/New York curriculum into Spanish in five days. Completing the task was a near impossibility and the BUENO Center was able to complete one module for fourth grade and one for fifth grade in a week. It should be noted that there are six modules for each grade level. DPS undertook the development of additional modules based on the models developed by the BUENO Center.
The BUENO Center was able to identify texts in Spanish that were readily available and recommended that DPS purchase them. After my September visit to the district, I learned that DPS held a half-day professional development session focused on Spanish language materials during July, suggesting to me that this is not nearly enough time for teachers to acquire the type and level of PD they need. Also during my September visit, personnel informed me at several schools I visited that they had not yet received any of the Spanish materials they had ordered. I don't have a clear idea of how many actual Spanish books were purchased, but this issue of no comparable Spanish curriculum is a significant curricular and instruction concern and a major equity issue and therefore, at this time there are open questions about DPS’s implementation of provisions of the CD that relate to Program materials.
7

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 100 Filed 02/28/16 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 15
ISSUE 6
Concerns regarding key features (or lack of) in the Longitudinal Study including: students in grades K-2 are not included in the study, key features such as extent of teacher training, fidelity to CD program requirements, and eventual student success are not examined due in part to data limitations (i.e. some historical data are not available)
Chapter 9 of the Consent Decree, which addresses Accountability, directs the District to conduct a longitudinal study of a cohort of ELLs to assess whether they are “overcoming language barriers within a reasonable period of time and participating meaningfully and equally in educational programs when exited from Program services” (Part D). Part E of Chapter 9 directs that the District “shall use the results of current and future longitudinal studies to inform Program decisions and improve Program effectiveness.” DPS completed its first longitudinal study at the end of the 20112012 school year and, based on feedback received from CHE and DOJ is redesigning a second longitudinal study required by the CD.
In the April 2015 meeting, DPS gave a PowerPoint presentation overviewing this second longitudinal study. DPS proposed a study that asked two primary research questions: 1. How do students progress over time and What are the characteristics of students who are consistently onor off-track? (What program factors contribute to and hinder this development?); and 2. How do redesignated or exited ELs compare with their non-EL peers on measures of student engagement, and What are the characteristics of EL students, and program factors, for those who exceed and fall below typical areas of engagement?
To answer Question 1, DPS proposed tracking three cohorts (3rd through 5th grade, 6th through 8th grade, and 9th through 11th grade) of non-exited ELs over a three-year study period (2012-2013, 2013-2014, and 2014-2015). To answer Question 2, DPS proposed focusing on cohorts of exited ELs and non-ELs from the same three grade level ranges (3rd – 5th, 6th-8th, 9th-11th) over the threeyear study period. Subsequent to the April meeting, CHE and DOJ provided feedback on the proposed longitudinal study. CHE suggested several modifications to the study: 1. Consider adding grades K through 3, since approximately one-half of DPS ELs are in those grade levels; 2. The study should include, minimally, metrics based on levels of teacher qualifications - Fully Qualified, On Track Year One, On Track Year Two and Not on Track – and should compare the performance of students of Fully Qualified teachers who have taught for at least five years versus those who have taught for fewer years; 3. Include an analysis based on ELA qualifications and experience of school principals; 4. Include a measure of adherence to the language allocation guidelines; 5. Add graduation and dropout rate to measures of student engagement; 6. Clarify the use of the terms “non-ELL” and “never-ELL” – making the point that State and District “never-ELL” students should serve as the comparison group; 7. Examine exited EL performance beyond a three-year timeframe as previous DPS data suggested a decline in exited EL performance after two or three years; and 8. Clarify what is meant by a reference in the proposed study to language no longer being a “major barrier” to academic achievement – pointing out that no agreement had been reached among the parties regarding use of the concept of “major barrier.”
DOJ provided feedback that centered on three primary issues: 1. The scope of the study. Essentially, DOJ questioned whether three years was a long enough period of time to adequately judge the performance of exited EL students and EL students being monitored for staying on-track according to their ACCESS scores; 2. EL cohorts. Echoing the CHE feedback, DOJ questioned the failure to include EL students in grades k through 2 in the study, and also questioned the exclusion of 12th grade students. Additional issues raised included how to track students in and out of cohorts (e.g., retention, withdrawal, redesignation), and definitions of “dropout” and “non-ELL” versus
8

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 100 Filed 02/28/16 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 15
“never-ELL;” 3. Data Collection. DOJ recommended including data on language instruction, dosage of language, teacher experience and training, and special education status. DOJ also asked how the longitudinal study would account for program implementation, whether the program adheres to language allocation guidelines and provides Spanish language materials, whether teacher qualifications affect student performance, and whether EL performance could be tracked on specialized testing and milestones such as the 8th grade Accelerated Opportunities exams, or 9th grade Algebra and Geometry enrollment.
DPS addressed the feedback in a September 2015 document in which the District identified 18 longitudinal study elements that the District either modified in response to the feedback or felt they had already addressed but needed to clarify. DPS agreed to: 1. extend the study timeframe to a sixyear period, and to include students in grades k through 2; 2. use comparative analyses only on groups with adequate sample sizes; 3. examine transitions (elementary to middle school, middle school to high school); 4. Include information on teacher and principal qualifications and their experience; 5. add graduation and dropout metrics for cohorts, where those data are available; and 6. to the extent possible, include information on implementation. DPS also included clarification of how it plans to monitor student “movement” throughout the study’s duration (including redesignation), that they meant “never-ELL” in referring to “non-ELL” in the description of the comparison group, and that they had misused the term “major” in reference to the issue raised by CHE regarding barriers to academic achievement.
In that same document, DPS identified issues raised by CHE and DOJ that the District indicated could not be added to the longitudinal study: 1. Standardization and determination of equivalency across different assessments used during the study’s timeframe (e.g., ACCESS/CELA); and 2. Fidelity of implementation other than broad measures like the use of ELD block scheduling.
The IM’s expectation is that DPS will carry out and report the results of a longitudinal study that incorporates the feedback provided by CHE and DOJ.
SUMMARY
This report is organized around six key issues that were prominent in the dialogue among the parties during the reporting timeframe. Originally, it was anticipated that this report would include a quantitative summary of DPS progress toward CD implementation based on the checklist I originally proposed. However, the DPS proposal for the use of the Implementation Tracker that reflects the sequence of CD implementation makes sense and provides a blueprint for moving forward with the spot audits of CD implementation in future reports.
This report reflects the dialogue among the parties regarding these six issues identified during the April 2015 meeting of the parties in Denver. Five of the issues are directly linked to chapters and therefore requirements, of the CD. The issue concerning the district self-assessment is intended to serve as a means of helping create a baseline of data that could then be reviewed and audited in a more quantifiable manner. It is important to note that none of the six issues are being disregarded by DPS. They have all been addressed at varying levels or continue to be addressed as part of the district's response to meeting the requirements of the CD.
Following is a series of recommendations related directly to the discussion of the six issues presented. Some of the recommendations are already works-in-progress, either prior to this report or during the reporting period that ended in December of 2015. The recommendations serve as a reminder to the district to perhaps give greater attention to certain processes, look for new
9

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 100 Filed 02/28/16 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 15
collective ways to address an ongoing issue, or make necessary mid-course corrections to provide greater focus or clarity on respective items in the CD.
The fifth IM report for the period covering July 1-December 31, 2015, is currently underway. If there is progress made on any of the six items addressed in this document, it will be reported. My plan is to submit the fifth report by early March 2016, which, at that time, will reflect three weeklong site visits to Denver, including the November 2015 meeting of the parties. At that meeting DPS announced that it was not going to move for dismissal in the spring of 2016. Additionally, the fifth report will include information about a pilot test of the spot audit plan conducted by the IM and Dr. Nelson using actual special education documents at two schools, without giving the district or any of the parties any notice. This pilot test went well, and based on that, we plan to pursue our spot audits using the CD and DPS's Implementation Tracker as organizing frameworks to sequence our efforts and to identify observable indicators of CD implementation.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. DPS should convene a small working group of staff and develop a series of questions that yield the type of information requested by items in the Unified School Visit Checklist (USVC). For example, the USVC identifies the CD requirement regarding monitoring of PPF3 students. What question/s could be developed to ascertain if this is occurring, and further, if communication with parents is taking place? By creating uniformity in the questions to be asked, it will be easier to aggregate data, leave less room for multiple interpretations, and help DPS and others determine whether the respective requirements of the CD are being met.
2. The district, perhaps in coordination with its ELA Partners, should create an inventory that clearly identifies whether program schools have sufficient ELD materials and the schools where materials are lacking. This lack of materials is a systemic issue and it needs to be addressed as soon as possible.
3. DPS should develop a form for use by ISA teams that requires, and provides for, the entry of PPF3 monitoring data twice a year as required by the CD.
4 DPS should develop guidelines for ISA teams to follow when faced with contradictory assessment evidence regarding redesignation decisions. As noted in the discussion of Issue 4 above, when one piece of evidence indicates adequate English proficiency for redesignation, yet other evidence indicates the need for continuing ELA support, it would be helpful for ISA teams to have additional guidance in weighing evidence from the different assessments so that the parties have confidence that there is some uniformity across school sites in making this important decision. The expectation should be that a student deemed eligible (or not eligible) for redesignation by an ISA team at one school site would be evaluated in the same manner at another school site. This is an issue of the reliability of redesignation decisions across school sites.
5. Based on recommendations made by the BUENO Center regarding available Spanish language texts and materials, the district should compile a short report that very clearly delineates the schools who have ordered Spanish materials, whether they have received them, and if they have not yet received them, the reasons why and anticipated date for correcting this.
6. DPS has acknowledged and attempted to address, in its September 2015 response, the longitudinal study concerns raised by CHE and DOJ. It is recommended that DPS incorporate into
10

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 100 Filed 02/28/16 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 15 the study design as many of the suggestions and concerns of the parties as possible, as the District moves forward with the study.
11

 
 Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 147
INDEPENDENT MONITOR REPORT
CONGRESS OF HISPANIC EDUCATORS ET AL., PETITIONERS, V. SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, DENVER, COLORADO
Submitted to
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE RICHARD MATSCH & ALL FORMAL PARTIES TO THE CASE
Hon. Richard P. Matsch Byron White Courthouse 1823 Stout Street, Courtroom A
Denver, CO 80294 (303) 844-4627
MAY 10, 2018
Submitted by
DR. PAUL E. MARTINEZ COURT APPOINTED INDEPENDENT MONITOR
PO BOX 4036 FAIRVIEW, NM 87533
505-852-4652 DPSCOURTMONITOR@OUTLOOK.COM

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 147
CONTENTS ADVANCE SUMMARY..................................................................................................................ii INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................1 CHAPTER 7 (SPED & 504 Plans)...........................................................................................10 CHAPTER 3 (Parent Communication, Student Screening & Provisional
Placement, Student Monitoring).....................................................................................18 CHAPTER 2 (ISA Teams).........................................................................................................45 CHAPTER 8 (Charter Schools)...............................................................................................59 CHAPTER 6 (Parental Oversight).........................................................................................83 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................................................107 REFERENCES.............................................................................................................................117 APPENDICES.............................................................................................................................118
i

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 147
ADVANCE SUMMARY
This is my sixth report as Independent Monitor (IM) in the case Congress of Hispanic Educators et al., Petitioners, v. School District No. 1, Denver, Colorado. In early 2017, I sought the approval of the parties to complete a longer more comprehensive report that would cover the period from January 1, 2016 -- February 28, 2017. The DOJ, CHE, and DPS approved my request at the most recent meeting of the parties held in Denver during April 2017.
In the previous Fifth Report submitted to the Court, I referenced the fact that beginning in late 2015, the focus of future site visits to Denver changed. In October 2015, the Independent Monitor, with the assistance of Dr. Chris Nelson, began preparing targeted spot audits of select chapters of the Consent Decree in alignment with a tool used by DPS called the Implementation Tracker. In Report 5, we provided a rationale for and a description of the spot-audit process, along with the preliminary findings of a pilot test of a spot audit we conducted of Chapter 7 of the CD. That pilot test, which was conducted at Bryant Webster Dual Language School and DCIS Montbello High School, formed the basis for our first actual onsite spot-audit in 2016.
During the 14 months covered by this report, I made seven site visits to Denver and Dr. Nelson joined me for six of them. Our goal for 2016 was to complete spot -audits of five of the ten CD chapters. We conducted all five audits, completing four of them and partially completing the fifth. The first site visit to Denver was in March at which time we engaged in our first spot-audit of CD Chapter 7: Considerations Related to Special Education and Section 504 Services for English Language Learners, focusing on sections A through G of the chapter. Completion of the spot-audit for Chapter 7 will take place in 2018 and we
ii

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 147
comment further on this in the Chapter 7 section of this report. The four additional chapters we audited in 2016 and early 2017 included;
• Chapter 3: Parent Communication, Student Screening and Provisional Placement, Assessments for Eligibility and, Monitoring of Students Who Decline Services
• Chapter 2: Instructional Services Advisory Team • Chapter 8: Charter Schools • Chapter 6: Parental Oversight As I've done previously, I coordinated all seven site visits to Denver with staff at the ELA Department including Director Jorge Robles. We apprised CHE and the DOJ of both the dates of our visit and the focus of our spot-audits. We also invited members of CHE to join us at school sites and district meetings during our site visits. That same invitation was extended to the DOJ. At varying times during the site visits, we were joined by members of CHE, representatives from the BUENO Center for Multicultural Education at the University of Colorado and, on one occasion, by DOJ consultant Dr. Claude Goldenberg. Their participation was valuable and their feedback was informative and useful. Prior to each spot audit, we chose a representative sample of schools. The process involved reviewing a spreadsheet that listed all schools visited previously. We then examined the most recent ELA Program Report that corresponded to the planned date of our site visit. For example, for our March 2016 site visit, we reviewed data from Section 9.V.A.2 from the January 15, 2016 Report submitted by DPS to the parties. Next, we identified schools that we had not visited previously, and it was from that list that we selected schools for the upcoming visit. Based on data in the corresponding ELA Program Reports, we then identified a sample of schools that represented various grade levels and ELA Designations such as TNLI, ELA-E, ELA-S, Qualified Spanish Resource Teacher, etc.
iii

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 147
Since we typically visited 5-8 schools during a site visit, we tried to select a high school and middle school as part of the representative sample, with the remaining schools being elementary schools. On a few occasions, we identified a K-8 school to visit in place of a middle school for the purpose of visiting and examining how those schools implemented their ELA Program.
Once we identified our representative sample of schools, we submitted the list to the ELA Program and requested that they schedule our forthcoming site visit. Once that scheduling was done, it was provided to us. We in turn shared that with CHE members in Denver and invited them to join us for any or all of the site visits. Depending on the focus of the spot audit, we identified for DPS the persons at the school site we wished to meet with. When we spot audited Chapter 7, we requested to meet with Special Education teachers or resource persons who could provide us with access to IEPs at the school sites. Additionally, we scheduled a meeting with John Simmons, Executive Director for Student Services as well as his central office staff responsible for coordinating the district's Special Education and 504 Program Offices. When we conducted a spot audit of Chapter 6, in addition to meeting and interviewing parents, I met with Acting Director of the Family and Community Engagement Office, Antonio Esquibel, and Landon Mascarenaz, who was in charge of strategy development for that office. At every school site we visited, we were joined by the ELA Network Partner/s to whom that school was assigned. The Network Partners were an excellent resource in support of our spot-audit efforts and often provided access to student data that we were not easily able to secure.
In the first draft of this report submitted to the parties, CHE and the DOJ asked how we identified the schools we visited for each of the five chapters we spot audited. The
iv

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 147
process above is the one we used for each of our site visits with some minor variations. For example, some schools we visited twice but for the majority of site visits, we tried to identify schools that we had not visited previously. We tried to visit at least one middle and one high school during each site visit but at least on one occasion, we didn't visit a middle or K-8 school. Our objective in sampling the schools in this manner was to choose an unbiased (we chose the schools, not DPS) and representative (of program type and school level) sample.
Prior to conducting the five spot audits, we prepared a spot-audit checklist for each respective CD chapter. Each checklist consisted of a representative sample of CD requirements taken from the chapter we were spot-auditing. For the sake of consistency, we asked the same questions of assembled staff or the principal at each identified school site. In addition, at every single school site visited during 2016, we conducted a document review as part of our data gathering effort, seeking the same type of information at each school. Typically, we asked for rosters of ELL students at the school and then systematically selected a targeted number of students for the purpose of reviewing data in their files. Systematic sampling is considered as good as random sampling for the purpose of selecting an unbiased sample, and involves selecting every “nth” student from a complete list of the ELL students whose records we were examining. If a sample of 10 ELL students was desired and there were 60 total ELL students at a school, we selected every sixth student from that list. As an example, at the six school sites where we conducted the spot audit of Chapter 7, we requested Individual Education Plans (IEPs) for a systematically identified group of ELL students. When we conducted the spot audit of Chapter 2, we actually sat in on ISA Team meetings at school sites and observed the process that the
v

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 147
school undertakes in making redesignation decisions. In addition, we interviewed ISA Team members and asked a series of questions related to CD requirements from that chapter. At the school sites that we selected as part of the Chapter 6 spot audit, we reviewed required records and documents and also attended ELA PAC meetings as part of our data gathering.
This sixth report is organized differently from all other previous reports. Following the Introduction, we discuss our findings for each of the five CD chapters we audited and that were listed previously in this section. For each of these five sections, we provide a short narrative which describes the schools we visited, the process we undertook for gathering data, and whom we met with at each site. We then provide a summary of the data collected based on our spot audit checklist for each chapter. Finally, we provide summary results of the document review conducted at the schools visited. We follow this same process for each of the five chapters.
After our findings are discussed for each of the five CD chapters audited, we include a section that provides a Summary of Progress and then a section that offers a series of Recommendations based on our findings. Ultimately, the goal is to present quantitative and qualitative findings based on data that we collected using a process that is consistent for each of the five chapters audited.
vi

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 147
INTRODUCTION
This sixth report to the Court is markedly different from the previous five reports. Previously, it has been a challenge to collect information and gather evidence that quantifies whether DPS is meeting the requirements of the Consent Decree. Although there has been a consistent attempt in each report prior to this one to assess the progress that DPS is making, those attempts focused on some of the main provisions of the CD and concerns of the plaintiffs regarding CD implementation (e.g., availability of high quality Spanish language materials); however, they did not provide the more comprehensive picture of CD implementation across all 10 chapters needed to enable a more thorough monitoring of, and judgement regarding, “CD implementation.” It was the frustration that resulted from previous efforts that led me to seek an alternative approach. Credit goes to my collaborator, Dr. Chris Nelson, for recommending that we consider a mixed methods program evaluation and research approach (e.g., Mertens, 2015; Zohrabi, 2013) to guide our efforts moving forward. Since the role of the IM is to collect information on DPS’s implementation of the CD, we felt methods used in the field of educational program evaluation to document program implementation would be an appropriate approach to take.
A mixed methods approach involves the collection of both quantitative and qualitative data to answer program evaluation or research questions, and our data sources consisted of direct observation, interviews, and document review. Our data collection and analysis was designed to determine the degree of CD implementation for the five chapters we examined by documenting whether “representative indicators” of CD implementation for each chapter were in evidence at the school sites, in individual student records on the
1

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 147
Infinite Campus (the District’s electronic data management system), or at the Central Office. In the results sections of this report, we detail the number and/or percent of school sites, student records, documents, interview responses, or directly-observed activities, tied to the representative indicators for each CD chapter, that reflected what we would expect to see if the CD was being implemented as intended.
The mixed methods program evaluation approach we used to document CD implementation is based on early writings from the Center for the Study of Evaluation at UCLA (e.g., Morris & Fitz-Gibbon, 1978); the reviews of traditional program evaluation approaches in Worthen and Sanders (1987) and later in Fitzpatrick, Sanders, and Worthen (2011); and the “pragmatic” school of thought regarding educational program evaluation and research (Mertens, 2015). Zohrabi (2013) states the philosophy that guides the use of mixed methods: "It is believed that using different types of procedures for collecting data and obtaining that information through different sources (learners, teachers, program staff, etc.) can augment the validity and reliability of the data and their interpretation.”
For each of the five CD chapters discussed in the following sections, we prepared a spot-audit checklist/interview form based on representative indicators (i.e., a representative sample) of CD requirements. In developing each checklist, we operationally defined a representative indicator as a piece of information or the occurrence of an activity we should be able to document in a review of documents, through interviews with DPS staff or parents, or witness through direct observation if the CD was being implemented as intended. In each of the following chapters, we specify the CD chapter section on which each representative indicator is based.
2

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 147
Our use of “spot audits” is based on the need to draw representative samples of data to document CD implementation given the scope of the CD, the number of schools and staff in DPS, and the volume of documents generated by the district reflective of CD implementation. Sampling is commonly used, of course, in both quantitative and qualitative social science research, and research guidelines exist for the various approaches used to draw samples and for recommended sample sizes (e.g., Mertens, 2015). In an implementation-focused program evaluation of a large complex system such as DPS, and with two individuals (the IM and Dr. Nelson) collecting data, we used a combination of a purposive sampling approach (e.g., Fitzpatrick, Sanders, & Worthen, 2011) and a systematic sampling approach to choose schools in which we collected in-depth data during half-day visits (typically) at school sites we had selected.
In selecting school sites to visit, we purposely chose to visit several elementary (the largest stratum in the population of DPS schools), at least one middle school, and at least one high school for each visit. Within those three school levels, we sampled schools “without replacement,” meaning that, for each trip to DPS to collect data, we sampled from a list of schools we had not yet visited. Even so, we have visited several schools more than once. In our sampling, we also tried to reflect the District’s ELA Designations such as TNLI, ELA-E, ELA-S, or Qualified Spanish Resource Teacher. Fitzpatrick, Sanders, and Worthen (2011) make the following point pertinent to the approach we used: “Purposive samples often require extensive data collection . . . Thus data collection with purposive samples can be costly. If so, the number selected may be small” (p. 410). As stated earlier in this report, our objective in sampling the schools in this manner was to choose an unbiased (we chose the schools, not DPS) and representative (of program type and school level) sample.
3

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 147
With a more clear program evaluation and research methodology driving our work, we initiated our effort by conducting an unannounced spot-audit pilot test of CD Chapter 7 at two DPS schools in November of 2015 (described in our fifth report). We were less concerned in the pilot test with what the spot audit yielded in terms of data and more concerned with the viability of the process we used to gather information. From that initial pilot test, we determined that an audit checklist that clearly aligned with a representative sample of the CD requirements in Chapter 7 would work as the basis for collecting data tied to details of that particular CD chapter. Further, we identified who the essential staff at each school were that we needed to interview and what data sources we would need to review. We also determined that it was appropriate to debrief with the school principal and other school staff as well as district personnel regarding the results of the spot audit, and then to assess, based on the spot audit findings, whether follow-up visits to those schools or other schools were necessary.
The identification of the CD chapters to spot audit during 2016 and early 2017 was based on the sequence in which the district indicated CD implementation had been and would be proceeding. This sequence is described in the district’s Implementation Tracker, which the district created to provide an overview of its CD implementation actions.
We made the decision to conduct our first spot audit of Chapter 7 of the CD in March of 2016. We then planned spot audits of Chapters 3, 2, 8, and 6 during the remainder of 2016 and into early 2017. Our plan has been to conduct spot audits of the remaining five CD chapters during 2017 and part of 2018, and compile those findings into a report similar to this one (Report Seven, which we plan to submit in June 2018).
4

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 147
As noted earlier, I made seven site visits to Denver during 2016 and early 2017. Dr. Nelson joined me for six of these visits. I continued the practice of coordinating my schedule during those weeks that we were in Denver with ELA Program staff. In addition, CHE members were provided with advance notice of our planned site visits and invited to join us at school sites and district meetings. Their presence and participation at numerous school site visits was an asset to our spot audit process. Moreover, it gave CHE members an opportunity to see and hear first-hand what the district is doing in terms of implementing the requirements of the CD. Numerous teachers, principals, ELA Network Partners and other district staff commented to me that they were pleased to meet CHE members and appreciated their comments during school site visits.
Appreciation is once more extended to the ELA Program staff. In addition to coordinating and helping arrange our site visits to nearly 40 school sites during 2106 and early 2107, they also facilitated district meetings, secured translators for several parent meetings I facilitated, coordinated my participation with the officers of the DAC Board at one of their scheduled meetings, and assisted us in accessing data that was essential to our evidence gathering. Additionally, they provided online training for Dr. Nelson and me in real time on tools like the ELL List, which is found at every school. The ELL List is used for monitoring purposes and it identifies current ELs by school, PPF, and classroom/course to ensure that students are appropriately placed (Service Percentage). The report compares student information with teacher and classroom/course information. The ELA Network Partners continue to be an enormous asset to the district and the ELA Program and they are now a presence at every school site visit we make.
5

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 147
During the period covered by this report, we collected a substantial amount of information. It has taken a significant amount of time and effort to analyze and report these data. What follows is a CD chapter by chapter analysis of our data collection for the five CD chapters we focused on in 2016 and early 2017. The discussion of each chapter begins with a short introduction followed by a description of our data collection methods (items on the spot audit checklist, interview questions, descriptions of individuals interviewed, documents reviewed, and activities observed). The results of the spot audits and additional information collected for the chapter are then summarized in tables both quantitatively and qualitatively as appropriate. A short narrative accompanies the data summarized in the tables.
What standards might be applied in judging the veracity of this report? Guidance can be found in The Program Evaluation Standards: A Guide for Evaluators and Evaluation Users (Yarbrough, Shulha, Hopson, & Caruthers as cited in Mertens, 2015). The Standards specify five attributes that can be used to judge an effort such as we have undertaken with this report: 1. Utility – the credibility of the evaluators and the usefulness and appropriateness of the evaluation; 2. Feasibility – the extent to which the evaluation can be successfully carried out in a particular setting; 3. Propriety – whether the evaluation is humane, ethical, moral, proper, legal and professional; 4. Accuracy – whether evaluation results are valid, reliable and trustworthy; and 5. Evaluation Accountability – the extent to which the quality of the evaluation is assured and controlled.
Our intent has been to carry out the responsibilities of the IM in line with these standards. Both the IM and Dr. Nelson have a long history in bilingual education and program evaluation in the public schools, and have been involved over many years with
6

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 147
bilingual education program evaluation issues and the education of ELs (e.g., Nelson, Navarrete, & Martinez, 1997). Credibility in mixed methods research further depends, in part, on whether the researchers have spent prolonged and persistent engagement in the setting, have triangulated findings across multiple sources of data, and have involved stakeholders in the construction of the narrative that summarizes and interprets the results of the data collection efforts (Mertens, 2015).
Over the past four and one-half years, we have made regular visits to schools in DPS, visiting for one-week of data collection nearly every month of the school year. We have collected data from multiple sources at multiple school sites as well as at the DPS Central Office. Our interpretations of those data reflect what we have seen consistently across data sources and sites. We have also participated in conference calls among the parties, attended in-person meetings among the parties and, on several occasions, participated in video conferences with DPS staff. In the preparation of this current report and our previous reports, we have sought the feedback of all the parties on a draft report before we submit a final version, and we have tried to reflect their perspectives in our preparation of the final report.
Our efforts have been guided by the content of the CD, and the data collection instruments we have developed and used at multiple sites are based on the CD requirements. Consequently, we believe that the inferences we draw based on the data we have collected are valid (i.e. our inferences regarding level of CD implementation are accurate) and reliable (we have looked for consistency and triangulation in our findings across sites and data sources). Given our resources, we have collected data from as many sites and from as many sources as has been feasible. While our sample sizes are small
7

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 147
compared to the overall number of ELLs in the District, we engaged in intensive data collection at each school site. Hence, the generalizability of our findings to the District overall and to the CD overall is grounded in the qualitative perspective of generalizability referred to as transferability (Mertens, 2015) - the extent to which stakeholders’ experience aligns with our observations and conclusions, and which depends on “thick description” (i.e., detailed description of multiple cases) - rather than the quantitative perspective of generalizability (external validity), which depends in part on the proportion of a population that a sample size represents. By soliciting the feedback of the parties on a draft of this report prior to preparation of the final version, we have sought to take into account the perspectives of the parties in reporting our findings. We acknowledge that the parties may have different perspectives on CD implementation of the requirements laid out in these five chapters than our own.
Dr. Nelson and I have already completed our 2017 site visits and will make two additional visits in February and March of 2018 to complete the spot audits of the final five chapters as well as the remaining sections of Chapter 7. We are following a very similar process for collecting data on the remaining chapters. We will then complete an additional report (Report 7) similar to this one that will provide the results of the data we gather for those CD chapters.
Finally, I also want to apprise the Court that I have informed all of the parties of my intention to discontinue my appointment as Independent Court Monitor effective June 30, 2018. At that time, I will have completed five years in this role. I will have visited close to 140 schools in DPS and made over 35 site visits to the district. The progress that the DPS has made in meeting so many of the requirements of the CD during my tenure as Court
8

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 16 of 147 Monitor is notable. It has been professionally and personally gratifying to have played a part in this work. It continues to be a pleasure to serve the Court in this case.
9

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 17 of 147
Chapter 7: Considerations Related to Special Education and Section 504 Services for English Language Learners.
Method Chapter 7 of the CD specifies seven types (Sections A through G) of IEP and 504 content or related actions that the district must address in the IEPs and 504 plans developed and implemented for English learners. Several of these seven sections further specify additional IEP and 504 requirements. Sections H through M of Chapter 7 deal with parent communication and translation services, and section N addresses teacher training. Our spot audit of Chapter 7 focused on Sections A through G, with our intent being to spot audit the remaining sections of Chapter 7 for Report 7. In March 2016 we conducted spot audits of Chapter 7 requirements A through G at five schools: • Knapp Elementary • Place Bridge Academy • Ashley Elementary • Samuels Elementary, and • South High School The process we used for selecting schools is similar to the process outlined earlier this report. More specifically, we went to the January 15, 2016 report submitted by DPS to the parties. In Section 9.V.A.2, schools in DPS are listed alphabetically and we reviewed school level, ELA Designation, and the column which lists Total ELL and provisional count. The five schools we selected were a representative sample of schools in DPS. We identified three elementary schools (Knapp, Ashley, Samuels), a middle school (Place Bridge) and one high school (South). These five schools represented three different ELA designations
10

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 18 of 147
including TNLI, TNLI and ESL Resource, and ELA E with Qualified Spanish Resource Teacher. The ELL and provisional counts ranged from 200-425 students which we felt were a sufficient number of ELL students to randomly select 10 IEPs at each school as part of our document review.
This was our first “official” spot audit and we based our approach on the pilot test of the Chapter 7 spot audit we had conducted in Fall 2015. In that pilot test, we had determined the amount of information (i.e., document review, interview, and direct observation, as appropriate to the CD requirements) we could likely collect in one-half day at a school, and our overall plan with the spot audits for Chapter 7 and subsequent CD chapters was to visit two schools a day. We selected several representative indicators from the Chapter 7 requirements that we planned to document at each school site and developed a Chapter 7 Spot Audit Checklist that we used to collect the information at each school (Appendix 1).
In choosing the representative indicators for Chapter 7, we concentrated on Sections A through G of the chapter since those sections specified CD expectations of IEP and 504 plan content that we felt we could document efficiently in a review of those documents during school visits given that we planned to be at each school for one-half day. The representative indicators we documented represent the sample of the evidence we could look at given our resources (i.e., time - one-half day at each school, and personnel two of us looking at the documentation). We did not indicate to DPS ahead of time which indicators from each section of Chapter 7 we would be looking at; as far as district personnel knew before our visit, we could be looking at anything Chapter 7 required of special education and 504 process and documentation. As can be seen by examining the
11

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 19 of 147
Chapter 7 Spot Audit checklist in Appendix 1, we chose as representative indicators one requirement from CD Chapter 7.A. (focusing on IEP team membership), two from CD Chapter 7 F. (focusing on identification of the student as an ELL, the student’s language proficiency, Program services, and any assessment accommodations provided), and one from Chapter 7.G. (which, among other provisions, requires an analysis of the link between language proficiency and student assessment results).
For Chapter 7, our primary intended data sources were the IEPs and 504 plans for ELs as well as the discussions we planned to have with a school administrator (Principal or Assistant Principal), a special education teacher, an individual responsible for 504 plans (e.g., a counselor), and the ELA Partner for the school. At each school, working with the special education teacher and/or the ELA Partner, we systematically selected up to 10 IEPs of ELs to review. School staff and the ELA Partner helped us identify ELs with IEPs at each school. Systematic sampling is considered as unbiased as random sampling and consists of drawing every “nth” record to get a specified sample size from a defined “population” within the school (e.g., drawing every 6th record from 60 EL IEPs to get a sample of 10 IEPs). Using this approach, we reviewed 10 IEPs at every school except Samuels, where we reviewed nine IEPs, so overall we reviewed 49 IEPs using the Chapter 7 Spot Audit Checklist. We did not record the total number of IEPs from which we sampled at each school. We reviewed paper IEPs or electronic IEPs, whichever the school had most readily available, and also looked at supporting documentation (e.g., assessment summaries) when that was included in an IEP folder (paper IEPs) or if we were directed to that information on the Infinite Campus (IC) by the teacher or ELA Partner.
12

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 20 of 147
We had planned to use the same sampling approach to review 504 plans, but the number of 504 plans for ELs at the schools we visited was small, so we worked with DPS, ELA, and other administrative staff to get later access to a sample of 504 plans for ELs that we reviewed after the visit. We reviewed 29 Section 504 plans provided to us by DPS – all of these were hard copies.
Results & Discussion The results of our Chapter 7 spot audit are summarized in Table 7.1. In the table, the total for an item on the checklist may not match the total number of IEPs or 504 plans reviewed because if information seemed to be inadvertently missing (as opposed to information systemically missing – see below) or we couldn’t interpret it, we left the item blank on the checklist for that particular IEP or 504 plan. The table shows that 89.6% (43/48) of IEP teams included a fully qualified ELA-E or ELA-S teacher, as specified in the CD. Of the five IEPs that did not, two specified an ELA-T teacher and three did not include an ELA teacher. None of the IEPs included information on EL status and background that we expected to see in the Student and Family information section of the IEP (e.g., primary language spoken in the home, the student’s primary language, whether the student has limited English Proficiency, whether an interpreter is needed for meetings). As we continued to encounter this, we learned from discussions with district personnel that IC was supposed to be populating this section of the IEP but this was not occurring. We drew the attention of the district to this issue that week, they acknowledged the problem, and stated they would work to fix the issue. We made a plan to follow-up in the next school year with a review of additional IEP forms to document whether this fix had occurred.
13

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 21 of 147

A later section of the IEP (Section 7F in the IEP form from the DPS website we were

using as a reference) asks whether the student has limited English proficiency, and this

section was filled out or was shown to us in IC for 75.5% (37/49) of the IEPs we reviewed.

Section 7.F of Chapter 7 in the CD (not the same “7F” as the section in the IEP form referred

to above) requires that ELs’ IEPs document the type of ELA Program services the student is

Table 7.1

CD Chapter 7 Section
7.A. “IEP and 504 teams shall include a fully qualified ELA-E or ELA-S teacher . . .”

Evidence Checked
Team membership on attendance/signature page. Check with School regarding ELA-E or ELA-S status

% of IEPs with expected information (N=49 )
89.6% (43/48)

% of 504 plans with expected information (N=29 )
100% (28/28)

7.F. “ELLs’ IEPs and 504 plans shall document that the student is an ELL, the student’s language proficiency level. . .”
7.F. “ELLs’ IEPs and 504 plans shall document . . . the Program services the student is receiving (i.e., ESL/ELA-E, TNLI) . . .” 7.G. “The district shall maintain in all ELLs’ IEPs or 504 plans . . . (b) an analysis of the effect of proficiency in English and other languages on the student’s learning, including an analysis

504 Plan, Page 1, Section E filled out. IEP, Page 1, Section 3 ELL information filled out.
IEP, Section 7F filled out. Documentation of the Program services the student is receiving (i.e., ESL/ELA-E, TNLI)
Written evidence of the analysis

0% (0/49)
75.5% (38.8% ,19/49, filled out on form
36.7%, 18/49, in IC)
72.9% (35/48)
77.6% (38/49) Note: An additional 10.2% of the IEPs had an analysis of language arts skills but did not link the analysis to the student’s language proficiency

14

100% (29/29) Not applicable 100% (27/27) 86.2% (25/29)

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 22 of 147
of the student’s assessment results in relation to the student’s language proficiency” receiving; 72.9% (35/48) of the IEP forms included that information. In recording this information, we additionally noted on our data forms the type of Program service specified for those IEPs that included that. Of the 35 IEPs that specified type of Program service, 34 identified the following specific types of service: ELA-S, 26.5% (9/34); ELD, 23.6% (8/34); ELA-S & ELD, 11.8% (4/34); ESL, 8.8% (3/34); and ELA-E & ELD, 5.9% (2/34). One each (.03%, 1/34) specified: ELA-S & sheltered English; ELA-E; ELA E/S & ELD; English tutoring; ELA for ELs with disabilities; ELA E/S; and ESL/ELA-E.
Section 7.G of Chapter 7 requires that IEPs and 504 plans include “an analysis of the effect of proficiency in English and other languages on the student’s learning, including an analysis of the student’s assessment results in relation to the students’ language proficiency.” In order for us to check “Yes” on this item of the spot audit checklist, we required that, in some way, the IEP link language proficiency to the student’s assessment results. For example, in a description of an EL student’s language arts assessment performance on an achievement test like the CMAS, we might expect to see a statement linking the student’s English language proficiency scores on the ACCESS test to the student’s performance on the English language achievement test. For a student who is still developing proficiency in their second language, an achievement test in that second language is always at least partly a measure of language proficiency as well. We made this determination through dialogue based on our (the IM’s and Dr. Nelson’s) individual review of the IEP. In some schools, this dialogue included others who were present as we reviewed
15

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 23 of 147
the documents (the Principal, the special education teacher, the ELA Partner). As table 7.1 shows, we determined that 77.6% (38/49) of the IEPs we reviewed linked language proficiency data to the student’s assessment results. An additional 10.2% (5/49) contained some analysis of the student’s language arts skills but did not clearly link the student’s language proficiency to assessment performance.
The district’s 504 form is much shorter than the IEP form and, due to different federal and state requirements for IEP forms and 504 forms, doesn’t prompt for as much detail as in an IEP. Table 7.1 summarizes the results of our review of the 29 Section 504 plans provided after our visit by DPS. The table shows that 100% of the 504 plans included the name of a fully qualified ELA-E or ELA-S teacher on the 504 team (7.A), documented the student’s EL status (7F), and documented the program services received (also 7F). Eightysix percent of the 504 plans in some way linked assessment results to the student’s language proficiency; in many of them this was a statement to the effect that limited English proficiency was not the cause of the student’s learning problems.
Overall, our spot audit of Chapter 7 showed that about three-quarters of the IEPs included information on three of the five representative indicators we documented and about 90% met the fourth. The one indicator for which we did not find information was the one that the IC was not populating. As noted above, we drew this to the attention of DPS administrators during the week that we conducted the Chapter 7 spot audit. In later meetings during 2017 that we will detail in Report 7, DPS described for us how the district has addressed this issue and, as also noted above, we will spot audit a sample of IEPs in Spring 2018 to verify whether, as a result of the fix DPS described to us, the information that was missing in our first spot audit of Chapter 7 is now included in IEPs for ELs.
16

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 24 of 147 One hundred percent of the 504 plans we reviewed as part of our Chapter 7 spot
audit had the expected information for three of the four indicators we documented. Nearly 90% of the 504 plans contained information for the fourth indicator.
Our Chapter 7 spot audit was a partial audit of the chapter, and focused on Sections A through G of Chapter 7. We did not examine documentation of the translation requirements in Sections H through M or the teacher training requirements in Section N, so our conclusions regarding the degree to which DPS is implementing Chapter 7 requirements apply to Sections A through G, from which we chose the representative indicators in our Chapter 7 spot audit checklist. We plan to document the District’s level of implementation of requirements of Sections H through N during a subsequent visit.
17

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 25 of 147
Chapter 3: Parent Communication, Student Screening and Provisional Placement Assessments for Eligibility and Monitoring of Students Who Decline Services
Method This chapter of the CD is sufficiently comprehensive that it required two separate site visits to Denver over the months of September and October, 2016, to complete. We made the decision to address this chapter by first convening meetings at eight school sites and interviewing parents of Program students at each school. The intent of these interviews was to gather information from parents that provided insight into the series of CD requirements that address Parent Communication, Student Screening and Provisional Placement, and Parent Permission for Initial Placement. In preparing for the September site visit, we also recognized that it would be imperative to review the procedures that schools use to register students and ultimately, the process that schools use to identify and initially place students to receive ELA Program services. In order to arrive at a greater understanding of these procedures, we requested to interview ELA administrators and secretarial staff at each of the school sites. We selected the following eight schools to visit: • Munroe Elementary • Joe Shoemaker Elementary • Marie Greenwood K-8 • John Amesse Elementary • Smith Elementary • CMS Elementary • Valverde Elementary • Abraham Lincoln High School
18

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 26 of 147
Denver Public Schools has a structure where schools are assigned to different networks. Our goal for this site visit was to select schools from as many networks as possible. At the time of our site visit, there were six elementary and four high school networks. The schools we selected to visit represent six of those ten networks. The eight schools we selected represented TNLI, Dual Language, and TNLI plus ESL Resource Models. The ELL population ranged from 156 ELs at Joe Shoemaker Elementary to a high of 587 ELs at Lincoln High School. We felt that these schools were a good representative sample of TNLI programs from elementary through high school and multiple networks across the district.
At each of the eight school sites, we interviewed parents using a Chapter 3 Parent Interview that we created (Appendix 2). The questions on the interview were constructed to provide information regarding representative indicators based on CD Chapter 3.II.A., which specifies information to be asked of parents on the Home Language Questionnaire, or HLQ (Items 1 and 2); 3.III.A. and B., which specify completion of the Parent Permission form (PPF) and lay out the procedures for informing parents about the Program (Items 3 through 7); and Chapter 3.I through 3.III in general (Items 8 and 9).
The IM interviewed parents in both English and Spanish. At schools where there were parents who spoke languages other than these, interpreters were requested by the schools and made available by DPS. At some meetings with parents, we were joined by the school's ELA Network Partner. Also, at Valverde and CMS Elementary, the parent liaison asked the principal if they could sit in and listen to our conversations with parents. We got the impression that at these two schools, the parent liaison has a very close relationship with many of the parents whom we interviewed. Nothing that we saw or heard suggested
19

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 27 of 147
that parents were less forthcoming by having the Network Partner or parent liaison present during our interviews. We should note that interviews took place in a large group setting and not one-on-one. As noted previously, at some meetings Network Partners and/or the parent liaison were present and we sensed no apprehensions to have them join as passive participants.
We followed the parent interviews with a meeting of the school's team that is responsible for testing of students and initially placing them in the correct ELA Program based on completion of Parent Permission Forms (PPFs), Home Language Questionnaires (HLQs), and results of initial testing using measures such as the WIDA-ACCESS Placement Test (W-APT). At these school sites, the ISA Team is responsible for monitoring the progress of students whose parents decline ELA Program services. We discuss the issue of monitoring in more depth within “Chapter 2: ISA Teams” that is a part of this report. The school site specific teams that we interviewed typically consisted of an administrator such as the school principal or assistant principal, the Site Assessment Leader (SAL), an ELA-E or ELA-S teacher, and in some instances, an ISA Team member. Our conversations with these teams were more open-ended and less driven by a structured interview. We focused primarily on having them describe for us the process they use to screen and assess students for eligibility, as well as initially place students based on their PPF.
Prior to the September site visit, we reviewed the ELA Registration Secretary Checklist that every ELA Program school is required to follow. At each of the eight school sites we visited, we met with the secretarial staff responsible for organizing and implementing registration of students. Schools are allowed to modify the Secretary Checklist in a way that the works best for their school, however, they are responsible for
20

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 28 of 147
completing the pre-registration, registration, and post-registration process aligned with the district checklist. The ELA Registration Process that DPS follows is carefully aligned with the CD requirements noted in Chapter 3. The ELA Administrator, Assistant Principal, secretarial staff and, ELA Network Partner at John Amesse Elementary modified their Secretary Checklist into a one-page format that we found user friendly, easy to follow, and that met all requirements of the CD and outlined by DPS. A copy of the DPS ELA Registration Secretary Checklist and the Amesse version of that checklist are contained in Appendix 3. The school registration checklists are intended to prompt school personnel to carry out the registration process as detailed in CD Chapter 3 sections I through III, and we used the checklists as a reference when we interviewed secretarial staff about registration.
The Chapter 3 Spot Audit Checklist we used to check registration records of students at the eight schools is included in Appendix 4. Our Chapter 3 Spot Audit checklist in Appendix 4 was designed to document, for a sample of students at each school, whether information specified in CD Chapter 3 sections I through IV had been recorded by the school. The specific Chapter 3 sections for which we collected data are identified in the checklist in Appendix 4. The first section of our checklist was used to collect data on Chapter 3.II, Student Screening and Provisional Placement; the second section of the checklist was used to collect data on Chapter 3.III, Parent Permission for Initial Placement; the third section of the checklist was used to collect data on Chapter 3.III.A, to check whether the school had a designated administrator or designee to explain ELA services (and trained to explain ELA services) and whether the school had a list of PPF3 students; and the fourth section of the checklist was used to collect data on Chapter 3.IV, which specifies assessment requirements for students provisionally identified as ELLs.
21

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 29 of 147
In order to more fully determine whether students were placed in the appropriate classrooms with a correctly designated teacher, we planned a second site visit to Denver during October, 2016. Our intent was to continue to gather information and evidence relative to placement of all eligible students in requisite English Language Development (ELD) classes and if they weren't placed, the reasons why. DPS has created two tools that we reviewed at the school sites as part of our data gathering during this visit. The first of these tools is the ELL List which we described earlier in this report. This is a tool that is available at every school. The ELL List identifies current ELs requesting services (PPF1, PPF2, No PPF) by school to ensure they are appropriately placed. It compares student information with teacher and classroom/course information. Each school has grade level groupings, as well as a summary by grade level. The report includes student assessment data, ELD enrollment, and primary language. By reviewing ELL Lists, we intended to document the level of correct placement of students according to their PPF designation (Chapter 3.II and, since correct placement depends on placing matching student PPF designation with teacher qualifications, Chapter 5.IV as well).
The second tool is the ELL Summary. This tool, which is an information tracker of sorts, compares registration and school placement data from one week to another, when school is in session. The report contains a list of the schools, service percentage for the district and individual schools, incorrectly and correctly placed students, the number of missing HLQ and PPFs, and total ELL count. Communication regarding any of the factors described above takes place in person, through email or phone with school staff or through the ELA Partner, and is captured in the Notes comment section by staff in the Strategic Planning and Accountability Office within the ELA Department.
22

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 30 of 147
More recently, the ELA Department shared with us, during the December 2017 site visit, another tool that they have created called the Scorecard Brief. This document is a summary one-page tool that provides insight into ELA metrics grouped into four categories: Student and Teacher Alignment, Parent Options and Engagement, Course Enrollment, and Academic Progress. It also features a school/network/district profile with enrollment counts, languages count, center program identifiers, and ELA Program Model identifier. The Scorecard Brief was in development during our October 2016 visit although we reviewed a sample of what they will look like.
The eight schools we visited during October of 2016 were: • Bruce Randolph Middle School • Martin Luther King Jr. Early College • Ashley Elementary • DCIS at Fairmont • Samuels Elementary • Valdez Elementary • South High School • Maxwell Elementary We continued to follow the school site visit selection process outlined earlier in this report. Using Report 9.V.A.2. from the July 2016 ELA Program Report to the parties, we identified five elementary schools, one middle and two high schools that we wished to visit. The elementary schools represented three program designations; TNLI, TNLI and ESL Resource, and Dual Language. Bruce Randolph Middle School is designated TNLI and of the two high schools, MLK Early College is designated TNLI and South High School is designated ELA-E with a Qualified Spanish Resource Teacher. Even though we had visited South High School previously, we selected them again based on a conversation with an ELA
23

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 31 of 147
Network Partner who mentioned that their ELD teachers were excellent. Further, we requested to interview three of their designated ELD teachers which proved to be insightful. Based on their preparation and experience, they all seemed highly qualified. The number of ELs identified at the eight schools ranged from a low of 129 at Maxwell Elementary to a high of 386 at South High School.
Following is a summary of the data that we collected during our September and October 2016 visits. We first summarize data from the September visit, beginning with parent interviews, followed by a summary of our conversations with the teams that assess and place students at each school. This is followed by the evidence we collected from secretaries regarding registration and then by a summary of the spot audit we did of systematically selected individual student records.
Then, we summarize data from the eight schools we visited in October, when we reviewed each school's ELL List and identified percentages of eligible students enrolled in ELD and correctly placed in ELA-E and ELA-S instruction based on their PPF designation.
Results & Discussion Parent Interviews
We interviewed a total of 36 parents at the eight school sites during the week of September 12-16, 2016. The languages of the parents included Spanish, Persian, Vietnamese, Arabic, Somali, and an East African dialect although that grandparent also spoke English. At some schools, the IM conducted the interviews in Spanish if all parents there were Spanish speaking. At Valverde Elementary we were joined by an Arabic and Spanish interpreter. At Abraham Lincoln High School, which had the largest participation of parents, I conducted the interviews in English with a Vietnamese interpreter with one
24

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 32 of 147

group of parents and a Spanish speaking interpreter with a group of ten parents. The

Somali parents spoke English and did not need an interpreter. We asked the parents a total

of eight questions from the Parent Interview and, in the tables that follow, each question

reflects the frequency of responses we received and a corresponding percentage.

Our goal was to speak with as many parents as possible during the week. Once

dates of school visits were confirmed, parents were invited to participate in a conversation

with us. In all of the cases as we understood, parents volunteered to participate. In some

cases, invitations went out through the PAC. At Valverde Elementary, the principal worked

with the parent liaison and invited parents. At CMS, the parent liaison sent a note home

with students and followed up with phone calls to some parents, especially those who are

most active. At Lincoln High School, the Spanish speaking and Vietnamese speaking parent

liaisons invited parents. At Amesse Elementary, the recently appointed assistant principal

and one of the paraprofessionals invited parents who often volunteer at the school or serve

on the PAC. At Joe Shoemaker, the principal informed us that notes inviting parents had

been sent with students. We did not interview any non-ELL parents during the week.

Question 1: Did you fill out a Home Language Questionnaire (HLQ) when your child

registered here at school?"

Table 3.1 Completion of HLQ

Number

Percent

Yes

35

97

No

0

0

Don't Remember

1

3

25

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 33 of 147

Our first question revealed that 35 of 36 parents (97%) noted that they had

completed a Home Language Questionnaire at Registration or at the school prior to

Registration. Only one parent (3%) could not recall if they had completed the HLQ even

though the interpreter asked the question in multiple ways and used several prompts.

There were no parents who indicated that they had not completed an HLQ.

Question 2: How many of you stated on the HLQ that the primary language you speak

at home or by your child was Spanish (or a language other than English)?

Table 3.2

Primary Language

Number

Percent

Spanish is primary language
Language other than English / Spanish is primary language

28

78

8

22

When asked what language was spoken at home or by their child, 27 parents (75%) indicated that Spanish was the primary language. This included the parent/guardian who didn't recall completing the HLQ, but he noted that Spanish was the primary language spoken at home. Of note, the young man I am making reference to informed the interpreter and I that he was an uncle living in Denver and a niece had been sent to live with him so that she could attend school. Even though he was not technically her parent, he acted as her guardian. Nine parents (25%) noted that a language other than English (and Spanish) was the primary language spoken at home. The four languages identified were Vietnamese, Arabic, Somali, Persian, and an East African dialect. Question 3: Did the school provide you with an ELA Parent brochure that explained the two options for the language used to teach your child?

26

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 34 of 147

Table 3.3 ELA Parent Brochure

Number

Percent

School provided brochure

35

97

School did not provide brochure

1

3

We asked parents if the school had provided them with an ELA Parent Brochure at

the time that they registered their child. A total of 34 parents (97%) apprised us that the

school had provided them with the Brochure. Two Spanish speaking parents (6%) said

that they had not seen the Brochure. One of the two parents informed us that there is a lot

of paperwork that is provided to parents at Registration and it might have been one of the

papers they gave her. Another parent commented that she had gone to the school prior to

attending Registration and that the secretary of the school had given her the Brochure to

read at that time. We counted this response as part of the total of 35 noted above.

Question 4: Did you view a video at registration explaining the language instruction

options?

Table 3.4 Video Shown at Registration

Number

Percent

Yes

31

89

No

5

11

When asked if the school had provided a video at Registration that described the two language instruction options available for their children, 31 parents (89%) answered affirmatively. Five parents (11%) indicated however, that they had not seen the video. One of those five parents further clarified that she wasn't sure if the video had been provided

27

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 35 of 147

for her at Registration but since she didn't recall, she would probably have to say that she

didn't see it.

Question 5: After viewing the video and going over the brochure, did you understand

the two Language Instruction options?

Table 3.5 Did you understand the two language instruction options? Number

Percent

Yes

33

92

No

3

8

This question generated a great deal of discussion during interviews. Several parents voiced their opinion about the importance of instruction in Spanish. In Table 3.5, of those parents we interviewed, 33 (92%) responded that they did understand the two language instruction options. Three parents (8%) however, stated that they weren't clear about the two options. One parent clarified that she wanted her son to learn English as soon as possible but that the secretary had spoken to her several times about the importance of her child receiving instruction in Spanish and that he would be learning English as well. One parent of a high school student who had recently enrolled at the school shared with me that he had received very little education in Mexico. He went on to say that the Registration was very overwhelming for him and he didn't quite understand all of the things that had been presented to him. The family liaison from that school was present during our interview and I asked him if he would like to meet with her and have the two options explained in more detail. They were still talking when I left the school. Question 6: Was someone at the school able to answer questions you had about the two options?
28

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 36 of 147

Table 3.6 Was someone from the school able to answer your questions?

Number Percent

Yes

34

94

No

2

6

Parents and guardians spoke favorably about the assistance they had received at Registration and at their school. Thirty-four of the parents interviewed (94%) informed us that someone from the school was able to answer any questions they had. Only two parents (6%) noted that their school was not able to answer all of the questions that they had.
Question 7 provided us with two pieces of important information. As shown in Table 3.7 below, nearly a third (33%) of the parents we interviewed found that the attribute they found most useful about registration was that the secretary at the school speaks Spanish. This was corroborated by principals and other school leaders we interviewed and report on later in this chapter. Almost every school team we interviewed made a reference to the fact that they make sure that as many staff as possible who speak Spanish (including secretarial staff) participate at Registration. Related to parent comfort level, 14% of parents found it useful that the school welcomed them there and four parents (11%) found that home visits were helpful. Additionally, four parents (11%) also found it useful that they received help filling out forms at Registration. Question 7: What did you find most useful about the Registration process?

29

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 37 of 147

Table 3.7 Things you found useful about registration.

Number Who Responded

Percent

Secretary speaks Spanish

11

31

I'm happy about dual language program

1

3

They received (welcomed) us here

5

14

I like the SPED Program

1

3

Good teamwork between staff

2

6

My daughter got to meet her teacher

2

6

Registration helps to build a closer relationship with school

1

3

The home visits are helpful

4

11

If I have doubts, the teachers and secretary

2

6

informed me

I get help filling out the forms

4

11

My kids are comfortable here

3

8

Question 8: How can the school improve the Registration process for you?

Table 3.8 How school can improve registration.

Times Cited

Percent

It's too complicated. Make the terms understandable.
The paperwork is very long
Have more help for Somali parents

5

14

4

11

2

6

30

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 38 of 147

Give more information on Seal of Biliteracy

3

8

Give more help to those from Mexico without

3

8

education

One theme that we heard multiple times in our interviews is that whether parents fill out the registration forms on district computer workstations at schools or participate at the school site, Registration can be confusing for some parents of ELs. The responses to Question 8 in Table 3.8 above support this. Five parents (14%) felt that registering their students is too complicated of a process. Four parents (11%) felt that the paperwork they are required to complete is very long and there are many forms to complete. A husband and wife from Somalia (6%) expressed to us that during Registration, more help should be available for Somali parents. Similarly, three parents (8%) suggested that additional help should be made available in Spanish for those parents who have little to no formal education. Schools have begun to make information available regarding the Seal of Biliteracy and 8% of parents also asked for additional information to be made available. ELA Registration Process
At all eight school sites visited during September, 2016, we interviewed either the secretary or secretarial team responsible for organizing Registration at their school. We utilized the ELA Registration Checklist to guide our interview questions. Every one of the eight schools had secretarial staff who met with us for up to an hour. One reflection is that each of the schools has a secretary or secretarial team with varying levels of experience overseeing Registration. In the case of one school, they hired a secretary less than two weeks before Registration and she organized the effort with the support of her principal and other teachers and staff. By contrast, a team of secretaries at another school had

31

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 39 of 147

worked together on Registration for five years and, as one noted, "We are like a well-oiled

machine when it comes to registration." One thing became apparent after our interviews -

secretaries in DPS, at least based on our interviews, play a critical role in organizing and

leading efforts to help register ELLs for school in concert with CD requirements. Equally

important, if secretaries are bilingual, they assume an even greater role by interfacing with

parents from that language group, usually Spanish speakers.

Question 1: Describe what you do prior to registration.

Table 3.9 How you prepare before registration.

Times Cited

Percent

Make sure everyone knows who point person is

6

75

Prepare enough copies of ELA brochure and other

7

86

forms

View the video if necessary

2

25

Make sure all equipment (laptops) are working and

2

25

headphones

Follow the checklist that ELA sent

4

50

All five items above are part of the ELA Registration Checklist that secretaries are provided with and expected to use as a guide to prepare to register ELs. There were a total of eight responders (secretaries) involved with these questions. Seven of eight secretaries (86%) cited the need to prepare enough copies of the ELA Brochure and other forms. Seventy-five percent of the eight secretaries commented that it is important for everyone participating in Registration to be clear on who the point person is. Two secretaries (25%) noted that it's important to view the video that is made available to parents and that same number suggested that all equipment, including laptops, should be checked to make sure

32

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 40 of 147

that it works properly. Fifty percent of the secretaries commented that it is important to

follow the Checklist that the ELA Department provides to make sure all requirements are

met.

Question 2: At Registration, who gets an HLQ? What do you do with the completed

HLQs?

Table 3.10 Who gets an HLQ at Registration?

Response

Percent

Parents of all new students Parents can fill out HLQ at school too

8

100

1

13

All eight secretaries (100%) answered that parents of all new students must receive

and complete an HLQ at Registration. Our interview notes suggest that schools typically set

up a final or exit station that each parent must stop at before Registration is complete. The

secretaries use that exit station as the place where required forms are reviewed including

the HLQ. One secretary (13%) revealed that she has often had parents complete the HLQ at

school if appropriate.

Question 3: If I were a parent and I came to Registration, how would it be set up for

me?

Table 3.11 How registration is set up.

Elements Cited

Percent

We set up stations. For example, one for video, one

8

100

where HLQ is handed out, FRL, school uniforms, and

one to make copies.

Parents get brochure and watch video

6

75

Parents fill out PPF before completing registration

6

75

33

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 41 of 147

Tell them about Parent Portal Inform them about ELA PAC and DAC Show them our app (Blue Tree Apps) No video because ISA Team is always there

2

25

2

25

1

13

1

13

We asked secretaries at all eight schools to walk us through the Registration process

as if we were parents registering our child for the first time. All eight secretaries (100%)

revealed that they set up stations usually in the cafeteria or other large space at the school.

Six (75%) of the secretaries commented that parents must complete a PPF at registration if

they have not done so previously. Six of the eight secretaries (75%) commented that we

would receive the ELA Brochure and stop by the station where the video is played almost

continually during the day. Only one secretary (13%) apprised us that they don't show the

video because the ISA Team is always present at Registration and they prefer to speak with

parents face-to-face after they review the Brochure and answer any of their questions. One

secretary (13%) noted that their school has purchased an app which parents can download

on their phone. They purchased this from Blue Tree Applications, and they set up a station

where it is demonstrated for parents and they are given help downloading it if requested.

The App or Application, has been embraced by the school and parents. Two secretaries

(25%) informed us that if we were parents, we would be given information at Registration

regarding the district's Parent Portal and the ELA PAC and DAC.

Question 4: Who answers any questions parents might have about PPFs?

Table 3.12 Who answers questions about PPFs for parents? Person(s) Cited

Percent

34

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 42 of 147

I do (secretary)
Principal or AP usually there to also answer questions The point person is the one
Secretary does final check and review

6

75

2

25

2

25

2

25

In response to the question about who responds to questions that parents might

have about PPFs, six (75%) of the secretaries informed us that they often answered

questions about PPFs for parents. Our follow-up question was, "What happens if you don't

have an answer to a question from a parent?" All of them replied that they would direct the

parent to the principal, point person, or a staff member who could respond to the parent.

Two of the eight secretaries (25%) apprised us without prompting that the principal or

assistant principal or the point person is typically the one to answer parent questions

about PPFs if the secretary was not able to do so. Finally, two secretaries (25%) responded

that they review every registration packet before the parent exits to make sure the PPF is

completed.

Question 5: What procedures do you follow after Registration is completed?

Table 3.13 Procedures followed after registration.

Times Cited

Percent

Enter HLQ and PPF data into Infinite Campus

8

100

Provisional ELs are scheduled in ELA classrooms

2

25

temporarily

ELs are WAPT tested by SAL or a teacher

4

50

35

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 43 of 147
All eight secretaries or teams of secretaries (100%) commented that they enter all HLQ and PPF data into Infinite Campus immediately after Registration. Four of the secretaries (50%) commented that after Registration, ELs who have not been tested on the WAPT are tested either by the SAL or sometimes even by a teacher who is qualified to do so. Two of the eight secretaries (25%) responded that Provisional ELs are scheduled into ELA classrooms by the principal or the school scheduler after registration until a final determination is made of the student's placement. Chapter 3 Spot Audit Checklist
To collect information for section 3.II of the Chapter 3 spot audit checklist (whether HLQs were documented for all students), we systematically sampled the records for 10 students at each of the eight schools and documented whether the results of the HLQ had been recorded for each student, including whether the student spoke a language other than English. The total number of registrants at each of the eight schools from whom we selected 10 individual student registration records to review were: Munroe, 53; Joe Shoemaker, 157; Greenwood, 129; John Amesse, 135; Smith, 199; CMS Elementary, 108; Valverde, 98; and Abraham Lincoln, 120.
Originally, we planned to document whether the HLQ was filled out, whether the HLQ information had been entered into the IC, and whether the HLQ had been scanned and uploaded into the IC. However, at our first school visit using the Chapter 3 Spot Audit checklist, it became apparent that we would not have time to check all three actions, as we had anticipated when we developed the checklist. We decided to focus only on documenting that the HLQ had been filled out, using either paper records or the IC
36

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 44 of 147

(typically assisted by the school’s ELA partner). We did not record whether an individual

record was viewed on paper or through the IC.

The results of that part of our document review are summarized in Table 3.14. The

table shows that, of the 80 individual student records we reviewed, 98.8% (79/80) had

HLQ information recorded for the student. Seventy-eight records indicated whether the

student did or did not speak a language other than English – on two records the

information was missing or we failed to record the information on our checklist. Of those

78, 62.8% (49 students) were identified as speaking a language other than English while

37.2% (29/78) did not.

Table 3.14 HLQ Filled Out (N=80)
Yes 98.8% (79/80) No 1.3% (1/80)

Language Other than English Indicated on HLQ (N=78)
Yes 62.8% (49/78)
No 37.2% (29/78)

Section 3.III of the spot audit checklist focused on documenting that the PPF form had been filled out and that the student’s PPF category was specified. In the DPS registration process, a PPF is only filled out if the parents indicate that the student speaks a language other than English. Even though 49 HLQs indicated a language other than English, PPF forms were filled out for 52 students, a discrepancy of three students. Those 52 records were examined to determine the PPF category parents chose. Records examined at each school were those of EL students from sample we drew at the school for Section 3.II of our checklist.
The results of our document review for section 3.III of the spot audit are summarized in Table 3.15. That table shows that, of the 52 PPF forms we examined, a PPF

37

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 45 of 147

category was specified on 50 – the other two either did not have PPF category information

or we failed to record it. Of those 50 that contained the information, 54% (27/50)

categorized the student as a PPF1 and 46% (23/50) categorized the student as a PPF2.

Table 3.15
PPF Filled Out (N=52) Yes 100.00% (52/52) No 0% (0/52)

PPF Category (N=50) PPF1 54% (27/50)
PPF2 46% (23/50)

Section 3.IV.A of the spot audit checklist focused on whether students identified on the HLQ as having a language other than English had been assessed for their English language proficiency within 25 days of registration, as required by CD Chapter 3.IV.A.1, and which language proficiency assessment had been used. As noted in Table 3.14, 49 student records indicated on the HLQ that the student spoke a language other than English. Of those 49 student records, 30 had information on the date of registration, the date of assessment, or the type of assessment. Eleven of the remaining 19 records indicate that the students were at the early childhood level, for which assessment procedures differ. As for the other 8 of those 19 records, our data sheets contain notations indicating the data weren’t available or the information was not clear.
Table 3.16 summarizes the results of this part of our document review. Of the 30 records reviewed, we were able to document which assessment had been used for 26 of the students, and we were able to determine whether the assessment had occurred within 25 days for 27 of the records. Four records either lacked information on the assessment used or we failed to record it, and for three records we were unable to determine whether assessment had occurred within 25 days. The table shows that 80.8% (21/26) of the students were assessed with the WAPT and 19.2% (5/26) were assessed with the CELA.
38

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 46 of 147
The table further shows that, of the 27 students for which the information was recorded, 85.2% (23/27) had been assessed for English language proficiency within the 25 day timeframe while 14.8% (4/27) had not.

Table 3.16
Initial English Language Proficiency Assessment (N=26)
WAPT 80.8% (21/26)
CELA 19.2% (5/26)

% Assessed within 25 Days of Registration (N=27) Yes 85.2% (23/27)
No 14.8% (4/27)

Summary of Meetings With School Staff At each of the eight school sites, we scheduled a meeting with a team of persons that
usually included the principal or their designee, the Site Assessment Leader or SAL, and a teacher. SALs are selected by principals as part of the school's assessment team and are the official liaison between the ARE Department and the school. The SALs work closely with other assessment team members and collect valid assessment data consistent with testing protocols. After the registration process is completed, the SALs administer and score the WAPT. These results are then submitted to ARE and to the ELA Department. Sometimes the teacher taught ESL and at some schools, the person was an ELA-E or ELA-S classroom teacher. At several of the schools, we were also joined by an ISA Team member. At all eight schools, the ELA Network Partner for that school joined our conversation as well. We asked each principal or designee to give us a short profile of the school, an overview of the ELA program that they implemented there, and their thoughts on how

39

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 47 of 147
services and support from the ELA Department could be improved. We also asked what happens at each school after Registration is completed. Following are a few impressions we gathered based on what amounted to more of an open-ended conversation at each school as opposed to a structured interview.
• Principals and their staff understand the CD requirements regarding Registration. They understand that there are numerous processes and requirements that the ELA Department has as part of the CD and we didn't get the sense that anyone was trying to shirk these responsibilities. There are roles that key staff play at Registration and we gathered that the leadership at each school understands this and provides support to assure that Registration is organized and carried out effectively.
• In general, ELA Network Partners play an essential role in supporting Registration and providing technical support as needed. The Network Partners are a key communication link between the ELA Department and the school.
• Most of the teams we interviewed spoke in very positive terms about their secretarial staff. We think there is a clear realization from these conversations that secretaries not only play a critical role in helping organize and implement Registration but, several principals spoke about how effective they are in working with parents, especially those who don't speak English.
• Almost every school that we were at had the Site Assessment Leader (SAL) present at our meetings. They clearly understand that upon completion of Registration, lists of students needing to be WAPT tested are sent to them from Armando Dominguez in the Assessment, Research, and Evaluation Office and that there is a 10 day window to complete the testing, and upload the scores into Infinite Campus.
• At the schools we visited, it was evident to us that they had gotten the message from Central Office not only that ELD is important but that the school is responsible for ensuring that students receive 45 minutes of ELD instruction 40

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 48 of 147
daily per the CD. • The ELA Department monitors ELD placement daily. • Four of the principals without asking or prompting spoke about the LAG. They
credited their ELA Network Partner for providing support and training on effective use of the Guides. One principal commented that she and the ELA Partner used the LAG to structure a round of classroom walk-throughs. When these were completed, the principal said that the Partner told her, this is the minimum of what teachers need to do to implement the LAGs under the CD. Now, "let me show you how you can use them in an optimum way." We did not retrieve any additional information from that principal regarding the number of walk-throughs they conducted or how often they took place. Finally, many of the teams we spoke with talked about building connections with parents and the need to keep improving this. Several of the teams also spoke positively about the DPS initiative to have schools make home visits. Analysis of ELL Lists To determine whether EL students were receiving instruction through DPS in line with their PPF designations, we reviewed ELL Lists generated by the ELA Strategic Planning and Accountability team. Those lists specify an overall “service percentage” (percent of EL students correctly placed in instruction base on PPF category) for the school and provide information on individual students such as PPF category, specification of the most recent English language proficiency assessment taken by the student, ELA-S or ELA-E Program designation, enrollment in ELD, and the student’s primary language. At the secondary level, the ELL Lists list the courses each student is enrolled in during that semester.
41

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 49 of 147
We reviewed ELL Lists at eight schools (one, Bruce Randolph, had separate lists for middle school and high school, and we reviewed both at that site) and the results of that review are summarized in Table 3.17. ELL Lists are generated weekly for each school. We were able to review early fall 16 (September or early October) service percentage reports at four schools, and reviewed later service percentage reports (mid-October and, in the case of one school, February 2017 on a return visit) for all nine schools. We hoped to review an earlier and a later Fall 2016 report for each school to determine if service percentages increased, but the ELL List reports are not saved in the DPS system due to the storage capacity that would be needed to save them, so we were only able to review earlier reports if a school had saved a hard copy of an earlier report.
We did not approach our review of the ELL Lists in the same manner as our review of individual student records in other parts of this report. Our focus was on identifying reasons why the service percentage might be lower than 100%, and we visually scanned the reports in the time we had at each school looking for mismatches and following up at the school on each mismatch or type of mismatch we found. As a result, we did not count the number of student records we scanned or the number of individual anomalies that we found, as getting a count of those was not our intent.
Table 3.17 shows that, early in the fall 2016 school year, service percentages at the four schools for which we had reports ranged from a high of 89.6% to a low of 46.8%. The ELA Department apprised us that every fall, schools report low service percentages. This is primarily due to a variety of factors that impact schools at the beginning of the semester such as the teacher designation timeline, "tagging" of all ELA course sessions, and a mismatch between the teacher and ELA designation of the course section. Bruce
42

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 50 of 147

Randolph's service percentage was particularly impacted by the large amount of sections needing an ELA tag.
When we compared service percentage between early and late fall 2016, service percentages were higher overall, with three schools showing service percentages of 100% (all EL students correctly placed), four having service percentages of about 95% or higher, one school with a service percentage of 82.2% and one with a service percentage of 78.3%.

Table 3.17
School
South HS Maxwell Bruce Randolph MS Samuels DCIS at Fairmont Ashley Bruce Randolph HS Valdez Dr. Martin Luther King EC

Early Fall 16 Service Percentage
83.6% (10/3/16) 79.5% (9/16)
46.8% (9/12/16)
89.6% (10/3/16)

Later Fall 2016 Service Percentage
100% (2/16/17) 100% (10/17/16) 78.3% (10/17/16) 98.9% (10/17/16) 100% (10/17/16) 96.4% (10/17/16) 82.2% (10/17/16) 94.5% (10/17/16) 95.1% (10/17/16)

At each school, we spoke with school staff about why a service percentage might be

lower than 100%, and in some cases worked with school secretarial staff to examine paper

records to verify the reasons. At the elementary schools, when students’ instruction didn’t

match their PPF category, we found that this tended to be due to a PPF category being

incorrectly recorded (e.g., a student classified as PPF1 for the ELL List was actually a PPF2

in IC or on a hard copy of the HLQ) or, on a couple occasions, because a teacher was

classified as ELA-T rather than ELA-E or ELA-S, which showed up in the ELL Lists as a

mismatch between teacher certification and student PPF category.

43

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 51 of 147
At secondary schools, where students are enrolled in multiple classes, service percentages lower than 100% were found to be due mainly to the fact that some teachers were not yet correctly classified as ELA-E or ELA-S in the system and, because each teacher taught multiple classes, every mismatch for each period the teacher taught counted against the school’s service percentage.
Our review of the ELL Lists and our discussions at each school with administrators, teachers, secretarial staff, and ELA Partners satisfied us that most of the discrepancies between EL student category and the instruction they were receiving were due to these types of issues. In a few cases, we determined in our discussions with school staff that a student was indeed not receiving the instruction they should (ELA-E versus ELA-S) based on their PPF category. We also identified several students who should have been receiving ELD but weren’t. However, as we probed and reviewed individual student records, it was clear that in most cases lower service percentages were due to “clerical”-type issues rather than to a mismatch between Program instruction and student profile.
44

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 52 of 147
Chapter 2: Instructional Services Advisory (ISA) Team
Method During the week of November 14-18, 2016, our site visit to Denver focused exclusively on Chapter 2 of the CD which outlines the requirements related to Instructional Services Advisory (ISA) Teams. Previous to this site visit, the Independent Monitor had met with ISA Team members at numerous schools as part of an ongoing data collection effort. In fact, at most Meetings of the Parties prior to our November site visit, CHE and DOJ representatives often requested to meet with ISA team members and review their school's documentation regarding ISA activities. Additionally, the IM had attended three ISA team trainings that are a requirement for all members of a team. The concept of an ISA Team is a unique aspect of the DPS ELA Program that is unlike the majority of other programs for ELLs nationally with which we are familiar. The framers of the CD truly exercised a vision of creating a school accountability foundation for meeting the needs of ELLs by requiring the district to assign an ISA Team at every Program school. The role of the ISA Team at each school is to make recommendations to the ELA Program regarding Program entry, redesignation, exit or reentry, and changes in services for students based on objective evidence. A general impression is that ISA Teams now meet this fundamental CD requirement more comprehensively than at any time previous to the November site visit. In preparation for the November site visit, we selected six schools in which to interview ISA team members with the hope of observing several ISA team meetings actually taking place. The six schools we identified to visit were:
45

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 53 of 147
• Castro Elementary • Beachcourt Elementary • Greenlee Elementary • North High School • Marrama Elementary • Hamilton Middle School The six schools above were selected using the same process described multiple times in this report. We identified one middle school, one high school, and four elementary schools that comprised our representative sample. ELA Program designations among these six schools included TNLI, TNLI and ESL Resource, and ELA-E with Qualified Spanish Resource Teachers. We selected Greenlee because of its drop in EL students, they chose to participate in the small TNLI pilot undertaken by the district. The number of identified ELs ranged from 99 at Greenlee to a high of 364 at Castro Elementary. As we had done previously, we prepared a Chapter 2 Spot Audit Checklist (Appendix 5) to guide our interviews and observations at each school. Section I of the Chapter 2 Spot Audit checklist was used to document CD Chapter 2.C., composition of the ISA Team; Section II of the checklist was used to document the training referred to in CD Chapter 2.D and Chapter 5.XI; Section III of the checklist was based on DPS’s ISA guidebook which suggests documenting ISA meetings through meeting schedules, agendas, and minutes; Section IV of the checklist was designed to be used to document CD Chapter 2.A – C, the activities that occurred during ISA meetings we observed and the composition of ISA teams we observed; Section V of the checklist was designed to gather feedback regarding how the automated system was working and whether ISA teams had suggestions for improvements, and was based on the ISA responsibilities specified in Chapter 2.A and 2.B, and to collect
46

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 54 of 147
information pertinent to CD Chapter 2.B.5 – how ISA teams weigh evidence in making redesignation decisions; Section VI of the checklist was used to summarize IC information from a sample of 10 individual students who had recently been reviewed by the ISA team, and was designed to document the types of information considered and the decisions made as specified in CD Chapter 2.A. and Chapter 2.B.
After we submitted the names of the schools to the ELA Department, we learned a week later that several schools had ISA Team meetings scheduled the week we planned to be there. As a result, we were actually able to observe ISA Team meetings taking place where student data was discussed and decisions regarding redesignation were actually made. Two of those meetings were scheduled after the school day (Hamilton Middle School and North High School). Observing the ISA Team meetings was very insightful. For example, a question that CHE and DOJ have posed to the district previously is how ISA Teams weigh or reconcile conflicting data relative to redesignation decisions. Additionally, DPS was into the second year of implementing an automated system to compile ISA data at the time of our site visit, and we were interested in assessing the effectiveness of this system since schools are now required to upload all related data into the system. Issues such as these are not explicitly stated in the CD but provide useful program and implementation information.
Prior to the 2016-2017 school year, much of the technical assistance provided to schools regarding ISA Teams was provided by ELA Network Partners assigned to those schools. In an attempt to streamline this system of information delivery and technical support, the ELA Program created a position for one Network Partner to be the point person on delivery of technical support, providing guidance to schools on requisite forms,
47

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 55 of 147
and giving ISA team members updates on calendar events related to ISA Team training, redesignation windows, etc. In addition, this person would provide support to schools in helping them upload all necessary forms into the new automated system described previously. DPS made a strategic move by appointing Veronica Maes to this position. She is a veteran teacher and former principal with the district and has over 20 years of experience working with the ELA Program. DPS also hired a counterpart to Ms. Maes to oversee all similar Charter School ISA Team responsibilities. That person, Tanis Humes, works very closely with Veronica Maes, and their effect on providing key assistance and serving as the point person that ISA and CH-ISA teams can go to is a positive comment we heard consistently at the schools we visited.
At four of the six school sites visited, we observed an ISA Team meeting taking place. At two schools (Marrama and Greenlee), we observed simulated ISA Team meetings where team members and the principal walked us through the process they use during meetings. It was quite interesting to observe an entire team of school administrators and teachers reviewing individual student files to make recommendations to the ELA Department as outlined in the CD. Those discussions were usually thoughtful, collaborative, and objective. I did not see one single example of an ISA Team trying, for example, to redesignate a student for the sake of redesignation. In fact, we observed the opposite. At North High School we heard the Assistant Principal on the ISA Team make the comment, "She meets the ACCESS trigger but there are social-emotional issues that are very prevalent. She lacks confidence and talks about quitting school often. We need to work more closely with her learning community." We note this because it is an example of the ISA Team taking into consideration factors besides test scores. At Hamilton Middle School, we witnessed the ISA
48

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 56 of 147
Team spend almost 45 minutes discussing the writing scores of one student who was eligible for redesignation. At one point, the Principal intervened and asked the team to compare paper and pencil essays versus computer writing and suggested that the Team follow-up on reviewing the core instruction the student was receiving in writing, watch her progress, and check in with the classroom teacher. The decision was made to wait until the spring to reconsider redesignation.
Finally, we heard from several of the ISA Teams that they are having more and more transparent conversations, and that parents are being consulted more, not just as a recommended step, but taking into consideration what parents’ opinions are. We also gathered that ISA Teams are moving more cautiously and understanding that it is not a bad thing or negative reflection on the school to recommend that students continue receiving ELA Program services rather than redesignating them. Most impressive for us however, was to actually observe ISA Teams deal with the issue of conflicting data and work as a team to resolve these issues or conflicts and make decisions that they feel are in the best interests of ELs.
Results and Discussion Following are the results of our six school site visits. The tables and discussion which follow reflect the evidence we collected on our Chapter 2 Spot Audit Checklist. Even though we observed four actual ISA Team meetings and two simulated meetings, we report our findings in the tables that follow based on our observations at all six school sites. Question 1—Who are the ISA team members in the six ELA program schools?
49

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 57 of 147

Table 2.1 Team Membership
Principal and/or admin designate Fully qualified ELA-e or ELA-S teacher Second teacher Additional members

Number of schools complying in each
member area 6
6
6
6

Percent
100 100 100 100

Of the six schools we visited, all schools had at least the requisite ISA team members

and most of them had two or more additional members. For example, at Beach Court

Elementary, the Principal and the Assistant Principal fulfilled the first required category.

Then two ELA-E and two ELA-S fully qualified teachers fulfilled the next three required

member categories. Similarly, at North High School, the Principal and AP both attended the

ISA meeting as did five ELA-E or ELA-S qualified teachers as well as one SPED teacher.

Question 2--When did the most recent training occur for ISA team members?

Table 2.2 Number of program
school ISA teams studied
6

Number of schools that attended ISA training in Sept or Oct each calendar
year
6

Percent 100

For all of the six ISA teams studied, the team members received their training online through Moodle, a learning platform for educators. Team members reported that they like the online training since it provides a good overview of responsibilities. Online training was found especially helpful for new administrators. Question 3--How often do school ISA Teams meet?

50

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 58 of 147

Table 2.3

School Visited

Marrama Elementary Castro Elementary Hamilton Middle School Greenlee Elementary North High School Beach Court Elementary

Number of ISA Team Meetings in 20152016 6 7 5 9 14 14

Table 2.3 shows that the number of ISA Team meetings held at each of the six

schools we visited ranged from five at Hamilton Middle School to 14 at both North High

School and Beach Court Elementary. ISA meeting agendas and minutes, or notes, were

reviewed at all six schools, usually by having the ISA Team Lead show us on their laptop

computers. Google Docs is typically used for saving and sharing all meeting documentation.

Question 4A-- What documents were evident during the observation of ISA Team

meetings?

Table 2.4.A
Types of ISA meeting documentation seen during six observations

Number of ISA teams with meeting documentation observed in each category

Percent

Meeting Minutes available

6

100

Meeting Agendas recorded

6

100

51

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 59 of 147
We sat in on four ISA Team meetings at six school sites during the spot audits. At two of the six schools, we met with the ISA Team although they did not have a meeting formally scheduled during the time we were there but presented a simulated meeting for us. Also joining us were the new Network Partner recently appointed to be the lead person between the ELA Department and the ISA Teams at each program school. In some cases, Network Partners who had been working with the schools where we observed prior to the new hire and appointment also joined us. Two of the ISA Teams had attendees present other than the team members, including a SPED teacher and an additional ELA-S teacher. We noted that, unlike previous observations where the ISA Team Lead kept minutes and agendas in a binder, all of the team leads showed us examples of computerized records such as Google Docs that they now used to store minutes, agendas, and even running records of notes, decisions made, etc. Table 2.4.A reflects that we reviewed meeting minutes and agendas at all six schools. Also, we were interested in learning how the new automated system was working for ISA Teams during the second year of implementation. When asked, ISA Teams reported that the new forms and automation system for saving and sharing documents was “absolutely better” and “more accessible and efficient”. Much of this was attributed to the additional support they have received from the ELA Department and the new Network Partner point person.
52

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 60 of 147

Question 4B: What ISA activities were observed during the team meetings?

Table 2.4.B

Types of

Types of

DPS

Decisions and # of

%

activity

Evidence

Forms recommendations teams

considered filled out

made

doing

this

activity

Reviewing

Lists of students Forms

Prepare EL lists and

6

100

services for to be served;

sent from program model for

newly

network

ELA office each new EL;

identified ELs partners; student with

determine ELD

including

data on Infinite deadline block.

newcomers to Campus

and

identify

follow-up;

potentially

also PPF

inappropriate

forms

ID and

placement

Monitor EL

Student data

Follow EL student

6

100

identification such as WAPT, protocol placement can be

and placement HLR, PPF; parent set by

changed if data

meetings;

ELA office suggest this is

appropriate

Review ELP Grades, ACCESS Follow Redesignation

6

100

and academic scores,

protocol decisions made from

progress of

assessment data set by

body of evidence for

ELs, including from PARCC,

ELA office each student,

PPF3 students TCAP, CMAS, end

monitoring,

of unit tests, ACT

intervention

(HS), ELD

student profile

Identify ELs Data from

Follow Academic, social,

6

100

who need

teachers, ISA

protocol and/or emotional

intervention team

set by

interventions

to address

observations,

ELA office

students’

ACCESS scores,

instructional assessments,

needs

grades, IEPs,,

53

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 61 of 147

social/emo development

Table 2.4.B summarizes what we observed during the ISA meetings. In 100% of the

ISA Team meetings we observed, each of the four target activities listed in the spot-audit

checklist were conducted via focused, high level data-driven discussions guided by the

body of evidence for each EL student when considering possible redesignation or needed

interventions. We did not observe any teams considering re-entry decisions. One ISA Team

member noted unprompted that the current level of scrutiny and concern for ELs didn’t

exist in the “old” DPS. Another ISA Team member commented, “I love what’s happening

here. The ELs get service.” Thus, there is evidence of shared commitment across all the ISA

Team members we observed to follow up, monitor progress through data, and keep

checking in with the teachers.

V. Open-Ended Questions from Interviews of ISA Team members:

1. How has the automated system used to compile ISA data for students been

working for you? Do you have any suggestions for the District on how to improve it?

Table 2.5.1
Summary of types of responses from the six
ISA teams
We like it. It is working well for us and is very useful.

Number of six ISA Teams who gave this response
6

Percent 100

Last year it was frustrating

4

67

and challenging but the

glitches have been fixed.

It is easy to enter and pull

4

67

out data. So much better

than the binders.

54

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 62 of 147

As Table 2.5.1 shows, there was consensus among the six school ISA Team members

that the automated data entry system is useful and working well for them now. There were

multiple comments concerning the technical challenges and glitches they encountered

during the first year of use, and the steep learning curve it took to learn the Infinite Campus

system. But currently the automated data entry system is considered “trustworthy,” better

than keeping binders, and “really useful.” Four of the six teams (67%) specifically cited the

challenges of the automated system during year one of implementation as well as the ease

they now feel in uploading and retrieving data. The ISA Teams did not talk at all about any

work that needed to be done this year to correct past decisions that may have been

misinformed such as more carefully monitoring exited students.

2. In redesignation decisions, how does your ISA Team weigh or reconcile conflicting

data in cases where some data indicate a redesignation should be recommended yet

other data indicate there should not be a redesignation?

Table 2.5.2
Summary of types of responses from the six
ISA teams
We weigh the body of evidence and decide how much weight to give each data point

Number of six ISA Teams who gave some version of
this response
6

Percent 100

We seek consensus of ISA

3

50

team members

We gather input from

6

100

families, classroom

teachers, ELD and SPED

teachers

55

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 63 of 147

We are cautious in making

6

100

redesignation decisions. No

rush.

Of the six ISA Teams that were interviewed concerning student redesignation decisions in the face of conflicting data, all six or 100% reported that they weighed a body of evidence including test and assessment data, observational data, and parent/teacher input before deciding. Three of the six ISA Teams (50%) mentioned that they seek consensus among the team members in decisions concerning redesignation. As one team member said: “We have a very strong ISA Team and we strive to look at as much data as we can and thoroughly.” All of the ISA Teams were adamant about not rushing to redesignate.
In response to a later query we made while preparing this report, DPS provided guidelines regarding minimum scores on assessments that students must attain in order to be considered for redesignation that ISA Teams use when considering redesignation. For example, a student must score at least a 4 overall on ACCESS and a 4 on ACCESS Literacy. Our observations and interviews with the ISA Teams were conducted before the new WIDA standards were implemented. Analysis of Individual Student Records
As part of our Chapter 2 spot audit, we systematically selected 10 EL student ISA records to review at each of the six schools we visited. We did not record the total number of students reviewed by the ISA Team at each school from which our samples of 10 at each school were drawn. The results of that review are summarized in Table 2.6.

56

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 64 of 147

Table 2.6
Type of Decision Redesignation

Number 27

Identification

32

PPF3

1

Monitoring

TOTAL

60

% of Total 45.0%
53.3% 1.7%

Outcome Evidence Cited

Redesignate: Yes 56% No 41% In process 4%
Identify as EL: Yes 100% No 0%
Not specified

ACCESS 100%

Grades 81%

WIDA 30%

CMAS

7%

iStation 4%

DRA

4%

Rng. rec. 4%

WIDA 94%

WAPT 55%

iStation 13%

Reading 7%

DRA

7%

Not specified

Table 2.6 shows that 45% (27/60) of the ISA decisions focused on redesignation,

53.3% (32/60) focused on identification of students as ELs, and one record (1.7%) focused

on PPF3 monitoring. The table also shows that, of the 27 students who the ISA teams

considered for redesignation, 56% were redesignated, 41% were not, and 4% were still in

process. Of the 32 students the ISA Teams considered identifying as ELs, 100% were

identified. No information was available as to the PPF3 monitoring (i.e., whether the

student was or was not judged by the ISA Team to be making progress). The far right

column of Table 2.3 shows the evidence used by the ISA Teams as the basis for their

decisions. ACCESS scores and grades were used most frequently by ISA Teams as the basis

for redesignation decisions. WIDA and WAPT were used most often to make identification

decisions. Assessments used in one case of PPF3 monitoring were not specified. In a

follow-up communication with us as we prepared this report, DPS noted that the reason we

did not document PPF3 monitoring decisions in our document review was that the PPF3

57

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 65 of 147 “window” (the time period during which ISA Teams focus on PPF3 monitoring decisions) had just opened, whereas the identification and redesignation windows had just closed. We also did not observe Year 1 and 2 monitoring required after redesignation prior to Program exit. Because we were not able to review PPF3 monitoring documentation or postredesignation Year 1 and 2 monitoring, our conclusions regarding Chapter 2 implementation based on this part of our Chapter 2 spot audit are limited to the identification and redesignation documentation we reviewed.
58

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 66 of 147
Chapter 8: Charter Schools
Method Our last visit of 2016 focused on Chapter 8 of the CD, Charter Schools. During December, we spent five days on-site and visited seven charter schools. Our initial plan was to visit six charter schools. We made the decision to select two elementary, two middle, and two high schools. We reviewed the July 2016 ELA Program Report that the district submits to the parties. Charter schools do not have ELA designations but they do provide data on total number of ELLs and Provisional ELLs served. This information was found in Section 9.V.A.1. We wanted to visit schools that served large numbers of ELLs and those that served smaller numbers of ELLs. STRIVE Prep Ruby Hill for example identified 191 ELs while Highline Academy which is also an elementary, identified 44 ELs. After selecting six schools, we added a seventh one (Denver Language School) because of its focus on Spanish and Mandarin Chinese language immersion. Denver Language School has both an elementary and middle school program and identified 99 ELs in both programs. During December 5-8, we visited the following charter schools: • Denver Language School • Girls Athletic Leadership Schools (GALS) • DSST College View Middle School • Rise Up • Highline Academy NE • STRIVE Prep Federal • STRIVE Ruby Hill In addition to meeting with charter school teachers and leaders, we met with district central office leadership and several ELA Program staff including Nadia Madan
59

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 67 of 147
Morrow, Director of Leadership and Program Management, and Tanis Humes, who manages the Ch-ISA process very similar to what Veronica Maes does for the district. During that meeting, DPS overviewed the process used for monitoring ELL services in charter schools (CD Chapter 8.A) and for charter renewals (CD Chapter 8.C). We also met briefly with Chris Gibbons, the founder and CEO of STRIVE Preparatory Schools. He participated in our session at STRIVE Prep Federal. During our final debrief, we also met with members of the Portfolio Management Team which supports autonomous schools in DPS including charter schools. During that debrief, Maya Lagana, Senior Director of Portfolio Management, and Angie McPhaul, Manager of Accountability, discussed the charter review process with us.
Chapter 8 of the CD consists of three paragraphs that, first, specify that charter schools, like all DPS schools, “take appropriate action to overcome language barriers that impede meaningful and equal participation by all students enrolled in the District’s instructional programs.” Chapter 8.A and 8.C then describe the District’s responsibility to monitor identification of, services for, and assessment of ELLs in charter schools, while 8.B requires that each charter school identify a school administrator with ELA expertise who is responsible for providing oversight and monitoring the effectiveness of ELA services at the school. Our focus in monitoring Chapter 8 implementation at the school sites was to document whether the charter schools we visited were making the same educational alternatives and language acquisition services available to ELLs as non-charter schools. Toward this end, we prepared a Chapter 8 Spot Audit checklist (Appendix 6) that further focused on four areas:
1. Administrator/Administrator Designee Interview
60

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 68 of 147
2. ELL Lists and the ELD Scheduling Report 3. Charter ISA (Ch-ISA) Team Process 4. Ch-ISA Team Meetings Section I of our spot-audit checklist focused on CD Chapter 8.B, whether the charter school had identified an administrator with ELA expertise and how that administrator provided oversight for and evaluated the effectiveness of ELA services at the school. Section II of our spot-audit checklist was designed to determine whether Ch-ISA Teams were carrying out their responsibilities in the same manner as ISA Teams at non-charter schools, and the checklist items in that section of our spot-audit checklist focused on ISA activities specified in CD Chapter 2.A through 2.D. The results of the spot audits and additional information collected for the chapter are summarized in the following tables both quantitatively and qualitatively as appropriate. A short narrative accompanies the data summarized in each table.
Results and Discussion Table 8.1 provides a profile of the charter schools we visited. The seven schools serve 858 English learners with 787 (92%) of those being Spanish speakers. The most glaring issue we noticed however, is that only 34 (0.4%) are ACCESS Level 1 students and 41 (0.5%) are ACCESS Level 2 Spanish-speaking ELs. In short, less than 1% of the Spanishspeaking English learners in these 7 charter schools are ACCESS Level 1 and 2 students (i.e., the lowest two levels of English proficiency), an issue that has been brought up by CHE and the DOJ on several occasions. Moreover, two schools had no ACCESS level 1 and 2 ELs, and two more enrolled just one level 1 or 2 EL. In response to our first draft of this report, DPS made the following points regarding the previous paragraph:
61

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 69 of 147

1. Many Access 1s and 2s are in newcomer centers and there are no Charter Newcomer Centers. In addition, lower ACCESS proficiency students are also more frequently in District TNLI schools and there are not many TNLI Charter Schools.
2. DPS overall is seeing fewer ACCESS 1 and 2s in all schools because of demographic shifts.

3. Five of the charter schools visited are secondary schools which tend to serve fewer numbers of ACCESS 1 and 2 students overall.

The District further noted, “To increase the number of 1’s and 2’s at Charter schools,

the District’s Choice office is requiring that Charters leave open seats in the fall to be able to

take late arrival students who may be lower ACCESS levels.”

Table 8.1
Charter School
STRIVE Ruby Hill STRIVE Federal Rise Up GALS MS GALS HS Highline Academy NE Denver Language School DSST College View MS
TOTALS

Total EL
Count

PPF 1 PPF 2 Count Count

280 153 126 204 137 57
29 13 12 29 12 13 13 6 5 84 21 60 72 19 29 160 103 42 871 464 344

Count of Spanishspeaking
ELLs
268 202
28 25 12 56 54 154 799

Spanish-speaking ELLs and ACCESS

Level 1

Level 2

24

25

4

7

0

0

0

1

0

0

3

6

2

2

1

0

34

41

As noted above, Part I.A of our spot-audit checklist (Questions 1-6) was directed

toward each charter school administrator or their designee and was based on the

requirements of CD Chapter 8.B. Following are the findings we gathered for questions 1-6

and a brief discussion of those findings.

62

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 70 of 147

Question 1--Does the school have an administrator or designee with ELA expertise?

Table 8.2 Administrator/Designee 7

Completed ELA Teacher Qualifications Requirements for Charter Schools
6

Percent 86

At the seven schools that we visited, six of the ELA Administrators had completed all

ELA Teacher Qualifications requirements. One ELA Administrator had recently been

appointed to that role in his school and he was On-Track for completion but still needed

several modules before meeting the requirement. We should note also that in April 2017, I

followed up to assess the progress he was making while On-Track. I was informed that this

individual was no longer employed at the charter school and was replaced by an ELA

Administrator who had completed all TQ requirements. I was able to verify this.

Question 2--Is there evidence that the Administrator or Designee has ELA expertise?

Table 8.3 Evidence Across Qualifications
BA Degree in related field

No. of ELA Admin./Designee
7 of 7

Percent 100

3 years teaching experience with ESL/Bilingual Education
3 years administrative experience with ESL/Bilingual Education

7 of 7

100

6 of 7

86

Six of seven ELA Administrators had completed an MA degree or higher in a related

field. Areas of specialization included; Language and Literacy, Urban Education, ESL,

Education Leadership, and Curriculum and Instruction. Of the seven ELA Administrators,

one had three years teaching experience in DPS, one had four years of experience in

Aurora, and the other five had five years of experience or more. The one ELA

63

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 71 of 147
Administrator who did not have a minimum of three years administrative expertise had been appointed shortly before we completed our site visit. He was also the person who was on track to complete his ELA Teacher Qualifications requirements. Finally, he is the same person whom we learned no longer worked at that charter school four months later when we did a follow-up. He had been replaced as the ELA Administrator by someone who met all three qualifications above. Question 3--What training has DPS provided on evaluating effectiveness of ELA Services?
Eleven different forms of or specific types of training were identified by the ELA Administrators we interviewed in response to Question 3. We would like to note that Questions 3 through 6 in our Chapter 8 spot-audit checklist are open-ended questions and that administrators could provide more than one response to each question; as a result, the questions evoked a variety of responses to each question rather than responses that centered on several main points.
In response to Question 3 on the checklist, all seven (100%) of the ELA administrators reported that they attended at least one of the types of training identified in Table 8.4. Four of the seven interviewees (57%) identified the required teacher qualifications coursework as the training that addressed the issue of evaluating ELA services effectiveness. On the opposite end, one teacher, representing 14% of those we interviewed, cited Literacy for ELLs as the training that dealt with Question 3. Administrators, without prompting, noted that DPS has provided them with good training opportunities in order to more effectively evaluate ELA services.
64

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 72 of 147

Table 8.4

Specific Training

Teacher qualifications coursework Collaborative team approaches ISA team training ELA administrator institute Progress monitoring of students Literacy for ELLs Connection with parents Evaluation and pre-evaluation EL achieve training Classroom walkthroughs (with Nadia Madan) ELA teacher quality rubrics

Number Who Listed This Training 4 3 2 3 3 1 2 4 2 3

Percent
57 43 29 43 43 14 29 57 29 43

2

29

Question 4--How does the ELA Administrator/Designee provide oversight of ELA

services?

Table 8.5 Strategies for Providing Oversight

Number Who Cited This Percent

Created Google forms for walk-throughs

2

29

Ch-ISA training or sitting in on Ch-ISA

5

71

meetings

Progress monitoring (review student data, pull

6

86

grades, review student work samples,

attendance)

Ongoing meetings with grade level teachers

3

43

Review assessments for EL Achieve

4

57

Review the HLQ and WAPT

3

43

Meet with parents

2

29

65

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 73 of 147

Meet weekly with instructional coaches Meet with ELD teachers monthly Use achievement block Look at equity and inclusion artifacts

2

29

2

29

1

14

1

14

Table 8.5 shows that the oversight strategies cited most often were progress

monitoring (86%), Ch-ISA monitoring (71%), and reviewing EL ACHIEVE assessments

(57%). Strategies cited least often were the use of achievement blocks or looking at equity

and inclusion artifacts (14%) and creating Google forms for walkthroughs (29%). Five of

the seven ELA Administrators spoke about or alluded to the importance and value of

coaching and mentoring regularly. Six of seven administrators addressed the importance

of working closely with and, in some cases, serving on the school's Ch-ISA Team. All the

ELA Administrators whom we interviewed provided at least two strategies for providing

oversight.

Question 5--How does the ELA Administrator evaluate the effectiveness of ELA

services?

Table 8.6

Evaluation Strategies

Continuous student data review Evaluation of every teacher Schedule data days Monitoring of student progress Use EL achieve rubrics Meet with ELD teacher monthly Analysis of achievement scores Analysis of writing scores (quarterly) Assessment of daily exit tickets
66

Number Who Cited This 7 3 3 4 3 3 3 2 1

Percent
100 43 43 57 43 43 43 29 14

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 74 of 147

Teacher coaching

3

43

Ongoing observation of teachers with feedback

4

57

Review ACCESS growth

2

29

Table 8.6 shows that all administrators reported using continuous student data

review to evaluate ELA services, followed by monitoring of student progress and ongoing

observation of teachers with feedback (57% each). Least used were assessment of daily

exit tickets (14%) and reviewing ACCESS growth or analysis of writing scores (29% each).

The themes or strategies discussed by the ELA Administrators were consistent regarding

evaluation of ELA services at their school. Every administrator noted that they are

involved in continuously reviewing student data, especially in teams. Multiple tools and

measures seem to be used to evaluate effectiveness. The process of evaluation of

effectiveness is ongoing, collaborative, data driven and structured, based on the responses

we received to this question.

Question 6--How could DPS provide more support for ELA administrators?

Table 8.7 Recommendation
Need more feedback especially concrete

Number Who Cited This Percent

2

29

Curriculum related support

1

14

Access to infinite campus forms

1

14

"Show me not tell me" examples for first year

1

14

teachers

Strategies for dealing more effectively with

1

14

students who have psychological and social

work related issues

67

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 75 of 147

DPS and CDE agreement on success of early

1

14

literacy

Question 6 on our checklist was designed to get feedback from the charter school

administrators regarding additional support the District could provide charter schools as

the District oversees and monitors ELA services at the schools (CD Chapter 8.A). As Table

8.7 shows, there was no consensus as to how DPS could provide more support for ELA

administrators, with only two administrators citing the same suggestion – more “feedback,

especially concrete.” Four of the seven ELA Administrators made positive comments about

the support they get already. Two administrators noted that they feel comfortable calling

the ELA Program office at any time when they have questions. One administrator made the

unsolicited comment that she and other school principals would appreciate "a fresh eye

and more concrete feedback."

Part I.B of our Chapter 8 spot-audit checklist focused on Ch-ISA Team meetings, and

the results from that section of the checklist are summarized in Tables 8.B.1 through 8.5.

Question 8B1--How often does the Charter ISA (Ch-ISA) Team meet?

Table 8.B1 Number of Meetings During School Year Number Who Cited This

Percent

Once per month (8)

3

43

During redesignation window (2)

3

43

Four times per school year (4)

1

14

68

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 76 of 147

Table 8.B.1 shows the range in the number of times that the Ch-ISA Teams met from

twice a year to monthly. One ELA Administrator related that they meet four times per year.

Three respondents clarified that the number of meetings they reported represented the

number of times that they formally met. Further, they noted that there are numerous Ch-

ISA related meetings that take place more informally during the school year. One of those

three respondents stated that during the start of the school year, they’ll meet as often as

twice a month.

Question B2--Describe a typical Ch-ISA meeting?

Table 8.B2 Ch-ISA Meeting Activities

Number Who Cited This Percent

Meet in person or by phone

5

71

(share a screen)

Discuss body of evidence (student files)

5

71

Review the Ch-ISA Newsletter for updates

1

14

Consider parent requests for waivers

1

14

Review student scores and placement

2

29

(Exps. Express Placement, WAPT)

Complete outstanding forms

4

57

The frequency of activities taking place at Ch-ISA meetings ranged from teams meeting in person or by phone and discussing bodies of evidence (71%), to reviewing the Newsletter developed specifically for Ch-ISA Teams (14%), and considering parent requests for waivers from program services (14%). Reviewing student scores and completing required forms were listed by two respondents each (29%). Every ELA

69

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 77 of 147

Administrator interviewed listed at least two activities that take place during their school’s

Ch-ISA Team meeting. Additionally, we observed one formal Ch-ISA Team meeting at one

school. The files of four specific students were reviewed and after each discussion,

consensus was reached on one or more goals for each student. The range of issues

discussed for the students included the need for language supports, attendance issues,

writing scores, and a missing ACCESS score. This Ch-ISA Team meeting was similar to ISA

Team meetings we’ve observed previously.

Question B3--Describe the body of evidence the Ch-ISA Team typically reviews for

each of the following decisions in the “life cycle” of an EL.

a. Identification and registration of a student as an EL

Table 8.B3.a. Identification and Registration

Number Who Cited This Percent

Procedures

Home visits made prior to registration

2

29

Home Language Questionnaire completed

3

43

WAPT testing is done

4

57

Have video parents can watch

2

29

Use DPS core packet for registration

1

14

Front office staff play critical role

3

43

Bilingual information is available

1

14

Emphasize strong presence at registration

1

14

70

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 78 of 147

There are numerous similarities between ISA and Ch-ISA Teams that are worth

noting. Four ELA Administrators or 57% of them made a reference to WAPT testing that

usually takes place after a student is registered. Only 14% of Administrators made a direct

reference to using the core packet that the ELA Program developed or having registration

materials available in languages other than English during this part of the life cycle of a

student. Three respondents (43%) cited both the use of a Home Language Questionnaire

and the critical role that front office staff play in identifying and registering students. On

issues related to parents, two of the seven Administrators (29%) pointed out that home

visits are made by charter school staff before registration takes place, and a video that

parents can watch is made available during the day that registration takes place. Finally,

one Administrator (14%) made the point that from Ch-ISA Team training that she received

during the summer, she recognized the need to have a strong presence by teachers,

secretarial staff, and teachers at registration.

b. Placement in ELA services (include information on parent waiver requests).

Table 8.B3.b Factors That Determine Placement

Number Who Cited This Percent

Home Language Questionnaire

5

71

WAPT

4

57

Ch-ISA Team plays a central role

5

71

Explain program services to parents

2

29

Review test data (MAPS), writing samples,

4

57

and reading scores, WIDA rubrics

Complete a Parent Permission Form (PPF)

1

14

71

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 79 of 147

Five of the seven Administrators we interviewed (71%), pointed to the essential role that the Ch-ISA Team plays in placing students in ELA services. The same number of respondents made a reference to the Home Language Questionnaire which parents complete as a major factor in the placement of students. Over half (57%) of the administrators cited the WAPT and review of test data to include WIDA rubrics, MAPS, and writing and reading scores as factors that determine placement. Only 29% of the seven Administrators explicitly referenced the explanation of program services to parents as a factor in placing students. Last, only one Administrator cited the completion of the PPF as a student placement factor.
c. Redesignation Table 8.B3.c.

Factors That Contribute to Decisions Number Who Cited This Percent

ACCESS scores

6

86

STAR scores

4

57

iStation scores

3

43

Report Cards

3

43

STEP test data

1

14

Writing samples

5

71

Similar to ISA Teams in ELA Program schools, ELA Charter Network Partner Tanis Humes provides charter schools with a roster of students eligible for redesignation. The seven Administrators identified six factors that contribute to Ch-ISA Team decisions
72

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 80 of 147

regarding redesignation. Six of the seven respondents identified scores on the ACCESS test

as the major factor in their decision-making. Five Administrators identified student writing

samples as a key factor in decisions that the team makes. One Administrator referenced

STEP test data (Strategic Teaching and Evaluation of Progress) as part of the Body of

Evidence at her school. Report cards and iStation scores were identified by an equal

number of Administrators (43%) and four of the seven persons (57%) we interviewed

cited STAR scores as part of their school’s Body of Evidence.

d. Monitoring of student progress after redesignation.

Table 8.B3.d.

Monitoring of Student Progress Factors Monitor for two years

Number Who Cited This 7

Percent 100

Monthly student data review

2

29

PARCC grades

1

14

MAPs (Measures of Academic Progress)

1

14

scores

STAR scores

3

43

Confer with parents

3

43

When asked what factors administrators take into account when monitoring the progress of students who have been redesignated, all seven replied that their school monitors students for two years. Only one (14%) of those Administrators we interviewed cited PARCC scores and MAPs scores as factors that contribute to their monitoring efforts. Three administrators (43%) identified STAR scores and conferring with parents as monitoring factors. Finally, two Administrators (29%), in discussing the monitoring that

73

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 81 of 147

takes place at their school, stated that Ch-ISA Teams and others engage in a review of

student data on a monthly basis as part of their ongoing monitoring efforts.

Question 4--How has the automated system used to compile CH-ISA data for students

been working for you? Do you have any suggestions for the district on how to

improve it?

Table 8.4

Satisfaction With New Automated

Number Who Cited This Percent

System

This year is much better

7

100

Strong support from ELA Partner

4

57

Monday morning email helps

2

29

Table 8.4 shows that all seven Administrators expressed satisfaction with the new

automated system implemented by DPS, noting that the system “is much better this year“

than during the first year of implementation. The ELA Network Partners responsible for

oversight to ISA Teams and CH-ISA Teams send to each program and charter school,

respectively, an email every Monday morning that informs the teams of updates, deadlines,

and other relevant information. Two of the Administrators (29%) noted that the Monday

emails are helpful. Four of the seven Administrators said they receive strong support from

the ELA Network Partner, Tanis Humes.

Question 5--In redesignation decisions, how does your CH-ISA Team weigh, or

reconcile, conflicting data in cases where some data indicate a redesignation should

be recommended yet other data indicate there should not be a redesignation?

Table 8.5

74

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 82 of 147

How Team Weighs/Reconciles Conflicting Data for Redesignation Often hinges on writing Conversations with parents Frequent grade level team meetings Review student grades Not in a rush to redesignate Seek opinion of ELA Partner

Number Who Cited This Percent

4

57

3

43

2

29

3

43

4

57

2

29

Four of the seven administrators (57%), identified writing scores and samples as a key factor when they weigh conflicting data for redesignation, mirroring the emphasis on writing as an important factor in redesignation that was also identified in our interviews with and observations of ISA Teams in non-charter schools. Additionally, four Administrators also noted that their school is not in a rush to redesignate students. Frequent grade level meetings and consultation with the ELA Network Partner were cited by two Administrators (29%) as factors the CH-ISA Team utilizes to weigh conflicting data. Three of the seven Administrators (43%) stated that having conversations with parents and review of student grades were factors that their CH-ISA Team considers when weighing or reconciling conflicting student data.
Three unsolicited reactions by charter school Administrators are worth noting concerning this issue of weighing conflicting data at the time that redesignation decisions are made. One Administrator mentioned that, “our central messaging is to dig deeper to

75

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 83 of 147

show as much student proficiency as possible.” A second Administrator noted that when it

comes time to redesignate an English learner, “we err on the side of caution so that

students can keep receiving services.” Similarly, a third Administrator commented that,

“we want to provide as many services for students as long as we can.”

When creating the items in Section I.C of our Chapter 8 spot-audit checklist, we

assumed that a scheduling or “service percentage” report would be available for the charter

schools we visited. However, we found that this type of report is not generated for charter

schools as it is for non-charter schools. The reason that this report is not available for

charter schools is that in developing the district system, a teacher is “tagged” as ELA-T/E/S

in the Human Resources Information System and then connected to a student’s schedule in

Infinite Campus for the service percentage. Charter schools do their own hiring and each

has their own Human Resource Information Systems, so DPS cannot create a similar report.

Charters do use IC so the district is able to monitor ELD scheduling.

Since a service percentage report was not available for the charters, we instead

recorded in this section of our spot-audit checklist the number of students at each PPF

designation (reported in Table 8.7), the frequency and duration of the ELD instruction

provided to ELs at the school, and the percent of EL students enrolled in ELD. Those data

are summarized in Table 8.6.

Table 8.6

Charter School
STRIVE Ruby Hill STRIVE Prep Federal

Duration & Frequency of ELD

ELs enrolled in ELD

45 mins/day

100%

50 mins/day

All ELs but PPF3 students

76

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 84 of 147

Highline Northeast Rise Up DSST College View Middle School GALS
DLS

Not recorded 45 mins/day 50 mins/day Not recorded
45 mins/day

100%
100%
Not recorded
All ELs but two in special education who are enrolled in special education language arts
100%

The table shows that three of the seven charters reported providing 45 minutes of ELD per day, two reported providing 50 minutes of ELD per day, and no ELD duration was recorded for two of the charters (Highline Northeast and GALS – we failed to record the duration for those two schools. A follow-up with DPS verified that we observed ELD instruction at GALS, that Highline Northeast uses EL Achieve for ELD just as non-charters do, and that the monitoring rubric used for charters requires a minimum of 45 minutes of ELD daily). The table also shows that all ELs were scheduled into an ELD block in four schools, all but PPF3 students were scheduled into ELD at one school (Note: PPF3 students are not enrolled in ELD in charters or non-charters), all but two special education students were scheduled into ELD at one school, and that for one school the percent of EL placement in ELD was not recorded in our data sheets.
Section II.A of the Chapter 8 checklist sought information regarding the membership of the Ch-ISA Teams, their qualifications, most recent ELA training, and the type of documentation kept for Ch-ISA meetings.
Ch-ISA Team membership at all six schools included the Principal and at least two teachers. One school included a third teacher and one included the Vice Principal. Five of
77

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 85 of 147
the six Principals indicated they had completed ELA or LED training or had a Masters degree. One Principal and a Vice Principal said their training was “not completed.” The District later clarified for us that Ch-ISA Team members cannot access the system without completing the Moodle. The context for the Principal who indicated his training was not completed was that he was stepping into a role for someone who had just gone on maternity leave and he had not done the Moodle training yet. Of the 13 teachers who were members of Ch-ISA Teams, nine had completed the ELA or LED training or had a Masters degree, and four indicated their training was in progress. Five of the six Principals and the one Vice Principal had most recently participated in ELA training in July, August, or September preceding or during the current school year; one Principal had completed the training “last year.” Eleven of the 13 teachers had completed their most recent training in July, August or September, and one teacher had completed the training in December. The most recent training date was not recorded for the thirteenth teacher.
One of the six schools reported keeping formal documentation of Ch-ISA meetings (meeting agendas) while the other five schools do not keep formal documentation such as meeting agendas or meeting minutes. At four of the six schools, staff referred to the IC as the source of the information they used during Ch-ISA meetings. At one school, the Assistant Principal keeps notes, at one school student folders are kept for each student and used along with the IC, and at one school staff noted that some hard copies of assessments are maintained. Analysis of Individual Student Records
Ch-ISA Teams follow the same procedures for EL student identification, redesignation, and monitoring that ISA Teams follow, and the CD specifies in Chapters 2
78

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 86 of 147
and 4 the responsibilities of the ISA Team and that ISA decisions be based on multiple sources of assessment information. As part of the examination of Ch-ISA Teams, 61 individual student records were systematically sampled from the seven charter schools to document types of Ch-ISA decisions made and the evidence cited by the teams in making those decisions. Ten records were sampled from each of STRIVE Ruby Hill, Highline, DSST, and DLS; eight records each were sampled from both STRIVE Prep Federal and GALS; and five were sampled from Rise Up. Sample sizes differed among the schools due to differing populations of ELs at each school whose status had been assessed by the Ch-ISA Team and we did not record the total number of students at each school from which we systematically sampled.
Table 8.7 summarizes the decisions made by the Ch-ISA Teams and the evidence considered by the teams in making those decisions. Of the 61 decisions represented in the table, 46% (28/61) dealt with redesignation, 34% (21/61) with identification, 18% (11/21) with PPF3 monitoring, and 2% (1/61) with classification of the student as a Newcomer. The table also summarizes the outcomes of the decisions made by the Ch-ISA Teams: 57% of students whose redesignation status was considered by the teams were redesignated; 95% whose EL identification was considered were identified as ELs; 45% of the PPF3 students who the teams were monitoring were judged to be making progress; and the one student considered for Newcomer identification was classified as a Newcomer.
Table 8.7 shows that, regarding redesignation decisions, ACCESS scores (used in 96% of redesignation decisions) and grades (used in 93% of redesignation decisions) were used the most frequently as the basis for the decision. Identification decisions were made based most often on WIDA and STAR performance (both used in 100% of identification
79

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 87 of 147
decisions). In monitoring the performance of PPF3 students, grades were most often used (in 100% of PPF3 monitoring decisions) followed by CMAS scores (45% of PPF3 monitoring decisions). The student assessed for Newcomer status was assessed using the district’s Newcomer Questionnaire. Our review of the student records further showed that 98% (60/61) of the 61 decisions were based on two or more pieces of evidence, with the only exception being the Newcomer decision. While we documented the frequency with which different assessments were cited for these decisions, we did not record the relative weight given to each assessment in those decisions.

Table 8.7
Type of Decision Redesignation

Number 28

Identification

21

PPF3

11

Monitoring

% of Total Decisions
46%
34%
18%

Outcome Evidence Cited

Redesignate: Yes 57% No 43%
Identify as EL: Yes 95% No 5%
Progress: Yes 45% No 55%

ACCESS 96%

Grades 93%

CMAS 21%

MAPS 14%

WIDA 14%

STAR Rdg. 11%

Transcpts 7%

iStation 4%

DRA

4%

PARCC 4%

TCAP

4%

WIDA 100%

WAPT 100%

STAR 29%

STEP 14%

iReady 10%

DRA

10%

Grades 100%

CMAS 45%

MAPS 18%

Par. inter. 18%

80

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 88 of 147

Newcomer (NC)

1

TOTAL

61

Alt. Assess. 9%

STEP

9%

“BOE”

9%

STAR Rdg. 9%

2%

Newcomer:

NC Ques. 100%

Yes 0%

No 100%

Charter Renewal and ELA Quality Assurance During our meeting with District administrators focusing on charter renewal (CD

Chapter 8.C) and monitoring (CD Chapter 8.A), the District shared a document that

overviewed the processes used. Following is a summary of the information shared in that

document.

Charter Renewal. According to the District’s overview, charter renewal

recommendations are made based on a Body of Evidence of the school’s academic and

organizational performance, with academic performance being a primary consideration.

Data for the Body of Evidence are collected during the fall of the final year of the charter

term, led by a Portfolio Management Team composed of DPS staff and outside experts.

Evidence collection includes a site visit to the school during which stakeholder interviews

and classroom observations are conducted. Based on the Body of Evidence, the team makes

a renewal recommendation along a continuum ranging from “non-renewal” at one end of

the continuum to renewal for 1 to 2 years with conditions, 2 to 3 years with conditions, or a

five-year renewal at the other end of the continuum.

ELA Quality Assurance. In discussing the District’s monitoring of ELA services at

charter schools, DPS provided us with an overview of their approach. DPS monitoring of

ELA services for charters is grounded in the District’s School Quality Framework and a

Charter ELA Quality Assurance process that has four components: 1. A call for new schools 81

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 89 of 147
that has as its goal ensuring that all approved new schools have ELA plans that meet standards; 2. New school monitoring that has as its goal ensuring that new schools are opening with ELA programs that meet standards; 3. Tiered support that has as its goal ensuring that all schools are meeting expectations for ELL student performance; and 4. Renewal that has as its goal ensuring that charter schools are meeting performance and program standards for serving ELL students. Monitoring of charter school services for ELLs thus is built in at each step in this process.
As the basis for monitoring of ELA services for ELLS in charter schools, DPS uses a five-part rubric, with each of these five parts further broken down into CD-based requirements for providing services to ELL students and their families: 1. Identification Process and Parent Involvement; 2. Assessment and Placement; 3. Program Design and Curriculum; 4. Professional Development and Evaluation; and 5. Exiting/Redesignation and Monitoring Criteria. Reviews conducted of each charter school are documented with a review form that is kept on file by the District. We had not planned in time to conduct a spot audit of those review forms during our November 2016 visit, but that documentation would be a useful source of information in any future examination of CD Chapter 8 implementation as a follow-up to what we report here.
82

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 90 of 147
Chapter 6: Parental Oversight
Method This chapter of the CD contains seven major requirements and five affiliated subrequirements related to the District-wide Advisory Committee or DAC. The Chapter 6 Spot Audit Checklist (Appendix 7) that we created to gather evidence for Chapter 6 consists of a first section of interview questions about the PAC and DAC and based primarily on CD Chapter 6.I.A and B (PAC requirement and purpose), and then a second section used to document what occurred at PAC meetings we observed (CD Chapter 6.I.B). The IM attended a DAC meeting during 2106 to observe what occurred and then met with the DAC advisory Council to gather information pertinent to the implementation of CD Chapter 6.II and 6.III and we also reviewed DAC-related documents. Our discussion summary and discussion of the data we collected regarding CD Chapter 6 is divided into two distinct parts; one that concentrates on Parent Advisory Committees or PACs at ELA Program schools and the DAC, which provides the opportunity for a parent representative from each Program school to participate in this district-wide endeavor. Evidence gathered in support of Chapter 6 occurred during the week of February 13-18, 2017 across seven schools. Those schools were: • West Leadership Academy • Barnum Elementary • South High School • Cole Arts and Sciences Middle School • Eagleton Elementary • Swansea Elementary
83

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 91 of 147
• Ellis Elementary We selected the seven schools above following the process we've continually used and that we've outlined throughout this report. Prior to selecting these seven schools, the IM reviewed a running spreadsheet he maintains that shows all of the schools visited since 2013. I then reviewed the ELA Program Report from January 2017 and selected schools that represented multiple ELA designations including TNLI, TNLI and ESL Resource, and ELA-E with a Spanish Qualified Resource Teacher. I included a middle (West Leadership Academy) and high school (South High School) along with five elementary schools. The schools were part of multiple networks across DPS and had an EL student enrollment that ranged from 152 to 387. I conferred with Dr. Nelson who reviewed the list of schools and agreed that they were a representative sample of schools in the district. We submitted our list to the ELA Department and requested that they coordinate our February site visits. At each of the seven schools, we not only met with the principal, staff, community liaison (if the school had one) but most importantly, with the ELA PAC members. Each PAC was different and unique. A universal theme that we encountered was the expressed need by school leaders and PAC members for the need to get more parents involved. Some PAC meetings were quite organized and parents followed an agenda closely. In other meetings, the focus was more on specific training that had been identified previously by parents as a theme for that meeting. At Swansea Elementary for example, there was a painful conversation that took place among parents about the implications of the massive construction occurring along the I-70 corridor that was already creating major gentrification challenges for Spanish speaking families of that community. One of the leaders of the PAC and the Swansea community announced at this meeting that he and his
84

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 92 of 147
family would soon be leaving and relocating because rent had doubled on his family's home. At Ellis Elementary, 10 Muslim parents sent word through the principal that they would like to meet with me after the PAC meeting. It was one of the most personally poignant and painful conversations I have had during my years in this role. Parents expressed their deep concerns to me about the safety of their children in light of the political realities they faced post-Presidential election. As one mother shared with me, "we feel that our kids are safe here at Ellis but not outside of here and we live in fear." Another mother with tears in her eyes told me, "I want to explain to my kids that they will be safe but I can't." To the credit of Superintendent Boasberg and the Board of Education, DPS has taken a leadership role among school districts nationwide in assuring the safety of all students. Ironically, the night before my meeting at Ellis Elementary, the district approved an action known as the Safe and Welcoming School Resolution which states the following: … the district shall do everything in its lawful power to protect our students’ confidential
information and ensure that our students’ learning environments are not disrupted by immigration enforcement actions …
One concern that I have expressed to DPS in previous reports is that not every program school yet has an ELA PAC as the CD calls for. In previous reports, I have even suggested that the ELA Department should consider creating an initiative in which ELA Network Partners play a more active role with the schools in their respective networks to meet this very basic yet fundamental CD requirement. During the October 2017 visit to the district, we along with CHE member Martha Urioste met with Bridget Galati of the ELA Dept. Ms. Galati is leading an initiative to work through the Network Partners to assure that every program school in DPS has an ELA PAC formed and operational by the current
85

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 93 of 147
(2017/2018) school year. She has made major progress in assisting the district to meet this requirement.
With regard to the DAC, from the data we collected it appears that this portion of the Chapter 6 requirement is being fully implemented. The ELA Department in collaboration with the Family and Community Engagement (FACE) Program is implementing the DAC activities in response to the CD. They have alternating monthly meetings where the Superintendents Parent Forum (SPF) leads the DAC one month and the Family Leadership Institute (FLI) leads the DAC the next month. They alternate like this the entire year. During September of each school year, the SPF hosts a two-day DAC Kickoff at two different locations to better meet parents’ transportation needs. The Kickoff addresses numerous CD requirements as part of its agenda. This shift to alternating monthly meetings was actually requested by parents over two years ago and therefore, this is how the DAC structure is now implemented. It is during these two Kickoffs that issues such as ELA Program types, parent rights and responsibilities, the CD and other key issues are introduced and discussed using multiple meeting formats. In addition, other topics and issues of interest to parent participants are presented both at the SPF and FLI monthly sessions. Interpreters in multiple languages are always present.
The DAC sessions are hosted at two different physical locations to give parents as much of an opportunity to participate as possible. In the past, representatives from the GT and Student Services Programs have presented at the DAC. I attended one DAC meeting in 2016 and was scheduled to meet with the DAC Advisory Board for 30 minutes. Our half hour meeting turned into a two-hour conversation where we were able to touch on numerous issues of interest and concern for the Board. As an example, one issue that we
86

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 94 of 147
discussed was the importance of a school's community liaison. Some program schools have liaisons and some do not since some schools prioritize that position in their school-based budget and others don't. The position of the DAC Board was that this is a position that should be mandated at every program school. Issues such as this were at the heart of our conversation and I was impressed with the skills, commitment, and professionalism of the DAC Board. As intended, they play an active leadership role in the DAC.
Finally, the most fundamental issue for CHE members regarding parental oversight is explicitly stated in requirement A of Chapter 6. Each Program school has a PAC, chosen by parents of the students receiving services at the school. The purpose of each PAC is to provide information regarding the ELA Program, increase communication between ELL parents and the District, review implementation of the Program, and listen to the concerns of parents. Having a PAC at every single Program school that is active and addressing these requirements while being supported by the DAC will become the fundamental requirement by which Chapter 6 is fully implemented. The DPS is close to meeting this requirement.
Results and Discussion I. Parent Advisory Committees (PACS)
At all seven schools we visited, we met with members of the PAC and others. Most importantly, we actually observed PAC meetings taking place at all seven schools. The responses to the questions which follow were provided by a combination of persons including parents, the school principal or assistant principal and community liaison. Question 1--When was the PAC first started?
87

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 95 of 147

Table 6.1 Date the PAC was started
2015 2014 2012 2011 2007

Number of school PACs with similar responses
1
1
2
2
1

Percent
14 14 29 29 14

Five of the PACS (72%) were started before 2014 while two of the PACs (28%)

were started more recently (2014-2015). One PAC member commented that their PAC

started three years ago but family involvement has increased since then. Another PAC

member mentioned that their PAC started recently as a result of the efforts of a new

principal. A parent from another school said their PAC got going as a result of parent input

on a school innovation plan.

Question 2--Is the PAC a stand-alone committee or subcommittee?

Table 6.2 Type of committee
Stand-alone

Number of school PACs with similar responses
6

Percent 86

Sub-committee

1

14

Six of the seven PACS (86%) are stand-alone committees and one PAC (14%) is a sub-committee. Question 3--How are members of the PAC chosen?

88

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 96 of 147

Table 6.3
Method of selection
Recruited through various outreach efforts from the school to all families of ELLs. Self-selection
More involvement of parents of ELA students

Number of school PACs with similar responses
7
7 2

Percent 100
100 28

All seven PACs (100%) reported that they conducted various multilingual outreach

efforts including meetings, morning coffee sessions, the school website, newsletters, and

Facebook messages to recruit PAC members. All PAC members self-select and serve

voluntarily. Two PACs (28%) stated that the majority of their PAC members are parents of

students who are in ELA classes.

Question 4--How often does the PAC meet?

Table 6.4 Schedule of PAC meetings
Once a month

Number of school PACs with similar responses
2

Percent 29

Twice a month

2

29

Four times a year

3

42

Of the seven PACs that we interviewed and observed, two PACs (29%) met once a month, two PACs (29%) met twice a month on every other Friday morning, and three PACs (42%) met four times per year. In addition to their regularly scheduled meetings, PACs may also meet periodically for other reasons such as to consult with lawyers or to observe classes. Based on this information, the minimum number of meetings per year is four. Question 5--How are PAC meetings documented?
89

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 97 of 147

Table 6.5 Type of documentation
Sign-in sheets Meeting Agendas Meeting schedule for year or semester
Meeting minutes Audio recording No written documentation Other: survey of parents Other: meeting notes

Number of PACs with similar responses 7 6 4
2 0 1 (previously) 1 1

Percent 100 86 57
29 0 14 14 14

All seven of the school PACs reported that they documented their PAC meetings in various ways: 100% used sign-in sheets; six (86%) used meeting agendas; four (57%) produced a monthly or yearly meeting schedule; two (29%) took meeting minutes and one (14%) took meeting notes. Members of one of the PACs reported that in previous years they had no written documentation of their meetings but currently used sign-in sheets and agendas. One PAC (14%) also surveyed parents as a form of meeting documentation. The forms of PAC meeting documentation that we actually observed while attending the PAC meetings were sign-in sheets (in three PACs), agendas (in three PACs), meeting schedules (in two PACs) and meeting minutes (in one PAC).
90

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 98 of 147

Question 6--What happens in a typical PAC meeting?

Table 6.6

Type of PAC Activity

Number of PACs that engage in this
activity

Percent

Welcome/Introductions

7

100

Agenda connected to ELA program

4

57

ELA support and training

3

43

DAC meeting report out

3

43

Presentations

4

57

Coffee with the Principal

3

43

Testing/assessment updates

3

43

Calendar of upcoming events e.g. teacher/parent

5

71

conferences

Communication/outreach via newsletters, face

4

57

book, apps, phone calls, parent portal to inform and

recruit more parents

Discussion on topics e.g. refugees, immigration,

7

100

social/emotional learning, student/parent rights,

biliteracy, bullying, homework, discipline, teachers,

dress code, safety, after-school programs, learning

walks, redesignation, EL program models

Curricular/social resources

3

43

Home visits (parents to parents)

3

43

Table 6.6 shows that during our spot-audit visits to seven school PAC meetings, the

most typical activities mentioned were: welcome/introductions (100%), agenda overview

(57%), presentations by ELA support staff or district personnel (57%), overview of the

upcoming events (71%), communication and outreach among parents (57%), and

discussions concerning a variety of parental concerns (100%). Also, 43% of the seven PACS

discussed EL support and training, testing and assessment updates, curricular and social

resources, the DAC meeting, coffee with the principal event, and/or home visits (parents to

parents). The comments regarding the Coffee with the Principal morning meetings were

91

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 99 of 147

very positive since such valuable information regarding immigration, parenting classes,

English classes and other relevant topics is shared.

Also of note is that in one PAC meeting, the group of attendees was split into two

sections – one for Spanish speakers only and the other for speakers of all languages other

than Spanish. In addition, at one of the high school PACs we visited we learned that the PAC

parent leaders conduct over 100 home visits to families with EL students each year in early

April. All the PACs have an open-door policy that encourages parents to come to the PAC

leaders anytime with needs.

Several recommendations from the parents to the schools were: 1) students in the

ELD block need more English; 2) safety for Muslim students should be addressed; and 3)

the schools need to always work on getting to know the families better.

Question 7--What type of assistance has the school and district provided in

organizing and running the school PACs?

Table 6.7 Types of school/district assistance provided to PACs
Community liaison Office of Family and Community Engagement (FACE) helps with home visits and community liaison training PowerPoints for presentations Translators and headsets from the District District level ELA Department rep Trainings from school/district staff

Number of PACs that reported
they receive this type of
assistance 2 2
1 7
2 2

Percent
29 29
14 100 29 29

92

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 100 of 147

Community organizing with Together

1

14

CO

ELA Network Partners

7

100

Parents as Partners (food, money,

7

100

childcare)

Food Bank boxes delivered every

1

14

Friday from Intercity Parish

Ten categories or types of assistance from the school, district, and/or external

organizations were identified by PAC members we interviewed. All seven of the school

PACs (100%) reported that the District provides translators and headsets if requested;

support from the ELA Network Partners; and food, money, and childcare from Parenting

Partners. In each of the following categories, two PACs (29%) mentioned they receive

additional support from: 1) the district community liaison; 2) the Office of Family and

Community Engagement (FACE) in conducting home visits and in training the community

liaison; 3) the District ELA Partner representative who attends PAC meetings; or 4) the

school/district principal and staff who conduct trainings at PAC meetings. Four other forms

of assistance were each mentioned by only one PAC: PowerPoint presentations from the

ELA Department; help with home visits from the district; community organizing with

Together Colorado; and food bank deliveries weekly from the Intercity Parish.

Several PAC members noted that the representative from the District ELA

department is “super helpful.” Also the food, money, and childcare provided by Parenting

Partners “is really popular with parents.” We often heard positive remarks about the

helpfulness of the Principal. One parent remarked that she “feels like the school is home”

and that “her child is safe here.”

Question 8--Who represents the school on the District Advisory Committee (DAC)?

93

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 101 of 147

Table 6.8 Representative(s) on DAC
One or more PAC parents

Number of PACs with a similar response
6

Percent 86

Principal and/or ELA staff member

2

29

Little or no representation from the PAC

1

4

Six of the seven school PACs (86%) indicated that one or more parents self-select

from each PAC to attend the DAC meetings. Two PACs (29%) reported that the school

principal and an ELA teacher also attend. One PAC admitted they had little or no

representation at the DAC meeting.

Several PAC members mentioned that the parents/staff who attend the DAC

meetings learn a lot and report back to the whole PAC to share what they learned. Another

PAC member said that “DAC es nuestra voz” or DAC is our voice. One PAC member also said

that in a recent DAC meeting, some of the parents were upset because they felt their

concerns were not being heard.

Question 9--What could the school or district do to provide additional support?

Table 6.9
Types of additional support needed
Scope and sequence of curriculum from ELA Dept.

Number of PACs with similar response
1

Percent 14

A resource bank of ELA

2

29

information for parents

More funding for travel and

1

14

family liaisons

Help with parent

1

14

engagement

94

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 102 of 147

Hire the Director of Culture

1

14

Childcare and food

1

14

No suggestions

1

14

Table 6.9 provides a range of suggestions made by PAC members concerning their

need of additional types of support. Two PACs (29%) requested a resource bank of ELA

information be made available to parents. Along the same lines, one PAC (14%) asked that

parents be provided with a scope and sequence of the ELA curriculum. We were also told

in one PAC meeting that more funding was needed for parents’ travel to meetings. In

relation to this expressed need, a parent commented that it takes 45 minutes and three bus

transfers for her to get to a PAC meeting.

In addition, one PAC (14%) said the district should help them recruit more PAC

parents and another PAC asked for more support for childcare and food at the meetings.

Also one PAC (14%) commented on the need to hire a community liaison at each school

and a District Director of Culture soon. Only one PAC (14%) had no suggestions.

Question 10a--Does the PAC provide information to parents and others outside the

PAC meetings?

All seven PACS (100%) stated that they or the school provided information to

parents and others. But only one of the PACs listed on the form what types of information

they shared. (See Table 6.10.A below)

10b--If so, what type of information is shared?

Table 6.10.A
Type of information provided

Number of PACS with a similar response

Percent

95

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 103 of 147

Services and assistance

1

14

available to parents

Upcoming meetings

1

14

Meeting minutes (translated)

1

14

Helpful organizations line

1

14

Know Your Rights

The only conclusion we can make is that since only one PAC responded to this

question, additional information on specific types of information shared requires further

investigation.

10B--How is PAC information provided to parents and others?

Table 6.10.B
How PAC information is provided

Number of PACS with a similar response

Percent

I-Zone

1

14

Native language translators

1

14

School/district website

6

86

Facebook

5

71

Propel Media app

2

29

Newsletter

3

43

Automatic robo calls

4

58

Flyers

2

29

Parent-parent

1

14

communication

Nine different specific forms of communication were identified by PAC members who were interviewed. Six of the PACs (86%) cited the school and district website as the
96

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 104 of 147

primary form of giving and receiving information. Facebook was mentioned by five of the

PACs (71%) and robo calls by four of the PACs (58%). Other avenues of communication

mentioned included newsletters (43%), flyers (29%), apps (29%), I-Zone (14%), native

language translators (14%), and parent-to-parent conversations (14%). In summary, one

parent noted: “The school is great at sending information to all parents in multiple

languages.”

Open-Ended Questions from PAC Meeting Observations:

Question 11--How many parents are in attendance?

Table 6.11
Number of parents observed attending the meeting

Number of PAC meetings with the same number of
parent attendees

Percent

5

1

14

6

2

43

12

2

29

20

1

14

40

1

14

As Table 6.11 shows, the number of parent attendees at the seven PAC meetings we observed varied from school to school. Three PACs had either five or six parents in attendance, two had twelve parents attending, and two PACs had a larger attendance of 20 or 40 parents. The PAC with 20 parents attending was split into two groups – one group with Spanish speaking parents and one group with speakers of languages other than Spanish. Both PAC groups had translators and headsets.
97

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 105 of 147

In the meetings with fewer parents, the PAC members cited possible reasons for the

lack of participation. Some attributed the low turn-out to conflicts with work and family

obligations. Another suggested that “parents feel that education is the job of the teacher

and school.”

Question 12A--Are there others in attendance?

All seven schools (100%) had participants other than the parents in attendance.

Question 12B: If so, how many and what are their roles?

Table 6.12.B
Role or position of other attendees observed at the
meeting

Number of PAC meetings with each type of other
person attending

Percent

Principal(s)

4

57

Teacher(s)

4

57

Network Partners

2

29

DPS Attorney

2

29

ELA dept. rep

3

43

Of the seven PAC meetings we observed, one or more Principals and teachers were in attendance in four (57%) of them. In three of the meetings we observed, the ELA rep was in attendance. And in two of the meetings (29%), a network Partner attended two meetings and a DPS attorney also attended. At the two schools where the attorney was present, I checked with the PAC to see if they approved and they did. Question 13--What observed activities occurred during the PAC meetings?
Table 6.13 shows that during our spot-audit visits to seven school PAC meetings, the activities we observed were: welcome/introductions (100%); presentations by ELA
98

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 106 of 147

support staff or district personnel (57%); calendar of the upcoming events (71%); communication and outreach among parents (57%); and discussions and information sharing concerning a variety of parental concerns (100%). Also, 43% of the seven PACS discussed EL support and training, testing and assessment updates, curricular and social resources, the DAC meeting, and/or home visits (parents to parents).

Table 6.13 Type of Activities observed during PAC meetings
Welcome/Introductions

Number of PACs that engaged in this activity
7

DAC meeting report out

3

Presentations

4

Testing/assessment updates

3

Calendar of upcoming events e.g. teacher/parent

5

conferences

Communication/outreach via newsletters, face book,

4

apps, phone calls, parent portal to inform and recruit

more parents

Discussion on one or more of the following topics: Lau

7

V. Nichols, refuges, immigration, Denver 2020 Plan,

social/emotional learning, student/parent rights,

biliteracy, bullying, homework, discipline, teachers,

dress code, safety, after-school programs, learning

walks, redesignation, and/or EL program models

Curricular/social resources

3

Home visits (parents to parents)

3

Percent 100 43 57 43 71 57
100
43 43

6.II. District-wide Advisory Committee (DACs)

99

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 107 of 147
A. Question 1.--What is the status of the DAC? During the 2016-2017 school year, the District modified the way in which the DAC is
implemented. The ELA Department in collaboration with the district's Family and Community Engagement Office integrated the Superintendent Parent Forums (SPFs) and the Family Leadership Institutes (FLIs) into the DAC. The DAC meets monthly during the school year per the CD requirement. One month the focus is the SPF and the next month the focus is on FLI. During the 2016-17 school year, five SPFs and four FLIs were implemented by the district. Question 2.--Has a parent representative from each Program school been identified?
In reviewing attendance data for the monthly DAC meetings, we were able to determine that most ELA Program schools send parent representatives. More specifically, our review of the DAC data showed that 14 schools did not have at least one parent attend a DAC meeting during the 2016-17 school year. Of those 14, six are Pathways schools and several others such as Steele Elementary and Denver Discovery School have low numbers of ELs. In an ongoing effort to address this CD requirement, the ELA Department has engaged in a comprehensive outreach effort aimed at every Program school in the district. Examples of how DAC meeting information is publicized and made available to parents includes:
• Emails to school-based Family Liaisons • Emails to the Constant Contact List • Posting on FACE Community Calendar • Emails to parents/staff lists • Posting on Parent Portal • Robo-calls to parents
100

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 108 of 147
• Posting on FACE website, ELA webpage, DPS website and, Commons website • Info is shared in Principal Weekly • Send UP postal mailing to ELA families • Personal phone calls from schools to ELA families • EDUCA Radio interview segments • EDUCA radio PSAs in Spanish and English • Univision TV: Voces de Nuestra Comunidad Other examples of evidence that we reviewed included; SPF and FLI parent sign-in sheets; PAC newsletters that advertised SPFs and FLIs and which were sent to all school PAC contacts; and ISA newsletters that advertised the SPFs and FLIs. These newsletters are sent to all ISA Team members. B. Question 3--How often does the DAC meet? The DAC meets monthly. We reviewed the monthly sign-in sheets and agendas to verify this. Question 4--How many interpreters have typically been required at DAC meetings? For how many languages, typically? We reviewed all of the requests made to the Multicultural Language and Outreach Services Translations Office during the 2016-2017 school year. For the FLIs, the documents that were most often translated were workbooks for parents. The three languages for which translations of materials were requested included Spanish, Vietnamese, and Arabic. For the SPFs, requests to the Multicultural Language and Outreach Services that we reviewed included translations for flyers announcing the forums and for In Person interpreters. Flyers were translated into the following 13 languages: Arabic, Amharic, Burmese, French, Karen, Kunama, Nepali, Russian, Somali, Spanish, Swahili,
101

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 109 of 147
Vietnamese, and Tigrigna. Additionally, interpreters for each of those 13 languages were requested at the actual forums. The number of interpreters however, varied from meeting to meeting. As an example, at the Fall DAC Kickoff on September 27, 2016, two English and two Spanish interpreters were requested as well as one interpreter for each of the other 12 languages. For the second ELA DAC Kickoff on February 9, 2017, three English and Spanish interpreters were requested and one for each of the remaining 12 languages. C. Question 5--Which of the following activities has the DAC been involved in?
• Review and Comment on ELA annual reports presented to the Board of Education. We learned that the ELA Department no longer reports to the Board on an annual basis. Instead, the ELA DAC Board reports to the DPS Board of Education annually.
• Review and comment on student assessment results made available for each school. The SPF which took place on September 27, 2016 devoted almost the entire forum to address student assessment issues. There was discussion at the forum about the Great Schools in Every Neighborhood goal of the Denver Plan 2020. Parents had an opportunity to participate in small group activities that introduced them to the School Performance Framework. They were able to assess the color representing the rating of their respective schools, gain information about the equity indicator, and talk in small groups and the large group about how ELA students were performing at their school based on the data provided them. In addition, there was a panel discussion at the forum that dealt with the topic of accountability and its effect on the trajectory of their school.
• Provide input regarding the District's efforts to increase parent involvement.
102

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 110 of 147
After every SPF and FLI, surveys are conducted which address five issues related to increasing parent involvement. Parents are asked to rate the way information was presented to them, whether it was useful for them as parents, whether they feel equipped to take this information back to their school and share it with others including PAC members, whether the event was easy to access, and their overall rating of the event. Our review of some of the evaluation scores gave the impression that parents are honest and critical. For example, at the September 27, 2016 SPF, 33 parents rated it as excellent, 21 as very good, 7 as good, and 9 gave the event a rating of fair. Parents were also asked for written and verbal comments, and although the commentary we reviewed touched on many issues, some parents were specific in providing suggestions for making sessions more effective. • Discuss the structure and operation of school-based PACs. From the written evidence we reviewed, the operation of school-based PACs is a central theme of the start of the school year DAC Kickoff. At the September 6th and 7th Kickoff, parents were provided with an overview of ELA PACs including discussion about the need for reviewing their school's ELA Program and being able to express any concerns to the PAC. There was also discussion about the DAC and the importance of participating in this event. Parents were also provided with an overview of the CD including the history and struggle for civil rights in the DPS. • Help parents understand ELA program services and benefits of those services. Our review of evidence suggests that three of the DAC meetings addressed this issue. The September DAC Kickoff introduced some of the ELA Program supports for ELLs with an emphasis on TNLI, ESL, and Dual Language Programs. Information
103

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 111 of 147
was provided on dedicated and integrated ELD and a good deal of information was provided on the Seal of Biliteracy. Parents were also provided with information on Gifted and Talented Programs and there were staff at the Kickoff that parents could speak with to gain additional information. In the November 3, 2016 FLI, the focus of the training was on the importance and value of bilingualism and, secondly, on the Lifecycle of an English learner. Finally, we reviewed the presentation materials used during the January 19th, 2017 FLI. The focus of the entire training was on ELD. Parents were introduced to the ways their students learn a second language, why ELD blocks are necessary, and how parents can support and help their children at home. • Provide the opportunity for parents to discuss concerns about the ELA Program. In reviewing the various SPF and FLI agendas, we noticed that in every FLI session, there is a 30-40 minute allotment of time provided to reflect on the training, answer questions, and listen to concerns from parents. After every SPF, there is an evaluation conducted which included written comments. The following is a sample of comments offered by parents after DAC sessions: 1. "Communicate more about the Biliteracy Seal so our families know about it and
how to apply." 2. "As part of the Seal of Biliteracy, we need more info on scholarships for fluent
bilingual students." 3. "More information on graduation requirements and scholarships." 4. "Do teachers/leaders have skills and training to support English learners at an
early age in ECE?" 5. "Newcomer information, and not just training, but make sure to implement it by
104

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 112 of 147
the office staff." 6. "GT: More information about how to qualify and to support. What does the test
measure? How do I know if my child might qualify?" We should note that items 1, 2, and 6 above have been shared with the DPS Board. Based on this feedback, the ELA Department informed us that they have a Seal of Bilteracy resource table at every DAC meeting. Also, GT information is presented at the DAC Kickoffs in September. • Other DAC activities. From our review of documentation provided for us, there were several other activities in which the DAC was involved. From previous DAC forums that the Independent Monitor has participated in, one theme that was present in many of the FLIs is Parent Leadership. At least three of the agendas and corresponding training materials provided for review show a focus on providing hands-on sessions for parents that are oriented toward helping them develop leadership skills in areas like developing stronger home and school partnerships, how to examine ELA Program services more critically, recognizing themselves as strong people with strong visions, etc. Other DAC activities included sessions within the SPF on college and career readiness, early literacy, and a presentation and discussion on the Denver Bond and Mill election. Finally, the DAC also convened a meeting with the DPS Muslim community so that the larger community of parents across DPS could gain awareness and understanding of some of the fears of parents and their reluctance to even participate in some DAC activities due to the political climate nationally. D. Question 6--Has the DAC reported at least annually to the Board of Education on its activities in item 5?
105

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 113 of 147
We reviewed the End of the Year Report for the 2015-2016 school year which was presented to the DPS Board during their June 2016 Board Meeting. The presentation was done by the three ELA DAC Board members who represent the Math and Science Leadership Academy, Marrama Elementary, and Bruce Randolph High School. Although we were not present at the Board presentation, we did view it on a video that was made available. Most recently, the DAC Board also presented their Annual Report to the DPS Board during the May 18, 2017 Board of Education meeting. We reviewed the hard copy of the ELA DAC presentation and watched the video of the actual presentation done by Jorge Robles and two DAC Board members who presented to the Board in Spanish. 6.III. Parent Training A. Question 7--Has the DAC provided an annual training program for parents
regarding their rights and responsibilities in connection with the ELA Program? The annual training program for parents was provided in two forums. The first was
at the ELA DAC Kickoff on September 6th (same training repeated on Sept. 7, 2016) and focused specifically on ELA parental rights and responsibilities. There was an orientation provided on the CD and how, from this legal action, the PACs and DAC were born. There was also training provided on the role of the DAC Board as the leadership body of the DAC. In addition, during the FLI on January 19, 2017, there was a session led by ELA Program staff that provided a series of mini-sessions on ELA program services including TNLI, ELD, Newcomer, dual language, and ACCESS testing.
106

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 114 of 147
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Two years ago, the IM decided to change the approach to collecting and reporting data regarding the Denver Public School’s efforts toward meeting the requirements of the Consent Decree. With the assistance of colleague Dr. Chris Nelson, we decided to use a mixed methods research approach utilizing spot audits based on each of five chapters of the CD. The methodology was straightforward and supported by social science program evaluation and research practice. The goal was to collect evidence from either a representative sample of, or all of, the requirements outlined in each CD chapter, analyze these data and report our findings to the Court. This Sixth Report provides the results of these efforts.
Beginning in early 2016 and extending into 2017, spot audits were conducted in 41 representative Program schools across DPS based on five chapters of the CD. Those CD chapters, in the order we collected data on them, are numbers Seven, Three, Two, Eight, and Six. Utilizing our own self-created spot-audit checklists that correspond to a sample of CD requirements for each of the five chapters, we collected a substantial amount of information over 15 months. This sixth report presents the results of the evidence we’ve gathered consistent with the research based methodology that we’ve followed. Our evidence gathering has been informative and the spot audits we’ve conducted allow us to report our findings in both qualitative and quantitative ways. We’ve interviewed school leaders, teachers, ELA Program staff and parents of English language learners served by the Program. We’ve shared some of our preliminary findings with the parties during the most recent meeting in Denver during April of 2017.
107

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 115 of 147
In general, the results of our spot audits over five of ten CD chapters are favorable toward the Denver Public Schools. The district’s efforts have not gone unnoticed. During the April 2017 meeting of the parties in Denver, both the DOJ and CHE representatives commented publicly that the district was working hard at implementing the requirements of the CD and that the results of those efforts were noticeable. This is not to imply that there isn’t still work to be done and DPS has admitted as much.
We’ve formed some additional general impressions about the district’s efforts in meeting CD requirements based on our spot audits of five chapters. First, support for the ELA Program has been voiced on numerous occasions by Superintendent Tom Boasberg. Assistant Superintendent Dr. Susana Cordova continues to be a strong advocate and champion for the Program and she now oversees the ELA Department within the district’s larger management structure. Second, the ELA Network Partners continue to be one of the most integral parts of the implementation of the ELA Program district-wide. They truly represent a network of experts within DPS who have gained the trust and support of school leaders, Instructional Superintendents, teachers, and colleagues across Program schools. Third, the leadership of Mr. Jorge Robles, ELA Program Director, has become more defined. He has continued the vision and efforts of former director, Dr. Darlene LeDoux, and built coalitions with other departments and offices across the district. Mr. Robles has a strong leadership team and we’ve been impressed by how cohesively they continue to work together. Partnerships with the Special Education Department; the Assessment, Research, and Evaluation Office; the Family and Community Engagement Office; and the Department of Curriculum and Instruction are areas of strength that we’ve witnessed.
108

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 116 of 147
The nonprofit Great Schools Partnership suggests that educators often use the term capacity or capacity building to describe, “the quality of adaptation.” More specifically, capacity refers to the capability of a district, school, or educator to develop, advance, or get better. Over the past four years and especially during the period that this report covers, we have seen the Denver Public Schools make progress and get better in many areas toward meeting the requirements of the CD. We believe that the findings we’ve discussed in this report reflect this position.
Following is our opinion of the level of DPS implementation of each of the five chapters we spot audited followed by a series of recommendations: Chapter 7-- Federal and state guidelines specify the information that must be included in DPS IEPs and 504 plans. The district must additionally address the requirements of the CD regarding information specific to ELs that should be included in those documents. Based on our review of 49 IEPs and 29 504 plans, our on-site interviews with school staff, and our meetings and phone conversations with DPS Central Office staff, we feel that DPS is partially implementing the Chapter 7 CD requirements for sections A through G (the sections of that chapter we spot-audited). Three-quarters of the IEPs we reviewed contained the information we expected to see on three of the four indicators for which we sought documentation, nearly 90% of the IEPs had information on the fourth indicator, and none of the IEPs had information for the fifth indicator. The district’s 504 plans reflected a higher level of CD implementation, with 100% addressing three of the four indicators we documented and 90% addressing the fourth.
As noted in the discussion of the Chapter 7 data, the district described how they have addressed the missing information in the IEPs, and we plan to conduct another spot
109

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 117 of 147
audit of IEPs in February 2018 to verify whether the actions DPS reports having taken have resulted in a higher level of implementation of the Chapter 7 A through G requirements as well as to document implementation of the requirements in Chapter 7 H through N. Chapter 3--This chapter of the CD contains 48 requirements. It is sufficiently comprehensive that we felt the need to conduct two separate onsite visits to DPS and collected data at 16 schools that are representative of schools across DPS. Based on interviews with 36 parents representing multiple language groups, interviews with school secretaries at eight schools, and discussions with teams of school leaders, assessment leads, and teachers at eight different schools, we are confident that DPS has systems/practices in place to ensure consistent implementation of those provisions of Chapter 3 across the district. Central to forming this opinion was the feedback from parents who generally felt that schools were providing them with sufficient information to make informed decisions about the language instruction options for their children. Additionally, we felt that the secretaries whom we interviewed and who assume a major role planning and carrying out Registration are doing so effectively. They followed the Registration procedures that the district requires and that follow the requirements of the CD. The conversations with school teams reinforced what we heard from parents about the transmission of information in languages they understand. Also, school teams that we interviewed all followed the pre-and post-Registration requirements of the district and outlined in the CD. Chapter 2--There are no other districts that we know of or have worked with that have Instructional Services Advisory (ISA) Teams in the way that DPS does. The framers of the CD used a great deal of vision is creating the concept of ISA Teams. We have been
110

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 118 of 147
interacting with ISA Teams for nearly all of the time that the IM has served in this capacity. I have observed the format and quality of training for all ISA Team members and how it has improved over the years. DPS has made a strategic hire by appointing an ELA Network partner to be the point person from the ELA Program to schools on issues that are ISA related. A major concern that the DOJ and CHE have raised about how ISA Teams weigh conflicting data when making redesignation/exit decisions was addressed with depth by all of the teams we interviewed. Most importantly for us, we actually saw ISA Teams conducting meetings in real time and in a non-simulated manner. They addressed the individual cases of students eligible for redesignation/exit and held long and objective based deliberations before making decisions. We actually saw how ISA Teams handled the question of conflicting data and more often than not, erred on the side of caution and chose to continue to provide students with Program services rather than redesignating them. Based on our interviews and observations and given the limitations of a small sample size, it's our opinion that DPS is meeting this requirement of the CD for the ISA Team decisions we examined. As noted earlier in our report, we did not examine records related to PPF3 monitoring due to the fact that the window for those decisions was not open prior to our visit. Further, we did not observe any consideration of, or examine evidence related to, Program reentry; thus, we do not draw conclusions about those ISA Team functions, and they would be a logical focus for further examination of Chapter 3 implementation. Chapter 8--There are three requirements in the CD regarding Charter Schools. We prepared a 17 item spot-audit checklist for use at school site visits and interviewed school and DPS administrators to examine these three requirements as completely as possible. We recognize that charter schools in DPS are a political issue and certainly not without
111

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 119 of 147
debate. Our approach has been to remain as neutral and even-handed as possible and continue to be removed to the extent feasible from any emotional debates or deliberations unless these issues impact the requirements of Chapter 8 adversely. Our data based on seven schools we visited did point to one glaring issue that CHE and the DOJ have commented on continuously. That is that charter schools in Denver seem to serve a small percentage of ACCESS Level 1 students. Our data supports this contention. We feel that until they serve a much greater number of ACCESS 1 students, it will be difficult to more fully address their effectiveness in meeting the needs of ELs whose parents opt for Spanish language instruction. However, based on our interviews with school directors or principals, teachers, Charter ISA (Ch ISA) Team members and other staff; our document review and observations related to ELA services provided at charter schools; and our interviews with DPS Central Office staff responsible for monitoring ELA services at charter schools, we are of the opinion that DPS is meeting the three requirements outlined in Chapter 8. The parties have received a verbal commitment from the district that in the future, any Charter Schools that might replace TNLI schools will have to meet all requirements outlined in the CD for TNLI schools. Chapter 6--There are two distinct features of parental oversight outlined in the CD. One is the question of whether an ELA PAC is in place at every Program school and whether they are meeting the intent of Chapter 6, which is to create school-based advisory committees that focus on parents of ELs receiving Program services and who are informed about the ELA Program and other school-based issues in regularly scheduled meetings. A second feature of this chapter centers on the creation of a District Advisory Committee (DAC) that serves a larger audience made up of parents from all Program schools district-wide. The
112

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 120 of 147
DAC is also intended to disseminate information about the ELA Program to participants, apprise parents about language instruction options, seek and gather parent concerns, and report to the DPS Board annually. Based on our interviews with parents from seven schools, attendance at numerous PAC meetings, a review of data provided us from the district, participation in a DAC meeting including a separate meeting with the DAC's advisory board, we offer the following opinion. The district is making progress in meeting part of the requirements of Chapter 6. Of major concern at the time that we gathered our evidence is the fact that at a most basic level, there were still Program schools that did not yet have an ELA PAC in place. This was concerning because I have made the recommendation numerous times to the ELA Department and to the Family and Community Engagement Office (FACE) that the CD calls for an ELA PAC as outlined in the CD at every Program school.
Although this last issue had not been fully addressed at the time we collected data, we recently met with an ELA Department staff person who is now charged with assuring that, during the 2017/18 school year, every Program school will have an ELA PAC in place. We were joined at this meeting by Martha Urioste who was there representing CHE. The report we received from the ELA staff member was very encouraging. The ELA Network Partners have been assigned the responsibility of assuring that ELA PACs will be in place during the current school year.
The data that we reviewed regarding the DAC was quite positive. The DAC meets monthly, the attendance by parent representatives is significant, there is a DAC Advisory Board in place comprised of parents who were selected by parent participants, and a comprehensive outreach effort is in place to continue increasing the size of the DAC. Our
113

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 121 of 147
opinion is that DPS is partially meeting the requirements of Chapter 6. Further, when the district can show evidence that an ELA PAC is in place and convening regularly and meeting CD requirements, the district will be much closer to meeting the requirements of Chapter 6. Because we have witnessed the work of the ELA Network Partners, we feel confident that they will be able to accomplish this during the 2017/18 school year. With regard to the DAC, we feel that this requirement is being met successfully. After carefully reviewing DAC meeting agendas, notes, sign-in sheets, their annual report to the Board, and attending their monthly meetings, our opinion about the DAC is favorable. Recommendations:
The following recommendations are an outcome of over 15 months of collecting evidence regarding the five chapters of the CD that we spot audited. 1. Our review of IEPs and 504 plans for implementation of Chapter 7 requirements leads us to make two recommendations regarding IEP and 504 plan content. Our first recommendation is that DPS provide models for how to explicitly link ELs’ language proficiency to academic performance in the appropriate section of the IEP (perhaps the Present Levels of Performance section in which a student’s assessment results are summarized and where, for example, ACCESS subtest scores for each language modality could be linked to CMAS subtest performance, course grades, and productive or receptive oral and written language issues observed by teachers in the classroom and on assignments). Based on the documents we reviewed, this is not as big an issue for 504 plans, but it would still be useful for the district to clarify how this CD requirement should be explicitly addressed in 504 plans. Secondly, it’s important that IEP information specific to ELs be included in all IEPs, just like we would expect to see other required IEP
114

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 122 of 147
components like annual goals, types of service, location of services, and duration of services. DPS has described the actions they have taken to ensure that the Student and Family Information section of the IEPs will contain required information for ELs specified in Chapter 7 Section F, and they should take action as well to ensure that all IEPs also include the information required by the other sections of Chapter 7. 2. An area where secretaries at times seemed unsure about one CD requirement that is outlined in the district's Registration Checklist is requirement 3.B.4 dealing with provisional placement in the Program. We recommend that Program schools provide training to secretaries prior to registration and discuss this requirement of the CD. It will enhance all secretaries' ability to address this issue or answer questions that parents might have about provisional placement of their children. 3. ELA Program staff who are directly responsible for ensuring that CD Chapter 2 requirements are met should convene a strategic planning session where a concise "state of the state" of ISA Teams report is prepared. This information could then be disseminated to ISA Teams district-wide through the numerous outreach mechanisms that DPS has including the Newsletter that gets sent out weekly. If there are issues or concerns that get identified as occurring with some frequency, such as how to apply the new WIDA standards in redesignation/exit decisions, suggestions for fixing them could be incorporated into the annual training required of ISA Team members. 4. We recommend a meeting between charter school representatives and the parties when they meet in April of 2018. There are risks involved in such a meeting but it would be productive to begin a dialogue where CHE and the DOJ can express some of their concerns
115

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 123 of 147 and charter schools could share some of their perspectives regarding the requirements of the CD. 5. We recommend that DPS provide a report to the parties at their April 2018 meeting that addresses whether the district has been successful in ensuring that every Program school in the district has an ELA PAC that has convened and, if not, what efforts are underway to meet this CD requirement immediately. Additionally, the district should report on whether every Program school has an identified DAC representative and, if not, what efforts are underway to ensure that this happens immediately.
116

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 124 of 147
REFERENCES
Concepts, L. (2013, August 29). Capacity definition. Retrieved December 18, 2017, from http://edglossary.org/capacity.
Fitzpatrick, J.L., Sanders, J.R., & Worthen, B.R. (2011). Program evaluation: Alternative approaches and practical guidelines (4th ed.). Boston: Pearson.
Mertens, D.M. (2015). Research and evaluation in education and psychology (4th ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.
Morris, L.L. & Fitz-Gibbon, C.T. (1978). How to measure program implementation. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Nelson, C., Navarrete, C., & Martinez, P. (1997). Creating a climate for critical systemic assessment. In M.L. Gonzalez, A. Huerta-Macias, & J.V. Tinajero (Eds.), Educating Latino students: A guide to successful practice (pp. 357-376). Lancaster, PA: Technomic Publishing Company.
Worthen, B.W. & Sanders, J.R. (1987). Program evaluation: Alternative approaches and practical guidelines. New York: Longman.
Zohrabi, M. (2013). Mixed method research: Instruments, validity, reliability and reporting findings. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(2). doi:10.4304/tpls.3.2.254262.
117

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 125 of 147
Appendix 1 CD Chapter 7 Spot Audit Checklist
118

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 126 of 147

Denver Public Schools School Site Visit Spot Audit, CD Chapter 7

School ________________________

Date______________

File # __________

Check one: ______ IEP ______ 504 Plan

CD Chapter 7 Section

Evidence/Notes

7.A. “IEP and 504 teams shall include a fully Team membership on attendance/signature

qualified ELA-E or ELA-S teacher . . .”

page. Check with School regarding ELA-E or

ELA-S status

Yes ___ No ___ Notes:

7.F. “ELLs’ IEPs and 504 plans shall document that the student is an ELL, the student’s language proficiency level. . .”

504 Plan, Page 1, Section E filled out. IEP, Page 1, Section 3 ELL information filled out.
Yes ___ No ___
IEP, Section 7F filled out.
Yes ___ No ___ Notes:

7.F. “ELLs’ IEPs and 504 plans shall document . . . the Program services the student is receiving (i.e., ESL/ELA-E, TNLI) . . .”

Documentation of the Program services the student is receiving (i.e., ESL/ELA-E, TNLI)
Yes ___ No ___ Notes:

7.G. “The district shall maintain in all ELLs’ IEPs or 504 plans . .(b) an analysis of the effect of proficiency in English and other languages on the student’s learning, including an analysis of the student’s assessment results in relation to the student’s language proficiency”

Yes ___ No ___ Notes:

119

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 127 of 147
Appendix 2 CD Chapter 3 Parent Interview
120

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 128 of 147
Chapter 3 Parent Interview Draft 1 School ___________________________ Date ____________ Total number of parents participating in the interview ____________ Note: Enter the number of parents in the group choosing each alternative or responding affirmatively to the item. 1. Did you fill out a home language questionnaire (HLQ) when your child registered here in the school?
_____ Yes _____ No _____ Not sure, don’t remember 2. How many of you stated on the HLQ that the primary language spoken in your home or by your child was Spanish (or a language other than English)? _______ OF THOSE WHO ANSWERED ITEM 2 AFFIRMATIVELY: 3. Did the School give you an ELA Parent brochure that explained the two options for the language used to teach your child? _____ Yes _____ No _____ Not sure, don’t remember 4. Did you view a video explaining the language instruction options? _____ Yes _____ No _____ Not sure, don’t remember 5. After viewing the video and going over the brochure, did you understand the two options? _____ Yes _____ No _____ Not sure, don’t remember Comments (esp regarding reasons for lack of understanding):
6. Was someone at the school able to answer questions you had about the options? _____ Yes _____ No _____ Did not have questions
Comments (esp regarding inability to get questions answered)
7. What option did you choose for your child? _____ PPF1 _____ PPF2 _____ Other (e.g., PPF3, didn’t choose)
Reasons for choosing the option:
8. What was helpful to you as you went through the registration process with your child (e.g., information or people who were helpful)?
9. What could Denver Public Schools do to improve their student registration process?
121

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 129 of 147
Appendix 3 DPS and John Amesse Elementary Secretary Registration Checklists
122

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 130 of 147
ELA REGISTRATION PROCESS Secretary Checklist
Prior to Registration
Be clear and knowledgeable about the registration process. Identify who the Principal has appointed as the ELA registration point person.
Read the ELA Parent Brochure, English Language Learning Choices. View the ELA Parent video, English Language Learning Choices.
Registration Procedure for New Stidemts
Home LanguageQuestionnaire (HLQ): o Distribute the Home Language Questionnaire (HLQ) to each parent of a new student.
o Once a parent completes the HLQ, enter the parent responses into Infinite Campus and upload the form to the Documents tab of the Registration folder in Infinite Campus.
Parent Permission Form (PPF):
o If a parent indicates any language other than English on the HLQ, follow each of the steps below to ensure parents are making an informed decision regarding the placement of their student: • Give parent the ELA Parent Brochure, and • Have parent watch the ELA video and • Have parent discuss any questions with an ELA registration point person, then • Have parent complete the Parent Permission Form (PPF).
o Once the PPF has been signed, enter the response into Infinite Campus and
upload the form to the Documents tab of the Registration folder in Infinite Campus. o If a parent's response to any question on the HLQ is Spanish and the parent is not registering at a TNLI School, the parent must be offered the option to receive ELA-S instruction at their TNLI Zone School with transportation provided by DPS.
Newcomer:
o If you determine that a student is a potential newcomer, communicate to the
parent that the student is eligible to attend a Newcomer Center. If the parent chooses this option,please complete the Newcomer Intake Form.
o If the parent chooses to stay at your school, please check the Newcomer Referral Checkbox when building the household profile in the ELA District Tab in Infinite
Campus.
YOU HAVE SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETED THE ELA REGISTRATION PROCESS!
After Registration
Remember thefollowingprocesses for PPF Option 3:
o PPF Option 3 is only available after a student is W-APT tested, assessment results are mailed to parents, and parents confer with the classroom teacher and/or administrator. Verify that the school Administrator has completed the
123

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 131 of 147

bottom portion of the sheet titled "For Internal Use Only", as the reasons for
waiver of services need to be fully explained. Do not process a PPF Option 3
form without this completed section.
o Contact Lucero Elizondo to request a Parent Permission Form Option 3. o Print a Parent Choice Office Log to document Option 3 students. This is an
auditable document, and must be filled out completely.

dps/ela/08032016

Additional resources for parents and staff  ELA Hotlineat 720-423-2040

124

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 132 of 147
Denver Public Schools ELA Registration Process John Amesse Elementary
Prior to Registration Be clear and knowledgeable about the registration process. Lupe will lead the ELA registration process and be the ELA registration point person. Create schedule for registration. Read the ELA Parent Brochure-English Language Learning Choices. Prior to registration review the ELA video, English Language Learning Choices. Arrange for a minimum of 4 laptops with headphones for a parent language information station. Print out or organize ELA Parent Brochures.
Registration Hand out a Home Language Questionnaire (HLQ), to all new students' parents. In addition, if parents indicate any language other than English on the Home Language Questionnaire, provide a PPF form to also be filled and returned with registration packet. Check all laptops to ensure links, etc. are working.
Stations Required: o Parent portal station o Video from ELA station (see Questionnaire section below) o Uniform station (ordering and pick up?) o Family handbook station o Copier station
Questionnaire (HLQ): Parents receive the ELA Parent Brochure Parents watch the ELA video Parents discuss any questions with an ELA registration point person (Lupe and Juanita) Parents complete the Parent Permission Form (PPF).
After Registration Enter the HLQ form data as required in Infinite Campus. Upload HLQ into Infinite Campus. Enter the PPF (if applicable) data as required in Infinite Campus. THEN, Upload PPF into Infinite Campus. Provisional ELs will be provisionally (temporarily) placed/scheduled in ELA classroom/courses. Provisional ELs will be tested (by SAL/teacher) according to district procedures. Parents of Provisional ELs will be notified of test scores (through NCLB letter).
REMEMBER: During registration, parents may only select Option 1 or 2 on the PPF (remember Option 3 is NO LONGER an option during registration).
125

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 133 of 147 Permission Form (PPF): Parent Permission Form with Option 3 is only available after a student is W-APT tested, the assessment results are mailed to the home, and the parents confer with the classroom teacher or an administrator. Print a Parent Choice Office Log to document Option 3 students. This is an auditable document, and must be filled out completely. Within the First 30 Days After Registration Students are assessed (W-APT) if applicable. ISA teams identifies students with teachers' support. Teachers provide BOE for identification. ISA notifies teacher of placement and student specific needs.
126

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 134 of 147
Appendix 4 CD Chapter 3 Spot Audit Checklist
127

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 135 of 147

Chapter 3 Spot Audit Checklist

School ______________________________

Date _____________

3.II. Systematically select 10 students from the total # who registered at the school. Total #

_____

1. HLQ filled out

2. HLQ entered into IC

3. HLQ uploaded into IC

1

2

3

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Student 1 ___

___

___

___

___

___

Notes:

Student 2 ___

___

___

___

___

___

Notes:

Student 3 ___

___

___

___

___

___

Notes:

Student 4 ___

___

___

___

___

___

Notes:

Student 5 ___

___

___

___

___

___

Notes:

Student 6 ___

___

___

___

___

___

Notes:

Student 7 ___

___

___

___

___

___

Notes:

Student 8 ___

___

___

___

___

___

Notes:

Student 9 ___

___

___

___

___

___

Notes:

Student 10 ___

___

___

___

___

___

Notes:

3.III. Systematically select 10 students from the total # who indicated LOE on HLQ. Total #

_____

1. PPF filled out

2. PPF entered into IC

3. PPF uploaded into IC

1

2

3

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Student 1 ___

___

___

___

___

___

Notes:

3.III Continued

1 (filled out)

2 (entered IC)

3 (uploaded

IC)

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Student 2 ___

___

___

___

___

___

Notes:

Student 3 ___

___

___

___

___

___

Notes:

128

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 136 of 147

Student 4 ___

___

___

___

___

___

Notes:

Student 5 ___

___

___

___

___

___

Notes:

Student 6 ___

___

___

___

___

___

Notes:

Student 7 ___

___

___

___

___

___

Notes:

Student 8 ___

___

___

___

___

___

Notes:

Student 9 ___

___

___

___

___

___

Notes:

Student 10 ___

___

___

___

___

___

Notes:

3.III.A

1. Name of Designated Administrator trained to explain ELA to parents

_________________________

2. What training did you receive from DPS to explain ELA services to parents?

Principal Checklist

1. ELA Parent Choice Log (Parent PPF3 Selection Office Log) filled out Yes ____ No

____

Notes (If the school has both, indicate here Yes/No for each):

3.IV.A. Systematically select 10 students whose HLQ indicates LOE. Total # ___

Date Registered

Date ELP Assessment ELP Assessment

≤ 25

Student 1

_____________

_________________ _____________

Student 2

____________

_________________ _____________

___

Student 3

_____________

_________________ _____________

___

Student 4

____________

_________________ _____________

___

Student 5

_____________

_________________ _____________

___

Student 6

____________

_________________ _____________

___

Student 7

_____________

_________________ _____________

___

Student 8

____________

_________________ _____________

___

Student 9

_____________

_________________ _____________

___

Student 10

____________

_________________ _____________

___

129

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 137 of 147
Appendix 5 CD Chapter 2 Spot Audit Checklist
130

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 138 of 147

ISA Checklist Version 2 School ____________________________________

Date ____________

I. Team Membership (CD 2.C) ELA Program School ___ Principal or Administrator Designee ___ Fully Qualified ELA-E or ELA-S Teacher ___ Second Teacher ___ Additional Members? Specify.

Non-Program School ___ Principal or Administrator Designee
___ Fully Qualified ELA-T Teacher ___ Second Teacher ___ Additional Members? Specify.

II. ISA Training (CD 5.XI) ___ Principal or Administrator Designee. Most recent training date ____________ ___ Teacher 1. Most recent training date _________________ ___ Teacher 2. Most recent training date _________________ ___ Other member(s). Most recent training date _______________

III. ISA Meeting Documentation (DPS ISA Guidebook) ___ Meeting Schedule (# of meetings scheduled for 2016-17 ____ ; # of meetings held in 201516 ____) ___ Meeting Agendas ( ___2015-16 ___ 2016-17) ___ Meeting Minutes ( ___ 2015-16 ___ 2016-17)

IV. ISA Observation (DPS ISA Guidebook, CD 2.B, CD 2.A-D) ___Agenda available ___ Minutes recorded ___ Other Attendees? Specify:

ISA Activities Occurring During the Meeting. Describe each activity, including types of evidence considered and recommendations or decisions made. Make note of redesignation, reentry, and exit decisions as well as decisions about change of service. Identify DPS forms used or filled out as part of each activity. ___ Reviewing services provided to newly identified ELs, including Newcomers

131

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 139 of 147
School ________________________________ IV. ISA Observation (continued) ___ Monitoring identification of ELs to identify potentially inappropriate identification and placement ___ Reviewing English language proficiency (ELP) and academic progress of all ELs, including those who have declined services – PPF3 students. ___ Identification of ELs in need of intervention, as indicated by objective data and collaboration with appropriate staff, to address the student’s instructional needs V. Questions 1. How has the automated system used to compile ISA data for students been working for you? Do you have any suggestions for the District about how to improve it? 2. In redesignation decisions, how does your ISA team weigh, or reconcile, conflicting data in cases where some data indicate a redesignation should be recommended yet other data indicate there should not be a redesignation?
132

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 140 of 147
School _______________________________
VI. Document Review Student 1 Decision: Assessment data: Student 2 Decision: Assessment data: Student 3 Decision: Assessment data: Student 4 Decision: Assessment data: Student 5 Decision: Assessment data: Student 6 Decision: Assessment data: Student 7 Decision: Assessment data: Student 8 Decision: Assessment data: Student 9 Decision: Assessment data: Student 10 Decision: Assessment data:
133

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 141 of 147
Appendix 6 CD Chapter 8 Spot Audit Checklist
134

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 142 of 147

Chapter 8 Spot Audit Checklist

School ____________________________________

Date ____________

I. ELA Program

A. Administrator/Administrator Designee Interview

1. Name & position of school administrator or administrator designee with ELA expertise who

provides oversight and evaluates the effectiveness of ELA services provided by the school

Name _______________________________

Position

______________________________

2. Evidence of ELA expertise on the part of the ELA administrator or designee (e.g., degree(s), license/endorsement areas, experience with ESL/bilingual education)

3. What training has DPS provided to you for your role as the person who oversees and evaluates the effectiveness of ELA services at your school?

4. Describe how you provide oversight of ELA services at your school.

5. Describe how you evaluate the effectiveness of the ELA services at your school.

6. What could DPS do to provide additional support for ELA programs in Charter Schools? School __________________________________ B. ELL List/ELD Scheduling Report 1.Date of Report __________
2. ELD enrollment & explanation of discrepancies (check & record on the ELL List/Scheduling Report)
3. PPF designation for each ELL student (check & record on the ELL List/Scheduling Report)

II. CH-ISA Process A. CH-ISA Team 1. Membership Member ___ Principal or Administrator Designee ___ Teacher 1 ___ Teacher 2

Endorsement/Certification ___ ELA-E __ ELA-S __ ELA-T ___ ELA-E __ ELA-S __ ELA-T ___ ELA-E __ ELA-S __ ELA-T

135

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 143 of 147

___ Teacher 3

___ ELA-E __ ELA-S __ ELA-T

___ Other _________________________

___ ELA-E __ ELA-S __ ELA-T

2. CH-ISA Training (Check if participated in training)

___ Principal or Administrator Designee. Most recent training date ____________

___ Teacher 1. Most recent training date _________________

___ Teacher 2. Most recent training date _________________

___ Teacher 3. Most recent training date _________________

___ Other member(s). Most recent training date _______________

3. CH-ISA Meeting Documentation ___ Meeting Schedule ___ Meeting Agendas ___ Meeting Minutes ___ Other documentation (e.g., body of evidence)

School _______________________________ B.CH-ISA Meetings 1. How often does the CH-ISA Team meet? 2. Describe a typical CH-ISA meeting.

3. Describe the body of evidence the CH-ISA Team typically reviews for each of the following decisions in the “life cycle” of an English Language Learner. a. Identification &registration of a student as an EL

b. Placement in ELA services (include information on parent waiver requests)

c. Redesignation

d. Monitoring of student progress after redesignation

4. How has the automated system used to compile CH-ISA data for students been working for you? Do you have any suggestions for the District about how to improve it?

5. In redesignation decisions, how does your CH-ISA team weigh, or reconcile, conflicting data in cases where some data indicate a redesignation should be recommended yet other data indicate there should not be a redesignation?

136

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 144 of 147
School _______________________________ C. CH-ISA Document Review Student 1 Decision: Assessment data: Student 2 Decision: Assessment data: Student 3 Decision: Assessment data: Student 4 Decision: Assessment data: Student 5 Decision: Assessment data: Student 6 Decision: Assessment data: Student 7 Decision: Assessment data: Student 8 Decision: Assessment data: Student 9 Decision: Assessment data: Student 10 Decision: Assessment data:
137

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 145 of 147
Appendix 7 CD Chapter 6 Spot Audit Checklist
138

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 146 of 147

PAC Interview Questions & Meeting Observation Form

School __________________________

Date

___________________

PAC Interview Questions

Positions or roles and # of interviewees:

1. When was the PAC first started in this school? _________________

2. Is the PAC a subcommittee of a larger committee or a “stand-alone” committee?

_____ Subcommittee (specify larger committee) _____________________ _____ “Stand-alone” committee 3. How are members of the PAC chosen?

4. How often does the PAC meet?

5. How are PAC meetings documented?

Observed?

____ Sign-in sheets ____ Meeting agendas ____ Meeting schedule for the year or semester ____ Meeting minutes ____ Audio recording ____ No written documentation ____ Other (describe) 6. Describe what happens at a typical PAC meeting.

____
____ ____

____ ____

(Probe for: examples of information provided, review or discussion of the school’s

implementation of the ELA program, discussion of parent concerns)

7. What type of assistance has the School or the District provided in organizing the PAC and assisting the PAC in its activities here at the School?
8. Who represents the School on the DAC?
9. What could the School or the School District do to provide additional support for your PAC?

139

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RPM Document 102 Filed 05/11/18 USDC Colorado Page 147 of 147 10. Does the PAC provide information to parents or others outside of PAC meetings? If yes, describe type of information and how it is provided.
PAC Meeting Observation 11. How many parents are in attendance? 12. Others in attendance? (# and position/role) 13. Describe the activities that occur during the PAC meeting (issues addressed, information provided, etc.)
140

 
 Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 228
INDEPENDENT MONITOR REPORT
CONGRESS OF HISPANIC EDUCATORS ET AL., PETITIONERS, V. SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, DENVER, COLORADO
Submitted to
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE RICHARD MATSCH & ALL FORMAL PARTIES TO THE CASE
Hon. Richard P. Matsch
“Civil Action No. 95-cv-02313-RPM” Byron White Courthouse
1823 Stout Street, Courtroom A Denver, CO 80294 (303) 844-4627
JULY 12, 2019
Submitted by
DR. PAUL E. MARTINEZ
COURT APPOINTED INDEPENDENT MONITOR (JULY 1, 2013--JUNE 30, 2018) PO BOX 4036
FAIRVIEW, NM 87533 505-852-4652
DPSCOURTMONITOR@OUTLOOK.COM
DR. CHRIS NELSON
COURT APPOINTED INDEPENDENT MONITOR (SEPTEMBER 1, 2018--PRESENT) PO BOX 9715
LAS VEGAS, NM 87701 505-238-0262
CNELSONABQ@GMAIL.COM

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 228
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ADVANCE SUMMARY............................................................................................................................ii INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................................1 UPDATE ON SIX CONCERNS................................................................................................................7 CHAPTER 1 (Instructional Services)............................................................................................24 CHAPTER 5 (Personnel and Training).........................................................................................60 CHAPTER 7 (Considerations Related to Special Education and Section 504 Services for English Language Learners)...........................................................83 CHAPTER 9 (Accountability)..........................................................................................................97 CHAPTER 10 (Duration of Consent Decree, Enforcement, and Remedies for Noncompliance)....................................................................................................161 RECOMMENDATIONS.....................................................................................................................193 REFERENCES.....................................................................................................................................200 APPENDICES......................................................................................................................................201
i

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 228
ADVANCE SUMMARY
This is my seventh and final report as Independent Monitor (IM) in the case Congress of Hispanic Educators et al., Petitioners, v. School District No. 1, Denver, Colorado. The recently submitted Report 6 was the first of two reports intended to provide the outcome of spot audits for the 10 chapters of the Consent Decree (CD). Report 6 covered a period of 14 months and summarized our spot audits for six of the CD chapters. This is the second of these two reports and covers the period from March 1, 2017 – June 30, 2018, a period of 15 months, with some reference to later, related events in July 2018 and September 2018 that will be covered in more detail in a subsequent report by the next IM. In this report, we summarize the results of the remaining four chapters of the CD not covered in Report 6 and report on a second spot audit of CD Chapter 7.
The format and structure of this report is very similar to that of the sixth report. The Independent Monitor, with the assistance once again of Dr. Chris Nelson, utilized a mixed methods research approach in which data were collected during onsite spot audits, with the data for Report 7 consisting primarily of interviews and document reviews focused on representative indicators of CD implementation. Beginning with the IM's Report 5 and certainly in the sixth report, a description and rationale for use of a spot-audit approach was discussed. Spot audits at school sites are typically one-half day school visits during which data are collected to document whether there is evidence of examples (representative indicators) of what an observer might expect to see if the CD chapter that is the focus of the data collection is being implemented as described in the CD. The spot audit checklists we used at each school were based on the representative indicators for the CD
ii

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 228
chapter on which data were being collected during that school visit. Additional data were collected from interviews and document review at the DPS central office. Dr. Nelson and I continue to stand firmly behind this mixed methods research approach as the best means to collect meaningful information about representative requirements of the CD.
During the 15 months covered by this report, Dr. Nelson and I made seven trips to Denver and one trip to Boston to meet with the parties there. Dr. Nelson also made an eighth trip to Denver in February, 2018 that the IM was unable to participate in due to a death in his family. Within the timeframe covered by this report, we conducted spot audits of the remaining four chapters of the CD not addressed in Report 6. It should also be clarified that the IM and Dr. Nelson determined that Chapter 7 of the CD, Considerations Related to Special Education and Section 504 Services for English Language Learners, required a follow-up spot audit to ascertain whether changes proposed to the IEPs of ELs involving required information from the CD to be electronically populated, had indeed been successfully completed. During the site visit to Denver that Dr. Nelson completed in February, 2018 and that the IM was unable to participate in, the focus was on undertaking a second spot audit of Chapter 7.
The other CD chapters we spot audited during this last 15-month timeframe included:
 Chapter 1: Instructional Services  Chapter 9: Accountability  Chapter 5: Personnel and Training  Chapter 10: Duration of CD Enforcement, and Remedies for Noncompliance
iii

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 228
In Report 6, we subsumed our summary of some of the requirements of CD Chapter 4, Redesignation and Exiting the Program, into our summary of CD Chapter 2, which deals more broadly with ISA requirements.
One of the changes that occurred during the period covered by this report is that Ms. Toni Wehman, DPS Deputy General Counsel, began to assume more of a coordination role in terms of all IM efforts related to the CD. Ms. Wehman and Mr. Jorge Robles, then ELA Program Executive Director, became our primary points of contact in terms of scheduling site visits to Denver, arranging school site meetings based on our selection of schools to visit and coordinating half-day visits with relevant school personnel. The IM continued the practice of inviting CHE members to join us at school site visits and participate in relevant district meetings. Additionally, we scheduled meetings with CHE during every visit to Denver across this 15-month period. We were also joined at some site visits by staff from the BUENO Center for Multicultural Education at the University of Colorado.
The selection of school sites to visit was discussed in significant detail in the sixth report. We followed a very similar process during this timeframe as well. The IM maintains a spreadsheet that identifies all DPS schools visited, the actual date/s that those school visits occurred, and denotes whether schools were visited more than once. Prior to each planned visit to Denver, the spreadsheet is updated and reviewed. We then identified potential schools to visit from the list of remaining schools not visited. Using data compiled in the most recent report that the ELA Program submits to the parties every six months, we determined the program designation at those schools and whether they were elementary, middle, or high schools. For the period covered by this seventh report, we continued the practice of trying to visit one middle and high school, in addition to two or more
iv

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 228
elementary schools, during each site visit. Once we selected the school sites we wanted to visit, that information was submitted to Ms. Wehman and school site visits were arranged. Our goal as we discussed in Report 6 was to identify a representative sample of schools to visit and that practice carried over to this report. It is important to note once more that the IM and Dr. Nelson selected the schools we identified to visit rather than DPS selecting schools for us.
As we reviewed the CD requirements for the five chapters that comprise the main part of this report, we recognized that much of the data to be collected would be in the form of documentation such as records and reports that DPS should be able to provide for us. Additionally, we also realized that as part of our planning for evidence gathering, we would need to interview a number of persons in various offices in the DPS Central Office in downtown Denver. We also determined that some site visits would combine both school site visits along with document reviews and interviews at the central office. During December 2017 for example, we completed four school site visits as part of spot audits of Chapters 1, 5, and 9 of the CD. In addition, we had nine different district meetings with the Human Resources Department staff; Accountability, Research and Evaluation staff; and ELA Program staff (as examples) to discuss topics and review documentation that ranged from Paraprofessional Evaluations, to Materials Inventory, to the Longitudinal Study.
During both the school site visits and document review sessions, we continued our practice of trying to be as transparent as possible. For example, we communicated to Attorney Wehman and Executive Director Robles our request that the ELA Network Partner assigned to schools we had selected join us at school site visits. CHE members who are based in Denver were also invited to join Dr. Nelson and the IM at both the school visits
v

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 228
and central office sessions where we conducted interviews or collected evidence and reviewed documentation.
We continued the process of developing a spot audit checklist for each of the remaining chapters of the CD that comprise this report. As noted above, in our sixth report, an explanation was provided for choosing a representative sample of CD requirements (representative indicators) derived from the chapter we were auditing. Our methodology of selecting a representative sample of requirements guided our spot audit efforts. Some chapters of the CD contain a small enough number of requirements that all of them can be represented on one spot audit checklist. In most cases however, CD chapters have far too many requirements to adequately address and collect information on all of them given our personnel and time limitations. In some cases, we selected a representative sample of requirements to audit and followed up a month later with different schools and additional requirements from the same CD chapter. We have found that spending a half-day at each school site allowed us to visit six to eight schools during the week, meet with district personnel and others, and still meet with community leaders or persons who've requested to meet with us privately during most site visits to Denver.
As noted previously, this report is organized in a manner similar to the organization used in Report 6. Following this Advance Summary, we provide an Introduction which is intended to further describe the organization of the report. Following the Introduction, we provide an update of six concerns expressed by CHE and the DOJ several years ago. We have provided similar updates of progress made by the District (or lack of) in previous reports. Since this is the final report completed by the current IM, it is important to address the current status of each of those six concerns.
vi

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 228 For each of the five CD chapters addressed in this report, we provide our findings
and a discussion of them by chapter. We conclude each chapter with a summary of our findings which includes the IM's assessment of that specific CD chapter's level of implementation.
We close Report 7 by offering a series of Recommendations based on our findings. Just as we noted in the sixth report, our goal once again is to present both qualitative and quantitative findings about CD implementation based on data collected over the 15-month timeframe covered by this report.
vii

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 228
INTRODUCTION
This is the seventh report to the Court by the Independent Monitor (IM) and it will be my last one. I informed all of the parties in this case in March, 2018, of my intent to discontinue in the role of IM, effective June 30, 2018. I made my final visit to Denver during April 30--May 3, 2018 for the most recent meeting of all parties. The completion of this report marks the end of my participation in this work under my final contract but I have offered to assist whomever was appointed as the IM during their period of transition should my help be needed and requested. As I noted in my sixth report which was previously filed, it was a professional and personal pleasure to serve the Court during the past five years. I am grateful for having been given this opportunity. The role of Independent Monitor is not an easy one but essential to this case moving forward. I am pleased that my colleague on this project, Dr. Chris Nelson, was ultimately appointed to succeed me.
Since the sixth IM Report was different from all previous ones, that report included a thorough explanation of the reasons for, and outcomes intended by, utilizing a mixed methods program evaluation and research approach to guide our efforts. During the 15month period which is the timeframe covered by this report, we continued with a mixed methods methodology as the structure for our work and this report. Our overarching goal, once again, was to determine the degree of CD implementation for the remaining four chapters we examined, including the additional spot-auditing of Chapter 7. We used a combination of approaches to collect both qualitative and quantitative data including interviews with teachers and leaders at school sites, review of school based data,
1

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 228
presentations by central office staff within the ELA Program and outside of the program, and a review of documentation associated with CD requirements that is maintained at Central Office. We spent more time reviewing documentation at the DPS Central Office than we have previously. We participated in conference calls with the parties, engaged in conversations with members of CHE who are based in Denver, had meetings with community leaders, and had discussions with persons who requested that we meet with them privately. We have been consistent in our approach to collecting and analyzing the data collected and report what we believe those data reveal in terms of progress that DPS has made in meeting the requirements of the CD. We reiterate once more that the reporting of our findings is but one of multiple perspectives about whether CD requirements are being met. We feel that the methodology we have used in collecting and reporting our data has yielded both valid and reliable information. Given that many of the findings in this report are based on interview and document review evidence, it is important that our findings be further confirmed through the collection of additional direct evidence by the IM and the parties of the District’s CD implementation.
In order to ensure the validity and reliability of the information we gathered and report on, we continued with the practice of preparing a spot-audit checklist for every CD chapter we examined. As described in our sixth report and noted once again here, the spotaudit checklists were created around a representative sample of CD requirements from each chapter audited. Not only does this provide us with a representative sample of CD requirements but it also can be useful in determining a role moving forward for Dr. Nelson who has been appointed as the IM. One lesson learned by both Dr. Nelson and I, was precisely how much we could accomplish during a one-week visit to Denver. In the ideal,
2

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 228
we would have included more items in each spot audit checklist but time limitations were a serious factor. It seems that unless the parties are averse to Dr. Nelson using a spot-audit approach, a useful role for him might be to conduct a second round of spot-audits across all or most of the 10 CD chapters where additional CD requirements not already covered are examined. Moreover, this could be done in collaboration with the parties. For this seventh report however, we maintained the practice of creating spot audit checklists that are comprised of our selection of representative samples of CD requirements. These checklists can be found in Appendices A through E.
Although a review of our data collected for this report has been ongoing since mid2017, the real analysis took place after the most recent meeting of all parties. Our goal, basic as it may sound, was to continue to report accurately what we heard, reviewed, and documented. Our basic premise is that CHE, the DOJ, and DPS each have opinions about the progress that the District is making in meeting CD requirements based on their own evidence. What follows in this report is our own interpretation of the evidence we collected and examined. The way that we present those findings is quite similar to the format we used in the sixth report. Each of the chapters of the CD that we spot audited form a separate section of the report. The discussion of each chapter begins with a short introduction followed by a summary of the results for each question from our spot audit checklist in the order the questions were asked. Those questions were directly tied to one or more CD requirements. Our interpretation of the responses and evidence provided for each of these questions are summarized in table form both quantitatively and qualitatively. A short narrative again accompanies the data summarized in tables and any opinions we form and present are based on the data collected and reviewed.
3

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 228
In our sixth report, we cited The Program Evaluation Standards: A Guide for Evaluators and Evaluation Users (Yarbrough, Shulha, Hopson, & Carruthers as cited in Mertens, 2015) as a set of guidelines to apply for determining the veracity of that report. We've applied the same five standards to our data collection for and preparation of this report as well.
During the timeframe covered by this report, we visited a total of 30 schools. This total included five schools that Dr. Nelson visited during February 2018 and five schools identified by the DOJ and CHE as part of the all parties meeting in April. We discussed in our sixth report the process used to select schools to visit, and we used that same process for selecting schools visited for this report. Using the most current data from the reports that DPS completes every July and January, we selected a representative sample of schools that represented the range of grade levels and ELA Program types. We attempted to select a high school and middle school, in addition to elementary schools, during each site visit but at times identified a K-8 school in place of a middle school. As we've noted previously, Dr. Nelson and I selected the schools to visit and they were not identified or selected for us by any of the parties. Each of the schools visited is identified in the respective CD chapter discussions that follow.
Since this is the final report that included my participation both as the IM and previous IM, I want to once more thank not only the ELA Program staff and leadership, but all of those persons district-wide who met with us, made presentations, provided us with documentation that we requested, and hosted us at the 30 schools we visited over the 15 months covered by this report. The ELA Network Partners are exemplary and they form a core of support for the district that we personally have never witnessed in any other school
4

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 228
district. They have proven to be a major resource for the work and efforts of the IM and we have come to value the roles they play in schools. Over the years, teachers, principals, instructional superintendents, and others have spoken positively about the expertise that the ELA Network Partners possess and their worth as an educational resource in the DPS.
During the April/May 2018 meeting of the parties in Denver, the time came to bid farewell to many people. Without question, the most difficult aspect of this was meeting for the final time with the Denver-based members of CHE. Even though I've learned that the most important attribute of the IM is to remain neutral, fair, and even-handed, education is an institution that creates all forms of relationships. My work over the past five years has led me to both form and examine many of these relationships as they relate to the implementation of the CD. One of the most essential relationships was the one I formed with the members of CHE. I came to value their experience, wisdom, and perseverance. Equally valuable was my understanding of the need to listen carefully and truly hear what they had to say. I was diligent in my pursuit to earn their respect and we learned that even in our respective roles, we could agree to disagree. I am forever indebted to these courageous advocates.
In my first report to the Court early in 2014, I made a reference to what I perceived then as significant mistrust between the parties. This perception was based on several factors, including interactions with numerous persons associated with this case. Conversely, I made the suggestion in that first report that the parties should work toward creating a climate of greater mutual trust toward each other. I received very little reaction from the parties, positive or negative, and I felt that my suggestion was not necessarily embraced by these primary stakeholders. However, over the past five years, I've seen slow
5

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 228
yet positive progress toward achieving increased mutual trust, as part of bringing about needed educational change in the DPS. Stringer (2013) makes the point that, "Reframing what happens in schools requires school authorities, outside agencies and government officials working together in new ways to achieve: meaningful communication across all levels of schooling; appropriate capacity building practices; problem solving mindsets; and leadership that initiates, manages and sustains change."
As this work in the Denver Public Schools moves forward without my direct participation, there remains a need for continuing to build mutual trust among the parties. There remains a need, at least in the immediate future, for the Consent Decree. Most importantly, that reframing of how DPS more comprehensively meets the needs of English learners and their families that it serves, is well in place and leading to notable progress on numerous fronts. The events over several decades that led to the modification of the CD in 2013 are not easily forgotten nor should they be. The progress that the DPS has made since then should be an indicator that transformation can take place in education, an institution where change is often slow. I urge the parties to work together in new ways as Stringer suggests, so that changes already made and those that are yet to come can be sustained over time.
6

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 228
UPDATE ON SIX CONCERNS
Beginning with the Fourth IM Report, a series of concerns expressed by CHE, the DOJ, and the IM were brought to the attention of DPS. Since that time, we have reported multiple times on progress made by the District in addressing those six concerns. In preparing for this seventh report, we engaged in discussions with several persons representing different offices or programs within the district over site visits in December, 2017 and March, 2018. We reviewed documentation that we requested, asked for a scheduled meeting with Mr. Robles and key staff members to focus on the status of these concerns, and requested that the district provide us with as current an update as possible. Among those persons we requested to meet with were: Cathy Martin, Executive Director of Curriculum and Instruction; staff from the Accountability, Research, and Evaluation Office; Veronica Maes at the ELA Department who oversees ISA Teams; and others. Following is a listing of each of the six concerns that were first identified in the IM’s Fourth Report followed by an update on the current status of each concern. Concern 1: District Self-assessment
In 2014, the IM recommended to the district that they conduct a district selfassessment that they could use to track and report on the progress they were making in meeting the requirements of the CD. Late in 2014, both CHE and the DOJ apprised the district that they were open to meeting with them to assess that progress if DPS felt that they had sufficiently addressed a requirement and could document it. At about this same time, DPS created a tool identified as the Implementation Tracker to assist in a district selfassessment of the requirements which comprise the CD. It was an ambitious undertaking
7

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 16 of 228
but hard to fully implement for numerous reasons. Eventually, the Implementation Tracker was discontinued as a tool in 2015. The ELA Department has used a variety of management tools to document their progress in CD implementation but to date, the district has not yet completed a full self-assessment. There has been general agreement among the parties that the district has made much progress in implementing much of the CD and this has been communicated on multiple occasions.
However, the IM continues to recommend that at some point, DPS should identify those requirements of the CD that they feel they have met, gather the requisite evidence, and request to meet with CHE and the DOJ to present their findings. This would serve multiple purposes and certainly delineate those requirements that have been adequately met and those still requiring additional work and documentation. It is DPS's position that it has attempted to do exactly this on several occasions especially related to CD Chapters 2, 4 and 5. However, it has not been clear to the District that these efforts have resulted in moving the parties closer to agreement regarding implementation of CD requirements. Concern 2: Lack of Adequate Spanish language Materials
In order to update the progress that DPS has made in meeting this concern, Dr. Nelson and I met with Dr. Cathy Martin, Executive Director of the Curriculum and Instruction Department, the program responsible for addressing textbook and material needs district-wide. We were impressed with the efforts that DPS has undertaken over the past several years to address not only the lack of Spanish language materials but the comparability to materials in English, especially in terms of alignment to the Common Core State Standards. Our review of this issue took place over two separate site visits.
8

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 17 of 228
The collaboration between the ELA Department and the Curriculum and Instruction Department initiated during Dr. Darlene LeDoux’s tenure as ELA Executive Director has been maintained and strengthened over the past several years under the direction of Mr. Robles and Ms. Martin. Areas that we reviewed included availability of core content materials in Spanish, the bidding process undertaken during the adoption of a set of materials, comparability between Spanish and English language materials, and processes in place for addressing the supplemental materials in Spanish for teachers in TNLI and Dual Language classrooms. Among some of our more important findings as part of reviewing the status of this concern are:
A. The bidding process for securing materials is more comprehensive, clearly written, and quantitative. For example, we reviewed the RFP for K-5 Literacy Intervention materials and potential bidders are informed clearly that materials must align with Common Core State Standards in elementary literacy, they must offer parity in terms of English and Spanish resources, they must appear on the CDE READ Act Advisory list, and the materials must have a documented research base predicated on at least one rigorous evaluation by a third party. As part of the selection process, DPS used a companion Literacy Intervention Materials Evaluation Rubric which Ms. Martin walked us through. The process described above is one that DPS now consistently uses in adopting any core content materials. Ms. Martin walked us through the high school Math Evaluation Tool that they used as part of a recent adoption and the RFP clearly stated that all student-facing materials must be available in Spanish in order to be considered.
9

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 18 of 228
B. During 2017 and through the present, DPS adopted five separate sets of core content materials. By adopting Core Connections, which is a Grades 9-11 Integrated Math curriculum, the district has now fully adopted a new mathematics curriculum in English and Spanish for grades K-12. DPS has also adopted a grades 6-8 Geography and World Cultures set of materials that are in both English and Spanish. More recently, the district has adopted the Amplify science curriculum for grades 68, a high school social studies curriculum from McGraw Hill which includes Geography, Civics, Economics, and US History materials. Finally, the DPS adopted IStation as the K-5 Literacy Intervention Curriculum. All of the adoptions above are both in Spanish and English.
C. In our second meeting with Ms. Martin, we discussed library services practices that are related to the CD. We learned that through recent efforts by the district, online resources are now much more available for students and families than they have been previously. Also, Ms. Martin apprised us that Library Services staff members partner with local Spanish book distributors to select high quality Spanish materials for students. Library services offers classes for new library staff at schools to reinforce the importance of selecting books that meet the needs of a respective school community and reflect the languages and cultures of the area. Other notable activities that we were apprised of included subscribing to the Overdrive Interface which makes eBooks available for students in four languages (English, Spanish, French, and Russian). The system has 284 eBooks available for students in Spanish. Additionally, Library Services has purchased access to Tumblebooks which are read along books in Spanish and French; Britannica Escolar, a K-12 digital encyclopedia
10

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 19 of 228
in Spanish; Enciclopedia Moderna, an academic grades 9-12 digital encyclopedia in Spanish; and Brainpop Espanol which is a series of digital animated videos that support literacy, math, science, and music. Another resource she informed us of is the ALMA Collection which includes books and artifacts that support units of study for grades ECE-12 on the history, contributions, and issues pertinent to Hispanics in the Southwest. Finally, Library Services is working more closely with EDUCA Radio to inform parents about media literacy and many of the resources listed above. This outreach is done in Spanish and English. Related to this initiative, Library Services has created the Denver Connect Home Initiative where staff members attend PAC and DAC sessions to inform parents of resources that they have available to them. Based on the two meetings with Ms. Martin, confirmation of the progress made relative to Spanish language materials by Mr. Robles and members of his staff, and our review of information and documents provided to us, our update suggests that this concern is being addressed much more comprehensively than at any time before. This was a positive finding for us. Concern No. 3: ISA Team Monitoring of Students Whose Parents Opted for No Services For at least three years now that we are aware of, DPS has had a process in place in which the ELA Department generates PPF3 Monitoring Forms and sends them to ISA Teams each semester. We checked with the ELA Program and onsite ISA Teams and confirmed that these forms are indeed generated, sent to them with due dates, and followup takes place if there is a glitch in this process. Also, PPF3 student lists continue to be made available electronically to both ISA Teams and school leaders through the Principal
11

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 20 of 228
Portal. During the most recent meeting of the parties in April and May 2018, ELA Program staff presented briefly on a module they've created called the Lifecycle of an EL (LCE). The module and presentation were intended to visually display what the LCE is and how it is implemented. The module was custom designed for Infinite Campus and IC is interested in offering to other school districts.
As part of preparing this update, the IM reviewed the ISA Team Handbook for the 2017-18 school year to ascertain that monitoring of PPF3 students is accurately described in that document consistent with what the CD requires. The ISA Team Handbook clearly instructs ISA Teams of their responsibility to contact parents if their student is not meaningfully and equally participating in the classroom. ISA Teams are also instructed to remind parents that ELA Program services are available for their child. The information regarding monitoring of PPF3 students is not only a part of the ISA Team Handbook, it is addressed in the requisite training that all ISA Team members undertake each school year.
The DPS has made several strategic moves in the past several years to strengthen the role and responsibilities of ISA Teams including monitoring of progress for PPF3 students. The first of those actions was to appoint someone to oversee the implementation of the ISA Team responsibilities required by the CD. That person, Veronica Maes, was appointed as the ELA Program Implementation Manager. During the timeframe of this report, we saw Ms. Maes assume a lead role in strengthening ISA Team functions such as improving communication between schools and the ELA Department; training of all ISA Team members; increasing coordination with other strategic initiatives such as the Quality Assurance Team and her ISA Charter School (Ch-ISA) counterpart Tanis Humes; and coordinating the work of ELA ISA Team specialists, Nubia Ponce Orozco and Erika Krueger,
12

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 21 of 228
at the elementary and secondary levels respectively. During the 2017-2018 school year, Dr. Nelson and I had many interactions with Ms. Maes and were impressed by her leadership and ability to communicate at multiple levels ranging from individual ISA Team members to Instructional Superintendents. We also had numerous principals inform us that the ISA Team process is more effective because of the efforts the district has undertaken to increase communication, serve as a resource, and follow-up when issues arise.
It is clear to us that DPS better understands the CD Chapter 2: ISA Team requirements than it did in 2013 and has, over time, put a system in place that addresses many of their obligations. We are in schools often and have interacted with many ISA team members, school leaders, and ELA Network Partners over the past several years. We believe there is consensus that the ISA Team responsibilities are clearer, reporting of information including student Bodies of Evidence and other required information is more systematic and functional, and that the District has made supports at several levels available to ISA Teams. There are still concerns that have been raised by CHE and the DOJ and need to be addressed as we've noted in our recommendations.
On May 18, 2018 we were contacted by CHE Attorney, Roger Rice, to express concerns that CHE still has with ISA Teams. One of those concerns is related to whether the progress of all ELL students is being adequately monitored. Mr. Rice wrote, "CHE has serious concerns about the extent to which ISA Teams are monitoring ELL students who are not up for possible redesignation or are not newly entered." In other words, if there is not a “triggering event” such as redesignation, is the ISA team still monitoring that ELL student’s progress? Mr. Rice also noted that CHE "has questions about students who are
13

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 22 of 228
long-term ELLs, students who didn't receive ELD or ELA-S prior to the current year, and students where Infinite Campus showed gaps between the time they entered school and the time of identification." Since these are serious concerns to CHE, they should be addressed by the District.
It is the District’s position that these concerns have been addressed. DPS schools have data teams that do day-to-day monitoring of ELL students’ performance and progress. DPS’s ISA teams do such monitoring at defined intervals of an ELL’s school career (i.e., across the ELL Lifecycle). To address CHE’s concern, the District has agreed to ensure that a fully qualified ELA-E teacher is a member of each school’s data teams and to create a formal mechanism for school data teams to raise concerns regarding an ELL’s progress to the ISA team for consideration.
In our sixth report, we presented the results of our spot-audit of Chapter 2: ISA Teams. The ELA Department opens windows or timeframes at designated times during the school year that impact the actions of ISA Teams. One of those windows concentrates on Identification of ELs, another window at a different time addresses Redesignation of ELs, and a third focuses on PPF3 and Year 1 and 2 post-redesignation monitoring. When we conducted our spot audit of Chapter 2, we were in the district during a time when the identification and redesignation windows had been open, and those decisions were the focus of most of the records we reviewed. We only saw or heard references to PPF3 and post-redesignation Year 1 and Year 2 monitoring during the ISA Team meetings we attended. What we reported on is what we witnessed first-hand during the time that we conducted our spot audit, and we would like to clarify that our Report 6 conclusions about ISA processes are limited to the identification and redesignation windows, and not
14

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 23 of 228
generalizable to the PPF3 and post-redesignation Year 1 and 2 monitoring window or to the monitoring of ELLs for whom there is not a triggering event. The concerns expressed by Mr. Rice could be further examined by collecting additional data on ISA team decisions that we did not directly observe in our document review or the meetings we attended when collecting information reported in Report 6.
A next step for Dr. Nelson might be to coordinate a discussion among the parties to address CHE's concerns as noted above. The IM could then schedule a follow-up visit to the district during the 2018-2019 school year when the post-redesignation and PPF3 monitoring windows are open for ISA Teams, examine CHE's concerns regarding monitoring of students as part of another Chapter 2 spot audit, and report his findings. This would be consistent with my earlier suggestion that, for the immediate future, the parties might identify specific areas of concern along with requirements from CD chapters that we did not spot audit, and have those serve as a focus for the IM's efforts moving forward. Concern No. 4: How ISA Teams Weigh Conflicting Data in a Student's File
When this concern initially surfaced, there were reports based on inquiries that CHE and the DOJ had made that some students were being redesignated as early as second grade. The ELA Department quickly dealt with this issue, in large part, by creating guidance through a document that clearly states that students will not be redesignated before the end of third grade. In addition, the LCE module in IC will not allow schools to create redesignation forms for students to consider for redesignation before the end of third grade. This directive was based on guidance that the Colorado Department of Education provided for school districts. This information regarding redesignation in DPS
15

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 24 of 228
was provided to all ISA Teams and school leaders and reinforced in the mandatory ISA Team training that members undertake each fall shortly after the start of a school year.
During our spot audit of Chapter 2, we made the decision to include questions directly tied to CD requirements in this chapter as well as several open-ended questions. One of these open-ended questions dealt with concern number 4. We asked those ISA team members we interviewed the following: How does your ISA Team weigh or reconcile conflicting data in cases where some data indicate a redesignation should be recommended yet other data indicate there should not be a redesignation? We interviewed six ISA Teams and posed the question above to the entire team.
The summary of responses can be found in Table 2.5.2 beginning on page 55 of the Sixth IM Report filed with the Court in May of 2018. ISA Team members on all six teams responded that they weigh the body of evidence and determine how much weight to assign each data point. Additionally, all six teams reported that they gather input from families, classroom teachers, and SPED teachers and they also practice caution in making redesignation decisions, feeling no rush or pressure to redesignate students. Three of the six teams responded that they seek consensus of their ISA Team members when making any decisions regarding redesignation.
In addition to the responses above in our interviews with ISA Teams, Dr. Nelson and I observed ISA Team meetings at several of the school sites we visited and saw first-hand how those ISA Teams deliberated when there were cases of conflicting data and what their redesignation decisions were. Again, this information was provided in our Sixth Report. What Dr. Nelson and I saw was ISA Teams that seem to deal cautiously with the issue of redesignation and whose members shared with us at multiple school sites that they
16

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 25 of 228
examine as much data as possible, confer with classroom teachers and parents, and lean toward having students receive ELA Program services as long as they can.
The District’s ARE Department conducted a Redesignation Study which is alluded to later in this section under Concern Number Six. What the data reveal in this study is that English learners in DPS are in the ELA Program an average of 5.8 years before they are redesignated. These data support our narrative regarding the open-ended question on how ISA Teams deal with conflicting data, specifically that ISA Teams feel no pressure to have to redesignate students as soon as possible. It seems that the ELA Department clearly understands the concern, has acted to address it through guidance and training, and the results support their actions.
Finally, related to ISA Teams and concerns voiced by CHE as a follow-up to our All Parties meeting in May of 2018, Attorney Roger Rice contacted the IM and Dr. Nelson on July 22, 2018 and expressed the following. "During our recent monitoring visit to DPS schools in May when we met with ISA teams we requested, but for the most part did not see, anything approaching what you were able to observe in 2016 beyond what was found in Infinite Campus. Subsequently we wrote to DPS and requested the ISA team agendas, minutes, records and notes from the schools we had just visited as well as for the schools you described in Report #6.”
The DPS responded to Mr. Rice's inquiry and he cites their response in that same July 22nd correspondence: “Most ISA teams no longer keep formal meeting minutes…there is no requirement in Chapter 2 for formal agendas, meeting minutes, or separate note catcher...The District had hoped that ISA teams would follow the practices of IEP meetings
17

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 26 of 228
or student data team meetings…The District is seeing that…some information regarding an ISA team’s deliberative process is not being recorded in much detail.”
We should note that at several times over the past several years when we were either observing ISA Teams or visiting schools where we interviewed ISA Team members, DPS pointed out to us that the CD does not require ISA Teams to draft or maintain formal agendas or meeting notes as part of Chapter 2, although the District understood these to be "best practices." After having developed the LCE (Life Cycle of an ELL) module for ISA team notes, DPS no longer believes that the additional paperwork of agendas or meeting minutes is necessary.
While we accurately described our findings regarding our documentation through observation of ISA agendas and minutes or notes in the sample of six schools we visited during the spot audit of Chapter 2 detailed in our sixth report, we need to acknowledge the different findings of the DOJ and CHE based on their own school site visits. To add additional context to our Report 6 findings, what we observed were not necessarily printed agendas or notes that we saw ISA Team members or the team lead writing. In some cases, it was a team lead writing the decisions that the ISA Team arrived at on their laptop computer and at several schools it was more formalized. At Hamilton Middle School, we witnessed lengthy ISA Team discussions about individual students including samples of work from the Body of Evidence and notes that summarized decisions reached. At North High School, the ISA Team Lead and Assistant Principal specifically noted that they used Google Docs to summarize meetings and track decisions, and even went as far as reading from their laptops decisions they reached regarding the redesignation of individual
18

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 27 of 228
students, explicitly citing from their notations recommendations made for students who were not redesignated at that meeting.
In response to this difference between the IM’s findings and the DOJ/CHE findings, DPS suggested that the difference is due at least in part to differences between the IM and DOJ/CHE in what they each operationally defined as “agendas and minutes” (e.g., printed copies versus electronic records entered into computers as referred to in the additional context added above, or formal versus less formal documentation). DPS also noted that the IM observed ISA meetings in progress and so collected information in a different context than DOJ and CHE, and this, along with different information sources (e.g., differences in documents reviewed, schools visited), may also have been a factor in the differences in the respective findings. DPS believes that ISA teams can document their decisions via current electronic methods such as the LCE system or shared data trackers. DPS agrees with the parties that more information could be provided by ISA teams into the narrative fields of the LCE forms but does not agree that the lack of ISA team agendas or meeting minutes does not comply with the CD.
To assist in resolving at least some of the questions and concerns posed by CHE regarding documentation of ISA Team meetings, we make a recommendation regarding ISA meeting documentation in the final section of this report. Concern No. 5: Implementation of Engage/New York as the Common Core Aligned Curriculum for Grades 4-6 and the Lack of a Comparable Spanish Curriculum
At the time that this issue was expressed as a concern in April 2015, the ELA Department had already made the decision to implement a Common Core aligned curriculum called Engage/New York at the 4th-6th grade level. This decision by DPS caused
19

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 28 of 228
a great deal of concern since there was no comparable Spanish curriculum. However, DPS has reiterated on several occasions that they adopted Engage/New York along with added Spanish curriculum created by DPS in partnership with the BUENO Center. The District believes that this approach provides more authentic learning opportunities than just materials in English translated to Spanish. Furthermore, it provides students with authentic and non-repetitive class topics in their separate English or Spanish classes. The District has clearly expressed and demonstrated its intention to implement a paired literacy instructional approach in which students learn to read, write, speak, and listen in both English and Spanish to promote comprehension. Ultimately, it is the goal of the district that students become biliterate (literate in Spanish and English) through this curricular and instructional approach.
Since the 2015-2016 school year, the Engage/New York curriculum was rebranded as the First Edition of Expeditionary Learning for grades 4-5 and beginning with the 20162017 school year, the District began implementing the curriculum at 3rd grade. Since Expeditionary Learning is only available in English, the district undertook measures to create materials in Spanish so that students would be supported in both English and Spanish literacy. By pairing literacy instruction in both languages, the notion is that students will acquire literacy skills across languages and transfer skills and content learned in one language to the other. To achieve this, the district partnered with the BUENO Center at the University of Colorado in 2014 to create daily paired literacy lessons that would provide both Spanish and English literacy instruction for grades 4 and 5. Members of the BUENO Center attend school site and Central Office meetings on behalf of CHE during visits to Denver by the IM.
20

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 29 of 228
Since then, the existing 3rd grade Expeditionary Learning English curriculum has been adopted and a Spanish paired literacy curriculum was built by acquiring authentic Spanish texts to support DPS/BUENO Center-written Spanish literacy lessons with the target of providing 65% instruction in Spanish and 35% instruction in English. These percentages of instruction match the District Language Allocation Guidelines. In addition, the existing 4th and 5th grade Expeditionary Learning English curriculum is being used as is, and a Spanish paired literacy curriculum has been developed by acquiring a collection of authentic Spanish texts that can be used in tandem with DPS/BUEMO Center-written Spanish literacy lessons to provide 65% of instruction in English and 35% in Spanish.
During the 2017-2018 school year in grade 3, the primary language used was Spanish (65%) paired with daily English lessons (35%) to achieve both the goals of paired literacy and to meet the Language Allocation Guidelines. The District monitors a school’s compliance with these Language Allocation Guidelines by requiring students to be assessed in Spanish to ensure students are learning the requisite Spanish per the Guidelines to assist in the transition to English and to foster biliteracy. In grades 4 and 5, the primary language of instruction was English (65%) with daily Spanish lessons (35%) paired with English lessons. Therefore, 3rd grade ELs who are PPF1 are supported in both English and Spanish literacy through lessons adapted from EL Expeditionary Learning modules and DPS created Spanish modules. In grades 4 and 5, PPF1 ELs are supported in both English and Spanish literacy through additional, aligned DPS-created Spanish modules. Paired literacy, through its structure, supports students and teachers in meeting the shifts of the Common Core State Standards. All of the curricular supports provided for ELA-S classrooms were designed to meet the Language Allocation Guidelines, an action that the IM supports.
21

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 30 of 228
Concern No. 6: Concerns Regarding Key Features of Longitudinal Study The status of the Longitudinal Study, which is tasked to the Accountability, Research
and Evaluation (ARE) Department in DPS, surfaced both in December 2017 during our spot audit of CD Chapter 9 and in March 2018, during our scheduled site visit to Denver. During the March visit, a topic on our agenda was a discussion of the Six Concerns expressed by CHE and DOJ and addressed in my Report 5. That meeting provided an opportunity for the ELA Program Staff to present us with updates on the Six Concerns, including the Longitudinal Study. Our more comprehensive update regarding the Longitudinal Study is in the section of our current report where we present the results of and discuss our spot audit of CD Chapter 9.
During our Spot Audit of CD Chapter 9, which took place both in November and December of 2017, an item on our Central Office Spot Audit checklist asked, "What is the status of the longitudinal study referred to in the Consent Decree Chapter 9.IV.D?” To gain a greater and more current understanding of this question, Dr. Nelson and I met with Jorge Robles and two researchers from the ARE Department which is the lead DPS department overseeing the longitudinal study. Over a period of several hours, we discussed with them several studies of ELL student performance ARE staff have been carrying out designed to collectively meet CD Chapter 9.IV requirements (Evaluating Program Effectiveness) and to provide information useful to the ELA department. We discussed the types of data they have gathered, what inferences ARE has drawn from these data, an overview of the interrelated studies that they have completed, and some of their preliminary findings. ARE and Mr. Robles also discussed their intent to conduct additional studies which inform the ELA Department, result in improved services for ELs, and provide information required by
22

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 31 of 228 the CD. One of the challenges the District has raised with the IM and the Parties is the lack of consistency in student assessment data; this has especially been an issue with the ACCESS test used to assess English proficiency. Due to the test maker’s practice, DPS’s data is calculated differently as a result of the District’s use of paper and pencil rather than computer-based tests. Test makers also adjust scores from one year to another for other internal reasons, making it difficult to compare data across years.
23

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 32 of 228
CHAPTER 1: INSTRUCTIONAL SERVICES
Method Chapter 1 of the CD describes the instructional services the district is required to provide to target the instructional needs of students who are ELLs. All ELLs are to be provided instruction through a TNLI program and/or an ESL/ELA-E program, with the program a school uses dependent on the number of ELL students in the school. All ELLs in the TNLI program are to be provided with ELD and native language instruction in Spanish and/or Supported English Content Instruction. All ELLs in the ESL/ELA-E program are to be provided “with ELD and supported English content instruction, with written native language supports through curricular resources, and, as needed and unless not feasible, oral native language support” (CD Chapter 1, p. 7) Chapter 1 is divided into nine sections: I. Elementary Services; II. Secondary Services; III. Newcomer and SIFE Services; IV. Program Services Provided by Supplemental and Support Staff; V. Response to Instruction and Intervention; VI. Curriculum and Materials; VII. Progress in Program Schools Offering a Transitional Native Language Instructional Model; VIII. Progress Toward Instruction in English; and IX. Spanish Language Assessments. Given the scope of the Chapter 1 requirements, we spread out our Chapter 1 data collection across site visits to DPS in September, October, November and December 2017. During each visit, we collected Chapter 1 data about implementation of one or more of the nine chapter sections as well as data on CD Chapters 5 and 9, which are also addressed in
24

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 33 of 228
this report. Data were collected at school sites and at the Central Office through interviews and document review.
In September 2017 we collected CD Chapter 1 data using our Chapter 1 and 5 Spot Audit Checklist, detailed below, at four schools. As we have been doing for our previous school-based spot audits, we purposively chose schools, taking into account the type of ELA program at the school, whether we had visited the school previously (preferring not to visit the same school repeatedly), and the level of the school – trying to visit schools at the elementary, middle, and high school levels. The four schools to which we made school site visits were Dora Moore Elementary School (ECE – 8, ESL Resource Spanish), Thomas Jefferson High School (ELA –E with Spanish Qualified Resource), Pascual LeDoux Academy (Elementary – Early Childhood, TNLI), and Colfax Elementary School (TNLI). The role of the Spanish-Qualified Resource Teacher, like the one at Thomas Jefferson High School and other schools from which we collected CD Chapter 1 data (identified later), varies across school sites. At the elementary level, when a school is not TNLI, that teacher focuses primarily on ELD, providing support as needed in Spanish. At the secondary level, the Spanish-Qualified Resource Teacher is “pushed in” to content classes to provide support to Spanish speaking students. Within each school, the level and type of support provided by the resource teacher varies based on individual student and teacher needs as well as the number of students who require Spanish language support as specified in CD Chapter 1.
We designed the Chapter 1 and 5 Spot Audit Checklist (Appendix A) to collect information on representative indicators of CD implementation. As detailed in IM Reports 5 and 6, representative indicators refer to evidence we would expect to be able to document at a school site if the section of the CD being examined is being implemented as
25

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 34 of 228
intended. Six sections of the checklist are based on CD Chapter 1. Checklist section II is based on CD 1.I.B.1 (Item A), 1.I.B.2 (Item B), and 1.II.D (Item C), sections of the CD that refer to the provision of ELD and to resource teacher requirements triggered when a specified number of students in a school speak Spanish (15 at elementary, 50 at secondary). Checklist section III is based on CD 1.I.C.1 (elementary) and CD 1.II.E.1 (secondary), which require the provision of native language instruction, supported English content instruction, and ELD in TNLI schools. Checklist section IV is based on CD 1.IV.A.2, which requires that an administrator or staff development professional review ELL assessment data at each school. Checklist sections V and VII are based on CD 1.IV.A.5, which requires that school staff explain program services to parents, ensuring that information and explanation are in a language LEP parents can understand. Checklist section VI is based on CD 1.IV.B, which specifies that, in selecting supplemental staff, consideration be given to the native languages spoken by ELLs at the school.
During our October 2017 DPS site visit, we again used the Chapter 1 and 5 Spot Audit Checklist to collect CD Chapter 1 data during visits to four additional schools – Cowell Elementary School ((TNLI), Force Elementary School (TNLI), Centennial Elementary School (ESL Resource Spanish), and George Washington High School (ELA-E with Spanishqualified Resource Teacher).
In November 2017, we developed a new spot audit checklist designed to gather data on different sections of CD Chapter 1 than we had collected data on in September and October, and we combined those checklist items with items based on CD Chapter 9 requirements, for which we also collected data during that visit. The Chapter 1 and 9 Spot Audit Checklist is in Appendix B. Using the same purposive sampling approach described
26

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 35 of 228
previously, we collected CD Chapter 1 data at four schools – Northfield High School (ELAE), Garden Place Elementary School (TNLI), Sabin World School (Elementary, TNLI plus ESL Resource), and Hill Campus of Arts and Sciences Middle School (ELA-E with Spanishqualified Resource Teacher).
Our Chapter 1 and 9 Spot Audit Checklist contains 10 items based on CD Chapter 1. Item 1 on the checklist is based on CD 1.V.B, which requires that, before referral for targeted or intensive level services, the district has ensured that an ELL student has had sufficient access to ELD and core content instruction provided by on-track or fully qualified ELA teachers. Checklist items 2 through 4 are based on CD 1.V.C, which specifies requirements for intervention team membership and referral consideration. Checklist item 5 is based on CD 1.VI.A, which requires that the curriculum used for ELLs is the same as that used for the mainstream English language instructional program. Checklist items 6 and 7 are based on CD 1.VI.C, which requires that the district provide students who are ELLs with Spanish language core content materials, wherever available, comparable to English language content materials used in mainstream English language classrooms, when the ELL students are taught in Spanish in ELA-S and dual language classes. Checklist items 8 and 9 are based on CD 1.VII.B, which describes the factors to be considered when a student who is an ELL at a TNLI school is being considered by the ELA-S teacher for transition from native language instruction to supported English instruction. Checklist item 10 is based on the CD 1.VII.D requirement that, in TNLI schools, there be ongoing communication between ELA-S and supported English content instruction teachers regarding ELL students’ assignments to a particular combination of ELA services in a TNLI school.
27

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 36 of 228
We collected additional CD Chapter 1 data during our November visit using a Chapter 1 and 5 Central Office Spot Audit Checklist (Appendix C). This central office checklist was designed to collect data on CD Chapter 1 implementation more likely to be accessible or stored at the central office, including interviews we conducted with central office personnel. Six items on the checklist are based on representative indicators of CD Chapter 1 implementation. Item 1 is based on based on CD 1.V.B (sufficient access to ELD and core content instruction). Item 2 is based on 1.V.C (a student’s unique linguistic needs considered). Item 3 is based on CD 1.VI.B, which requires that students who are ELLs are provided with meaningful opportunity for admission to Gifted and Talented programs and other advanced classes. Items 4 and 5 are based on CD 1.VI.A, C and D (comparability of curriculum for students who are ELLs versus non-ELLs and availability of Spanish language core content materials). Item 6 is based on CD 1.VIII.B (monitoring of ELP and academic progress of ELLs).
During our December 2017 site visit, we again used the Chapter 1 and 9 spot audit checklist for school visits, this time at three schools – McGlone Academy (Elementary, TNLI plus ESL Resource), West Leadership Academy (Middle School and High School, TNLI), and Grant Ranch ECE-8 School (its ECE-5 is TNLI and it is ELA-E with ESL Resource for grades 6-8).
Results This summary of the results of the Chapter 1 spot audit are organized, first, by the Chapter 1 items from the Chapter 1 and 5 and Chapter 1 and 9 spot audit checklists used to collect data at the schools visited in fall 2017, and then, following that first section, by the Chapter 1 items from the Chapter 1 and 5 Central Office spot audit checklist.
28

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 37 of 228
Results of selected response checklist items from data collected at the schools are summarized quantitatively and described narratively, as are the responses to constructed response items where responses could be coded into categories and counted. Data collected for CD Chapter 1 implementation using the Chapter 1 and 5 Central Office spot audit checklist during central office interviews are summarized descriptively in the narrative, focusing on the main points made by the interviewees in response to questions we asked and supported by hyperlinks in the narrative to documents the district provided to us as evidence or as examples during the interviews. Chapter 1 Items from the Chapters 1 & 5 Spot Audit Checklist
As noted above, we collected data related to the implementation of CD Chapter 1 using the Chapter 1 and 5 Spot Audit Checklist at eight schools in September and October 2017. Four schools were TNLI schools (Colfax, LeDoux, Cowell, and Force) and the remaining four were ESL/ELA-E (Dora Moore, Thomas Jefferson, Centennial, and George Washington). Items II.A-C. If the school is ESL/ELA-E . . . A. Who provides ELD in reading, writing, speaking and understanding English? (CD Chapter 1.I.B.1)
At Dora Moore Elementary School, two fully qualified ELA-E teachers were providing ELD. At Centennial Elementary School, one fully qualified ELA-E teacher was providing ELD. At Thomas Jefferson High School, one fully qualified ELA-E teacher was providing ELD, and at George Washington High School, ELD was being provided by one fully qualified ELA-E teacher, who taught one ELD class, and one on-track ELA-E teacher who taught four ELD classes.
29

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 38 of 228
B. What are the qualifications of the Elementary resource teacher when more than 15 ELLs in a school speak Spanish? (CD Chapter 1.I.B.2 & D.2)
At Dora Moore, more than 15 students spoke Spanish (the criterion for a school to have a Spanish-qualified resource classroom teacher) and the two resource teachers at the school were both ELA-S. At Centennial, which also had at least 15 Spanish-speaking ELLs, the resource classroom teacher was on-track for ELA-S. C. What are the qualifications of the secondary resource teacher when more than 50 ELLs in a school speak Spanish? (CD Chapter 1.II.D)
At two secondary ELA-E/ESL schools we visited, Thomas Jefferson and George Washington, more than 50 ELLs spoke Spanish, and both schools’ ELA models are ELA-E with a Spanish Qualified Resource Teacher. At Thomas Jefferson, the resource teacher was ELA-S. At George Washington, where there was not a fully-qualified or on-track ELA-S resource teacher, an ELD teacher traveled with a Spanish-speaking paraprofessional who provided Spanish support to students at beginning, early intermediate, and intermediate ACCESS levels. Item III.A. If the school is a TNLI . . . A. (Elementary) are native language, supported English content, and ELD instruction provided? At what grade levels? Who provides the instruction? (CD Chapter 1.I.C.1)
Three of TNLI schools we visited (Colfax, Cowell, and Force) were elementary schools with early childhood programs - ECE through 5th grade. The fourth TNLI school we visited, Pascual LeDoux, was an early childhood school serving 3 and 4 year olds. All three elementary schools reported providing native language instruction, supported English content instruction, and ELD. Table 1.1 summarizes the grade levels at which these types
30

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 39 of 228

of instruction were being provided and the qualifications of the teachers providing the

instruction.

Table 1.1. Type of Language Instruction and Teacher Qualifications at TNLI Elementary

Schools

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

School

Instruction

Grade Levels #FQ Teach #OT Teach %FQ Teach

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Colfax

Native Language

All

3 ELA-S

4 ELA-S

43%

Supp. Eng. Content

All

4 ELA-E

1 ELA-E

80%

ELD

All

6 ELA-E

3 ELA-E

67%

Cowell

Native Language

All

7 ELA-S

5 ELA-S

58%

Supp. Eng. Content

All

4 ELA-E

4 ELA-E

50%

ELD

All

10 ELA-E 9 ELA-E

53%

Force

Native Language

All

8 ELA-S

0 ELA-S

100%

Supp. Eng. Content

All

29 ELA-E 5 ELA-E

85%

ELD

All

24 ELA-E 5 ELA-E

83%

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Table 1.1 shows that, at all three schools, native language instruction, supported

English content instruction and ELD were being provided at all grade levels. The table also

shows the number of fully qualified (FQ) and on-track (OT) teachers providing the three

types of instruction, with the percentages of fully qualified teachers providing that

instruction listed in the last column.

Pascual LeDoux, being an early childhood program only, reported providing an

integrated Spanish and English early childhood program (Creative Curriculum) - not easily

divided into the categories of native language instruction and supported English content 31

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 40 of 228
instruction - with dedicated daily ELD instruction. LeDoux reported having 17 ELA-S teachers, all fully qualified, and 9 ELA-E teachers, 6 fully qualified and 3 on-track (67% FQ). Item IV. What process do you use for reviewing ELL assessment data? (CD Chapter 1.IV.A.2)
All eight schools visited in September and October 2017 were able to describe a process used at the school for reviewing ELL assessment data throughout the school year. The processes described varied among the schools, as did the frequency of the review of the data (e.g., weekly in some schools, less often in others) with some identifiable commonalities. Interviewees at 7 of the 8 schools referred to using ACCESS data to determine starting points for instruction and grouping; the one school that didn’t refer to ACCESS was LeDoux, where the students are too young to take ACCESS. LeDoux reported using TS Gold, an early childhood language development scale, in Spanish and English. Five schools referred to a literacy and/or math focus in their review of ELLs’ assessment data. Four of the schools referred to the role of ISA teams in reviewing ELLs’ assessment data, four schools made reference to the use of data trackers or progress monitoring, and four mentioned sharing the data with parents. Three schools referred to data review occurring in other types of team meetings (e.g., data or grade level team meetings), three referred to reviewing I Station data, and three referred to assessment in Spanish and/or English. Item V. How do you ensure that explanations of the ELA program are understandable to parents who are LEP? (CD Chapter 1.IV.A.5)
Five of the eight schools indicated they use videos in English and Spanish to explain program options to parents who are LEP; five schools also noted that they have bilingual faculty or administrators or office staff who assist parents who are LEP. Four schools referred to providing ELA program information at parent meetings. Three schools noted
32

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 41 of 228
that interpreters are available for parents who speak non-English languages other than Spanish. DPS pointed out in the first draft of this report that Item V was a constructed response (i.e., response options are not provided) rather than a selected response item (i.e., response options are provided), and that this may explain why more schools did not report the use of the video. Item VI. What language(s) do your front office staff speak? (CD Chapter 1.IV.B)
Six of the eight schools reported front office staff speak Spanish and English; one school specified Spanish; and one school specified “mostly English.” Item VII. What does the school do if no one at the school speaks a language spoken by a parent who is LEP? (CD Chapter 1.I.IV.A.5)
All eight schools reported that they use DPS interpreter and translation services when working with a parent who is LEP and no one at the school speaks the parent’s language. Chapter 1 Items from the Chapters 1 and 9 Spot Audit Checklist
We collected additional school-level CD Chapter 1 implementation data during our November and December 2017 visits to DPS. During those visits we also collected CD Chapter 9 data at the schools and we used the Chapters 1 and 9 Spot Audit Checklist to guide our data collection. In November we collected data at four schools - Northfield High School, Garden Place Elementary School, Sabin Elementary School, and Hill Campus Middle School. In December we collected data at four additional schools – McGlone Elementary/Middle School, West Leadership Academy High School, Grant Ranch Elementary/Middle School, and Lowry Elementary School. Garden Place, Sabin, McGlone,
33

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 42 of 228
West Leadership, and Grant Ranch (Elementary) were TNLI schools. Northfield and Hill Campus were ELA-E schools, and Lowry was an ESL Resource school. Item 1. Prior to an ELL’s referral for targeted level or intensive level instruction, how does the school’s intervention team (MTSS) ensure an ELL has had sufficient access to ELD and core content instruction by on-track or fully qualified ELA teachers in an environment supportive of the student’s language development? (CD Chapter 1.V.B)
School staff we interviewed at all eight schools described a response to intervention process that included team meetings in which team members use assessment information to monitor ELL student progress, the assumption being that if a student is making acceptable progress, then the student is receiving sufficient access to ELD and core content instruction. At all the schools, interviewees showed us examples of data trackers teachers and team members use to summarize assessment data collected throughout the year. Commonalities mentioned most often in the interview responses to this constructed response item were the use of instructional strategies targeted to student needs (noted at 8/8, 100%, of the schools), teacher ELA qualifications or training (7/8 schools, 88%), the use of multiple assessments (6/8 schools, 75%), the use of teacher feedback (6/8 schools, 75%), ELD being scheduled for the required time (4/8 schools, 50%), student language skills being taken into account (5/8 schools, 63%), use of assessments for instructional placement or planning (5/8 schools, 63%), and use of data trackers (5/8 schools, 63%, cited use of a data tracker in response to the item although, as noted above, all eight schools showed us a data tracker during our visits). Item 2. Does your intervention team include a fully qualified ELA teacher? (CD Chapter 1.V.C)
Interviewees at all eight schools (100%) replied “Yes” to this question.
34

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 43 of 228
Item 3. How are the unique linguistic needs of an ELL taken into account when providing RTI services (including assessment methods and interpretation of assessment results)? (CD Chapter 1.V.C)
In response to this question, interviewees at the eight schools described the approaches used specifically for students who are ELLs that take into account student linguistic needs. At each of the eight schools, interviewees referred to taking ELL students’ language skills into account during the provision of intervention services. In describing the assessment data used, interviewees cited ACCESS scores; the use of multiple assessments; assessment of the language modalities (reading, writing, listening, speaking); and assessment of content (e.g. with CMAS). In describing intervention instruction for ELLs, interviewees referred most often to providing instruction based on student language proficiency assessment information (cited at 6 of 8 schools, 75%), including native language support, strategic support based on student language needs, provision of instruction by ELA-qualified teachers and paraprofessionals, and provision of ELD. In general, the schools communicated that more support was provided to students with lower levels of proficiency in English, and the type of support varied based on individual student linguistic needs. Item 4. How are ELL considerations for each ELL student documented by the intervention team? (CD Chapter 1.V.C)
For this item we asked for descriptions and examples of how schools documented ELL student performance. Interviewees at all eight schools described data tracking or progress monitoring systems used at the schools, all of which used multiple assessments to monitor students throughout the year. We observed the system used at each school,
35

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 44 of 228

typically by viewing spreadsheets either projected from personal computers to the wall

during the meeting with school staff or on individual computer screens. At five of the eight

schools, we had time during the school visit to systematically select up to 10 student

records at the school and to record examples of the type of language assessment

information that had been entered up to that point in the school year for each student. The

results of that examination of individual student records are summarized in Table 1.2. The

table shows that, at all five schools, multiple types of language assessment scores were

being maintained in the data trackers. CD Chapter I.V.C requires that the unique linguistic

needs of ELs be considered in the provision of services. The language assessment data

maintained in the data trackers for individual students indicates that the intervention team

is monitoring each EL student’s language progress and using those data as the basis for

instructional decisions, a primary role of the intervention team. Examples of the types of

language assessments schools were recording are listed in parentheses in the fourth

column of the table.

Table 1.2. Percent of Individual Student Records with Multiple Language Assessments

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Schools

#

% with

% with multiple lang assess (examples)

records

lang assess

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Garden Place

10

100%

100% (ACCESS literacy, ACCESS overall)

Sabin

7

100%

100% (ACCESS, IStation, CMAS Spanish)

Hill Campus

10

100%

100% (Listen, Read, Writ, Speak scores)

McGlone

6

83%*

83% (Vocab Words, STEPS literacy)

Grant Ranch

10

100%

100% (SLO, IStation, Vocab, Writing)

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 36

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 45 of 228
*One student record had only a placement test for a new student who had just enrolled. Item 5. What are the differences between the curriculum used for ELLs in your school and the curriculum used for the mainstream English language instructional program? (CD Chapter 1.VI.A)
The discussions in other sections of this report of Item 4 from the Central Office Chapters 1 and 5 Spot Audit Checklist and of the “Six Concerns” (carried over from previous IM reports) detail the adoption over the past year of five sets of core content materials available in English and Spanish and the comparability of the curriculum used for ELLs and for the mainstream English language instructional program.
The responses of the interviewees at the eight schools to Item 5 on the Chapters 1 and 9 Spot Audit Checklist reflected the district’s focus on coverage of the Common Core State Standards, with respondents at four of the eight schools noting that, while different materials were being used in Spanish and English, the same objectives were being covered. The school administrators and faculty we interviewed also referred to the use of Spanish and English during instruction (at five of the eight schools – three were non-TNLI) and the use of bilingual instructional materials (four of the eight schools) to support comparability of the curriculum in the two languages. Item 6. Does your school use any Spanish language core content material in ELA –S classrooms and/or ELA-E classrooms? (CD Chapter 1.VI.C)
Of the eight schools we visited, interviewees at five stated they have been using Spanish language core content materials in ELA-S classrooms – the three additional schools (non-TNLI schools) had no ELA-S classrooms. Six of the eight schools reported using
37

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 46 of 228
Spanish language core content materials in ELA-E classrooms as well, with one school indicating this item was not applicable.
The level and type of use of Spanish language and English language instructional materials reported by the interviewees in response to interview items 5 and 6 could be verified through direct observation of the use of Spanish and English language materials in a sample of ELA-S and ELA-E classrooms. Item 7. To what degree are the Spanish language core content materials comparable to English language materials in terms of addressing common core standards? (CD Chapter 1.VII.C)
Item 7 was a selected response item for which interviewees chose among four responses – Comparable, Somewhat Comparable, Not Comparable, or Not Applicable. Data on Item 7 were collected at seven of the eight schools. Faculty and administrators at six of the seven schools (86%) rated Spanish language core content materials as being “Comparable” to English language materials, while at the seventh school the Spanish language materials were rated as “Somewhat Comparable.” Given the time constraints of the one-half day school site visits, the IM did not independently determine comparability of these materials. A direct analysis of the comparability of Spanish and English language core content materials should be conducted in the future to verify the accuracy of these ratings. Item 8 (TNLI Only). Which abilities are considered when you make the determination that an ELL student has the skills to move from transitional native language instruction to supported English content instruction? (CD Chapter 1.VII.B)
38

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 47 of 228
Item 8 was framed as a selected response item and was asked at TNLI schools only. The interviewees at all five TNLI schools (100%) stated that they considered each of the response alternatives provided in the item when they make the determination that an ELL student has the skills to move from TNLI to supported English content instruction. At all five schools, consideration is given to an ELL student’s ability to understand academic English vocabulary, to engage in classroom conversation in English, and to understand classroom materials in English. School personnel at all five TNLI schools also stated they use “Other” information in addition to these three areas of ability. “Other” information cited most often included the use of CMAS, ACCESS, and the WIDA writing rubric. Dialogue with school personnel also reflected the idea that, rather than “exiting” students from native language instruction when their English language abilities had improved enough to participate in sheltered English content instruction, native language instruction was also being maintained due at least in part to the district’s emphasis on the Seal of Biliteracy. This is also a recommended practice in the ISA Team Handbook guidance given to teams. Item 9 (TNLI Only). What evidence have you used to make the determination that an ELL student has the skills to move from transitional native language instruction to supported English content instruction? (CD Chapter 1.VII.B)
Item 9 used the selected response format and the responses of the five TNLI schools to this item are summarized in Table 1.3. The response alternatives listed in the table are possible types of evidence listed in CD Chapter 1.VII.B. The table shows that all five TNLI schools reported using five of the six types of evidence listed as response alternatives while four of the five reported using attendance (i.e., lack of exposure to content due to low attendance). Four of the five schools also reported using “Other” types of evidence,
39

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 48 of 228

collectively listing a variety of other evidence including additional writing samples,

assessments of language (DRA reading, SRI reading, EL Achieve), and discussions with or

observations of students.

Table 1.3. Evidence Used in TNLI Schools to Support Moving from TNLI to Sheltered

English Content Instruction

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Evidence Used

% Using Evidence

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Assessment of English Language Proficiency

100% (5/5)

Classroom Performance

100% (5/5)

Interim and State Assessments

100% (5/5)

Standards-based Progress Reports Attendance

100% (5/5) 80% (4/5)

Classroom Behavior

100% (5/5)

Other

80% (4/5)

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Item 10 (TNLI Only). How and how often do ELA-S and supported English content instruction

teachers communicate about an ELL student’s assignment from TNLI to supported English

content instruction to determine if the assignment is appropriate or should be reconsidered?

(CD Chapter 1.VII.D)

At three of the five TNLI schools we visited, communication between ELA-S and

supported English content instruction teachers was occurring weekly through grade level

team meetings. One of the five TNLI schools reported that this type of communication took

place two or three times a week (daily between two teachers who teach ACCESS level 1 and

2 students). At the fifth TNLI school, the interviewees noted that the ELL students are not

40

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 49 of 228
pulled out of ELA-S upon redesignation, but that every six weeks ELD class groupings are revisited. Chapter 1 Items from the Chapters 1 and 5 Central Office Spot Audit Checklist
During our November 2017 visit to Denver, we collected CD Chapter 1 implementation data at the DPS Central Office using the Chapters 1 and 5 Central Office Spot Audit Checklist described earlier. Our data collection at the Central Office consisted of interviews conducted with DPS personnel who had been identified as those best able to answer our questions about CD Chapter 1 implementation. We provided our questions to the ELA Department about two weeks prior to our visit so they could ensure those individuals were available to interview. The November interviews were conducted during two one-half day meetings and then a third one-hour meeting. During the interviews, interviewees responded to the items on our spot audit checklist, providing, in some cases, written responses they had prepared prior to the interview as well as supporting documents. In our following summary of this information below, we have embedded hyperlinks to documents provided to us during the interviews so readers of this report can see detail that we aren’t able to capture in our summary. Item 1. In the DPS RTI system, how does the District ensure that before ELLs are recommended for Targeted Level of Intensive Level services, those students have had sufficient access to ELD and core content instruction by on-track or fully-qualified ELA teachers? (CD Chapter 1.V.B)
In response to this interview question, DPS provided a document that overviews the district’s RTI approach.
41

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 50 of 228
www.dropbox.com/sh/4snxap9o804c353/AAB3LhxuUSfDxSgWkR6YJI6Va/RTI?dl=0&pre view=Nov+2017+RTI+Summary.docx
CD Chapter I.V.A states, “The District shall offer to students identified as needing intervention or remediation to achieve their full potential opportunities for assistance through a “Response to Intervention” (RTI) system . . . that includes three levels of instruction and/or interventions which are designed to be fluid and accessible, based on current student needs.” Chapter I.V.B requires that, as part of the RTI process, “ . . . the District shall ensure that these students have had sufficient access to ELD and core content instruction by on track or fully qualified ELA teachers in an environment that is supportive of their language development.”
While the introductory paragraph in the linked document notes that the DPS RTI system is “different than the wording in the CD,” what the document actually does is delineate what occurs in the DPS RTI system at each of the three tiers of graduated support to which the CD refers. DPS notes in that same paragraph in the link that, “In alignment with guidance from the state, the district supports schools to engage in Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS), a preventative approach designed to best meet the needs of students in each school community. This helps avoid isolating students and ensures access to ELD or other core content instruction occurs.” The reference to ELD and core content access incorporates the terminology regarding that access in CD I.V.B.
As overviewed during our interview, the framework in place at Tier I (evidencebased instruction in the general education classroom) is anchored in content and language objectives and requires that students who are ELLs receive at least 45 minutes per day of ELD plus access to core content and differentiated literacy instruction in the ELA model
42

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 51 of 228
used in a school. DPS is providing professional development to teachers focusing on biliteracy, and when a student struggles in Tier I instruction, schools first determine whether the requirements of the framework are in place and whether instructional approaches covered in that professional development are being employed. In addition, DPS is pilot testing a universal screening for social and emotional health using the Behavior and Emotional Screening System (BESS) to determine if that might be a factor in a student’s struggles. BESS will be implemented district-wide by 2020.
If a student is not responding to effective Tier 1 instruction, then the student is referred to the MTSS team (Multi-Tiered System of Support). That referral is documented using a form that provides background information on the student, including language proficiency scores and language of instruction (the English Learner Student Form). www.dropbox.com/sh/4snxap9o804c353/AAB3LhxuUSfDxSgWkR6YJI6Va/RTI?dl=0&pre view=MTSS+Form.pdf
Based on dialogue with the student’s teacher and the assessment and instruction information summarized on the English Learner Student Form, the MTSS then develops a Data Narrative and Action Plan that summarizes the student’s background, describes the Tier 2 intervention (MTSS-mediated intervention for students who struggle at Tier 1), and a six-week cycle of progress monitoring. At the end of that six-week cycle, based on the student’s response to the Tier 2 intervention, the team makes the decision to exit the student from Tier 2 intervention (if the intervention was effective), to continue with another cycle of Tier 2 intervention, or to make an additional referral (e.g., to Tier 3, special education). As described in the district’s RTI overview, the SEAS team is involved at the school’s request at Tier 2 and Tier 3 to determine the role of language and cultural issues in
43

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 52 of 228
the student’s performance. During the interview, one interviewee made the point that the District’s RTI process is more fluid than what might be used in other districts. DPS tries to provide student support as needed from a continuum of supports available rather than adhering to a strict system in which particular supports are provided only at one versus another tier. Such flexibility is important in RTI implementation so that the MTSS team matches an intervention to an individual student’s needs and is not constrained by strict adherence to a hierarchy of graduated instructional supports.
The District’s overview of the MTSS process during our interview shows that DPS has a system in place for identifying and monitoring ELL students who would benefit from enhanced Tier 1 and Tier 2 instruction, with some ultimately being referred for Tier 3, special education. The system as designed includes assessments of ELP and academic performance as required by the CD. In reviewing the MTSS documents after our site visit, we noticed that the forms don’t contain reference to the ISA team. Since the ISA team is identified in the CD as being responsible for monitoring the performance of ELL students and redesignated ELLs, the role of, and the MTSS’s means of coordination with, the ISA team should be specified to ensure coordination between these teams for ELL students participating in the MTSS process.
Implementation of the MTSS process as designed for EL students could be verified in several ways. A sample of English Learner Student Forms could be reviewed to ensure that they contain the information about EL students specified in the form’s data fields. Additional direct evidence of implementation might include observations of a sample of MTSS meetings where one or more EL students’ need for, or response to, intervention is being discussed. Direct evidence might also be obtained through classroom observations of
44

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 53 of 228
a sample of EL students to determine whether they are actually receiving the instructional interventions suggested by the MTSS team along with receiving their CD-specified ELA instruction. Item 2. How are the unique linguistic needs of ELLs considered in the provision of RTI services? (CD Chapter 1.V.C)
As noted in the previous item, the English Learner Student Form summarizes an ELL’s language of instruction and ACCESS language proficiency scores. During the interview, the DPS interviewees emphasized that there is communication between the ISA team and the MTSS centered on an ELL student’s linguistic needs (“the conversation between ISA and MTSS is important”). Interviewees also noted that a SEAS partner is connected to every school, and SEAS conducts bilingual assessment for ELLs on a case-bycase basis. The involvement of ISA and SEAS in the MTSS process is meant to ensure that an ELL student’s linguistic needs are taken into account in the RTI process. Item 3. How does the District provide meaningful opportunity for ELLs to be considered for admission to gifted and talented programs and other advanced classes using criteria that do not screen out ELLs because of their limited English proficiency? (CD Chapter 1.VI.B)
DPS uses criteria that allow students who are ELLs to participate in GT services without having to meet Colorado state criteria. The state of Colorado recently tightened its definition of giftedness eligible for state resources. DPS created its criteria in order to provide access to GT services to more students than would be served following the State criteria. The DPS criteria are detailed in a checklist provided during the interviews. www.dropbox.com/sh/4snxap9o804c353/AADxdPpHQECTl56ALBTcO5lsa/GT?dl=0&prev iew=GT+Checklist.pdf
45

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 54 of 228
The criteria detailed in the checklist are primarily performance-based rather than assessment-based (e.g., the criteria don’t include a minimum score on a formal test of intellectual ability), asking the observer filling out the checklist to provide information on such things as an ELL student’s approach to classroom tasks, cultural awareness, performance on math and language activities, code-switching ability, imagination, and originality of ideas. DPS uses a guideline that students identified for talent development must match the demographics of the school (“e.g., if the school population is 67% ELL, then the talent development group must be comprised of 67% ELL students”).
CHE raised issues about these checklist criteria, questioning whether, for example, an ACCESS level 1 EL (“entering” level of proficiency) who was a prodigy in music or art would qualify for the DPS GT program using the checklist. CHE also is interested in a obtaining a breakdown of the percentage of GT enrollment by school and by language proficiency level. It would be useful if the District was able to provide that information during the 2019-2020 school year.
During our Central Office interviews, a DPS March 2017 research brief was overviewed that concludes that many ELs classified as gifted after redesignation or ELA program exit should have been classified as gifted prior to redesignation or exit. https://www.dropbox.com/sh/4snxap9o804c353/AADxdPpHQECTl56ALBTcO5lsa/GT?dl =0&preview=GT+Research+Brief.pdf
The research brief also shows, graphically, that there is a positive correlation between EL students’ ACCESS scores and scores on what is supposed to be a “nonverbal” performance-based assessment used as one criterion for GT eligibility, the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test (NNAT2). As a result, an EL with a lower ACCESS score is less likely
46

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 55 of 228
to meet the NNAT2 score criterion commonly used as one piece of evidence for gifted eligibility. The research brief recommends that schools use alternatives to NNAT2 for determination of EL GT eligibility. The research brief shows the District is aware of the need to ensure better access of ELs to GT programs, and the IM should check at a future date to determine what progress the District has made in this regard. Central Office staff reported during the interview that schools have also been working to increase access to Advanced Placement (AP) and dual enrollment classes for students who are ELLs. As an example, they described a collaborative effort among school counselors, the GT staff, and secondary level ELA staff piloting the use of two DPS-developed non-verbal assessments at four high schools (Lincoln, MLK, Kennedy, and South) to target ELLs who might benefit from being in more advanced classes. Item 4. How is the curriculum for ELLs the same as that used for the Mainstream English Language instructional program? (CD Chapter 1.VI.A)
During the interview regarding Items 4 and 5 from the Chapters 1 and 5 Central Office Spot Audit Checklist, DPS personnel from the Curriculum and Instruction Office provided several documents detailing what the District has done to ensure equivalence between the curriculum for ELLs and Mainstream English Language instruction. The District provided the IM with a handout, “Key Takeaways from Curriculum and Instruction,” that details its approach. www.dropbox.com/sh/4snxap9o804c353/AACpq0Vrh6J4zh1DraK_D9JOa/Curriculum%2 0Materials?dl=0&preview=CI+Takeaways.pdf
That document specifies three principles: 1. Ensure that curriculum materials used in ELA-S or ELA-E classrooms are comparable to those used in mainstream English
47

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 56 of 228
language classrooms with reference to the Common Core State Standards. Key to this first principle is that, in the curriculum adoption process the district uses, there are two nonnegotiables - “all student-facing materials are available in Spanish and are aligned with the Common Core and Colorado Academic Standards;” 2. Provide professional development to support classroom instructional strategies that make the curriculum accessible to ELLs; and 3. Provide additional resources and supports for ELLs.
The District also provided a document that details the equivalence of Spanish and English curriculum materials across grade levels and content areas. www.dropbox.com/sh/4snxap9o804c353/AACpq0Vrh6J4zh1DraK_D9JOa/Curriculum%2 0Materials?dl=0&preview=Materials+Comps.pdf
At the early childhood level, the Creative Curriculum is used in both English and Spanish versions. In the area of language and literacy: Grades K through 2 use Benchmark Literacy Planning Guides that are available in English and Spanish; in grade 3, EL Education is used in English and for Spanish EL Education with Trans-adopted paired literacy is used; in grades 4 and 5, EL Education is used in English and a paired literacy approach is used in Spanish; in grades 6 through 8, Expeditionary Learning is used in English and similar Spanish language arts materials are used depending on students’ language proficiency level following the Language Allocation Guidelines (LAG); in grades 9 through 12 the DPS Core (Washington DC Curriculum) is used in English and similar Spanish language arts materials are again used depending on students’ language proficiency level following the LAG.
In mathematics, Bridges in Mathematics is used in both English and Spanish in grades K through 5. In grades 6 through 8, Connected Mathematics Project 3 is used in both English and Spanish. In grades 9-11, the Core Connections is used in both English and
48

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 57 of 228
Spanish. In grade 12, pre-calculus, financial algebra, AP calculus, and probability and statistics are covered in English and the District is searching for equivalent Spanish language materials.
In science, English and Spanish versions of Connecting Science and Literacy are used in grades K through 5. In grades 6 through 8, the District has adopted the Amplify curriculum, available in both English and Spanish, in 2018/2019. In grade 9, “Earth Comm” is used in both English and Spanish. In grade 10, IHub Biology is used in both English and Spanish. In Grade 11, Active Chemistry is used in English and there is no equivalent Spanish language curriculum specified. In grade 12, Active Physics is used in English and no equivalent Spanish language curriculum is specified.
In social studies, Social Studies Alive is used in both English and Spanish in grades K through 5. In grades 6 and 7, World Culture (Western Hemisphere grade 6 and Eastern Hemisphere grade 7) is used in both English and Spanish. In grade 8, American History: Beginnings through Reconstruction is used in both English and Spanish. In grade 9, the District has adopted Geography, the Human and Physical World in English and Spanish for 2018/2019. In grade 10, the District has adopted America through the Lens in both English and Spanish for 2018/2019. In grade 11, the District has adopted United States Government in both English and Spanish for 2018/2019. In grade 12, the District is adopting Understanding Economics in both English and Spanish for 2018/2019. Item 5. How are Spanish language core content materials used in ELA-S or ELA-E classrooms comparable to English language content materials used in mainstream English language classrooms? (CD Chapter 1.VI.C)
49

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 58 of 228
Based on the detail provided in the document specifying the curriculum materials provided in English and Spanish in the core content areas at the different grade levels, it is possible to summarize the comparability of English and Spanish language materials in the following way: In Language and Literacy, English and Spanish materials are the same in grades K through 2, so the materials have the same level of core content coverage. In grades 3 through 5, a paired literacy approach is used in which Spanish language materials are chosen that have similar coverage of core content to English language materials, but they are not the same materials in both languages simply translated. In grades 6 through 12, Spanish language materials are chosen based on an ELL student’s language proficiency following Principle 1 in the Key Takeaways document, also referred to in the previous section, which states that comparability of Spanish language materials to English language materials is determined with reference to the Common Core State Standards.
In mathematics, English and Spanish curriculum materials are the same in grades K through 11, and for grade 12 comparable Spanish language materials are being sought.
In science, Spanish and English language materials are the same in grades K through 8, and grades 9 and 10. The District is still seeking comparable Spanish and English mathematics materials for grades 11 and 12.
In Social Studies, English and Spanish materials are the same in grades K through 8 and the District has adopted materials that will be the same in English and Spanish for 2018/2019. Item 6. How does the district monitor the ELP and academic progress of ELLs regularly? (CD Chapter 1.VIII.B)
50

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 59 of 228
DPS provided the IM with a 46-page PowerPoint presentation describing how the District regularly monitors the English Language Proficiency (ELP) and academic progress of ELLs. www.dropbox.com/sh/4snxap9o804c353/AACEonNKmfI13fLz4aFm3Ura/Monitoring%20of%20progress%20towards%20English?dl=0&preview= ELP+%26+Academic+Progress+Monitoring_110617.pdf
This document describes the District’s assessment system, including the assessment calendar the district followed for 2017/2018, and contains graphic representations as well as brief narrative interpretations of assessment results in for ELLs in English Language Proficiency and academic progress.
The DPS assessment system includes formative, interim and summative assessments, and involves three levels of monitoring – by district leaders, by school leaders, and by teachers. As detailed in this document, district leaders focus on summative assessment results based on district level and school level aggregations of data. Monitoring by district leaders centers on strengths, weaknesses, and opportunity gaps revealed in the district level and school level data summaries. They look at yearly data trends and comparisons of DPS student performance to state-level data.
School leaders monitor school-level performance through the Principal Portal in the IC as well as Illuminate reports. School leaders have access to interim and formative assessment results for their schools and also access to the same summative data as district leaders.
51

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 60 of 228
Teachers access student level results on interim and formative assessments through the Teacher Portal and Illuminate reports in the IC. Data are updated in the Teacher Portal and Illuminate several times a year.
The district’s assessment calendar, on pages 6 and 7 in the document, list the assessment windows for MAPs, CMAS, ACCESS, READ Act assessments, gifted and talented assessments, semester and course final exams, and supplemental assessments.
During the IM’s interview with district personnel, the ELA Executive Director demonstrated examples of how to access the assessment data through the Principal Portal, using Sabin Elementary School as an example. We were able to see assessment data for the school overall as well as for individual students at the school. In observing this demonstration, we noticed that data were available for students starting with the 2013/2014 school year. During the presentation, district interviewees made the point that the decision about which data to include in the portals is made based on discussions between the ELA department and the ARE department. DPS provides training to principals and teachers on how to access these reports and use the data. Every network has an Instructional Support Partner (ISP) who works with school leaders to unpack the data, and ELA Partners assist as well for ELL data.
District level monitoring of ELP is based on ACCESS scores, ACCESS trajectories, and ACCESS MGP (growth), detailed on page 9 of the document. ACCESS data comparing 2016 to 2017 performance is presented graphically and described narratively on pages 17 through 30 of the document and this constitutes evidence of district-level monitoring of ELP as required by the CD.
52

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 61 of 228
District-level, school-level, and teacher level monitoring of academic progress is further detailed on page 32 of the document and includes reference to CMAS, READ Act assessments, progress monitoring, literacy assessments, supplemental and interim assessments, performance-based tasks, and unit assessments. Page 35 of the document summarizes “key takeaways” of the monitoring of ELLs’ academic progress and pages 36 through 46 contain graphic and narrative descriptions of ELLs’ academic progress on CMAS, CSAP/TCAP, and PARCC, collectively covering the time period from 2005 to 2017. These pages constitute evidence of district-level monitoring of ELL students’ academic progress as required by the CD.
Summary Interview and document review data related to CD Chapter 1 implementation were collected during four visits to DPS in September, October, November, and December 2017. Data were collected during one-half day site visits to 15 schools: one Early Childhood program; seven elementary schools (ECE/K – grade 5); two ECE/K – 8 schools; two middle schools (grades 6 – 8); and three high schools. Six of the 15 schools were classified in fall 2017 as TNLI, three were TNLI plus an ESL Resource Teacher, two were ESL plus a Resource Teacher in Spanish, three were ELA-E with a Spanish Qualified Resource Teacher, and one was ELA-E. Data were collected using three spot audit checklists developed by the IM and Dr. Nelson that were based on the 38 CD Chapter 1 requirements (defining a CD requirement as a primary chapter section; e.g., 1.I.A., 1.I.B., 1.II.A. are the first three requirements of CD Chapter 1). Two of the spot audit checklists were used to collect data during school site visits and one spot audit checklist was used to collect data at the Central Office.
53

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 62 of 228
Collectively, the items on the three spot audit checklists sampled 15 of the 38 Chapter 1 requirements (39%) by focusing on one or more representative indicators of the CD requirement.
Given the scope of CD Chapter 1 and our focus on a sample of the Chapter 1 requirements, the results of our spot audit are best summarized by the main areas we addressed in our Chapter 1 spot audit.
Staffing. Our data show that, at the schools we visited, teacher qualifications in nearly all instances matched the school’s ELA program classification, and that classes in which ELLs were enrolled were taught by teachers who are fully qualified or on-track. At one school, where a fully qualified or on-track ELA-S teacher was not in place, an alternate approach (a Spanish speaking paraprofessional who accompanied an ELD teacher) was used to address ELL student needs.
Parent Communication. At the eight schools where we asked about the school’s communication with parents who are limited in English proficiency, school staff reported that through the combination of front office staff who speak (especially) Spanish and through DPS interpretation services, they have been able to effectively communicate with parents and to ensure that parents understand ELA program options.
Monitoring ELL Student Progress and Appropriate Instructional Programming. At the eight schools where we asked how ELL student progress is monitored, all eight were able to describe for us and show examples of the system used in the school for monitoring ELL progress in ELP and academic performance. Student progress and appropriate assignment to instructional programming are monitored at the school level by ISA teams and/or grade level teams. CD Chapter 2.B.3 specifies that the monitoring of EL student progress is the
54

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 63 of 228
responsibility of ISA teams: “The ISA Team’s responsibilities shall include . . . Reviewing the ELP and academic progress of all ELLs . . .” One issue raised as a result of our school visits is how the different teams in a school (grade level data teams, ISA teams, MTSS teams) in a school share assessment information and distribute the responsibility for monitoring ELL student progress and appropriate instructional assignment. DPS has created a system whereby, when data teams have concerns about ELs, they send them to the ISA teams for consideration. At the district level, DPS now has in place an automated system through which teachers and principals, using teacher and principal portals, can access assessment data to monitor ELL students’ ELP and academic performance. School level and district level assessment systems both use multiple assessments, which we saw examples of, to monitor ELL student progress.
CHE has expressed an interest in how often teachers and principals use the system. The IM did not collect information on frequency of use of the system for this current report, and that would be useful information to collect during 2019-2020.
Consideration of ELL Status in the Tiered Support System (MTSS). At the eight schools where we examined the MTSS process we found that all took into account ELL status, looking at ACCESS scores to determine English language proficiency, considering whether adequate instruction (e.g., ELD) had been provided, using multiple measures of student achievement and progress, taking into account individual student needs in prescribing appropriate instructional alternatives for students who teachers had identified as struggling, and monitoring student progress in response to suggested Tier 2 interventions. We found that MTSS teams typically include an ELA-E or ELA-S teacher as a member to help ensure that ELL students’ language and cultural needs are taken into account in the
55

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 64 of 228
MTSS process, and schools reported communicating with ISA or grade level teams as part of the MTSS process.
In our interview at the Central Office with representatives of the several departments involved in shared responsibility for the DPS MTSS process, District personnel overviewed the MTSS process for identifying, and providing a continuum of instructional supports to, students who struggle in the general education setting. The process includes as one of its initial steps verification that an ELL student referred to the MTSS team has been enrolled in ELD and has been receiving differentiated literacy instruction through the ELA program used at the school. Central Office staff also described biliteracy training being provided to teachers to help ensure that Tier 1 instruction addresses the needs of ELL students in general education classrooms. An ELL student who enters DPS’s MTSS process is tracked with the English Learner Student form on which ELL student background, assessment information, and language of instruction is recorded. The District’s SEAS team is involved at Tier 2 and tier 3 at a school’s request to provide bilingual and culturally appropriate assessment. The student’s academic performance and English language proficiency are then monitored for the intervention timeframe as components of the assessment information used by the team to determine the student’s response to the MTSS intervention. The Central Office interviewees also described an approach being piloted at selected DPS schools (BESS – the Behavior and Emotional Screening System) as being helpful in the MTSS process for ELL students, with plans to adopt it district-wide in 20182019. One component that appears to be lacking in the MTSS system is a defined role for the ISA team, a specification of how ISA and MTSS teams share information, and their mutual responsibilities during the MTSS process. The IM recommends that the mutual
56

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 65 of 228
roles of the ISA Team and MTSS Team in the MTSS process be explicitly addressed with a guideline or set of guidelines for these teams to follow.
Curriculum Equivalency and Enhancement. Equivalency between the district’s mainstream curriculum and that provided for ELL students was examined both at our school site visits and in the Central Office interview.
At the school level, staff at 86% of the schools felt that the curriculum content was comparable between English and Spanish at their school, while the remaining 14% classified the English and Spanish curriculum content as somewhat comparable. At the five schools we visited that had ELA-S classrooms when we were looking at the curriculum section of CD Chapter 1, all used Spanish language materials in covering core content, and six of the eight schools we visited reported using Spanish language core content materials in ELA-E classrooms as well.
During the Central Office interview, DPS staff provided a comprehensive comparison of instructional content and materials used in mainstream, ELA-S, and ELA-E classrooms. As detailed earlier in this chapter and in the document links provided, DPS is able to show curriculum equivalency in content coverage tied to the common core standards across all core content areas and grade levels. The District provides curriculum materials in English and Spanish, especially in the Language Arts, and Spanish language materials in science and mathematics up to 11th grade, with less availability of Spanish language curriculum materials in 12th grade or advanced science and mathematics. District personnel specified additional adoptions of Spanish language instructional materials slated for 2018-2019. During the interview, the ELA Executive Director Robles commented regarding the availability of equivalent English and Spanish instructional materials, “Next
57

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 66 of 228
year we’ll have everything . . . (that’s a) big change from a couple years ago.” He further noted that he felt improvement in this area was due in part to the district’s emphasis on the Seal of Biliteracy. Our findings regarding scope and comparability of English and Spanish language curriculum materials are based on interviews and could be verified through a review of those materials by bilingual content area experts.
As for curriculum enhancements, DPS has a system in place for identifying ELL students for possible participation in Gifted and Talented programs that incorporates alternative performance-based assessments, which are considered to be more valid for students who are ELLs than traditional standardized achievement or ability assessments normed or standardized using groups with different cultural and language backgrounds than ELLs. During the interview, DPS staff also described efforts underway to increase advanced placement and dual enrollment courses available for ELLs. IM Assessment of CD Chapter 1 Implementation
Our data show that in the areas of CD Chapter 1 on which we focused (staffing, parent communication, ELL student monitoring and instructional programming, consideration of ELL status in the MTSS system, and curriculum equivalency and enhancement) DPS is implementing CD requirements at an acceptable level. That’s not to say there aren’t areas in which Chapter 1 implementation could be improved. Spanish language materials in 12th grade and some advanced secondary science and mathematics had not been identified; the role of ISA teams in the MTSS process should be addressed, as should the collaboration and mutual responsibility of ISA teams, grade level teams, and the MTSS team in monitoring EL student performance; ideally, some schools would be staffed by higher percentages of fully qualified ELA-S and ELA-E teachers rather than on-track
58

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 67 of 228
teachers, although the CD allows for on-track teacher staffing; and, ideally there would be no exceptions found to CD staffing requirements given a school’s ELA program model. Overall, though, there is substantial evidence of Chapter 1 CD implementation for the Chapter 1 areas in which we collected data based on the schools we visited, the Central Office staff we interviewed, and the documents we reviewed. Our findings regarding CD Chapter 1 implementation, which are based on interviews and document review and focused on selected sections of Chapter 1, should be further verified by collecting data on the implementation of additional sections of CD Chapter 1 and by collecting additional direct evidence that DPS has the infrastructure and systems in place to deliver the services required by the CD and is actually delivering those services to ELL students and their families. That direct evidence might consist of direct observation of services as they are being delivered (e.g., classroom observations), interviews with primary sources (teachers who can comment on their own instructional practices) to confirm what secondary sources have described (DPS administrators who report what teachers are doing), and additional document review (e.g., comparison of the equivalency of English and Spanish language instructional materials across content areas).
59

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 68 of 228
CHAPTER 5: PERSONNEL AND TRAINING
Method Chapter 5 of the CD describes requirements for Personnel and Training. Chapter 5 has 13 sections: I. General Policy; II. Teacher Qualifications; III. Teacher Training Program; IV. Program and Teacher Assignments; V. Training and Designation of ELA-T Teachers; VI. Teacher Recruitment. VII. Teacher and Staff Appraisal; VIII. Training of Teacher Evaluators; IX. Principal Appraisal; X. Training for Supervisors of Principals; XI. Instructional Services Advisory Team Training; XII. Paraprofessionals; and XIII. Counselors. We collected data on CD Chapter 5 implementation during each of our four visits to DPS in Fall 2017 - in September, October, November, and December. In September and October, we collected Chapter 5 data at school sites using the Chapters 1 and 5 Spot Audit Checklist (Appendix A). Our data sources for these school visits consisted of document review and interviews. During September, we also directly observed several ELA Teacher Qualification classes. In November, we collected Chapter 5 data at the Central Office using the Chapters 1 and 5 Central Office Spot Audit Checklist (Appendix C), and in December we collected data for one additional section of Chapter 5 at the Central Office. The data sources for our November and December visits were interviews and document review. During our September 2017 visit, we collected CD Chapter 5 data at the same four school sites for which we concurrently collected CD Chapter 1 data: Dora Moore Elementary School (ECE – 8, ESL Resource Spanish); Thomas Jefferson High School (ELA –E with Spanish Qualified Resource); Pascual LeDoux Academy (Elementary – Early Childhood, TNLI); and Colfax Elementary School (TNLI). As we noted in the Chapter 1
60

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 69 of 228
section of this report, these four schools were purposively selected, taking into account the type of ELA program at the school, whether we had visited the school previously (preferring not to visit the same schools repeatedly), and the level of the school – elementary, middle, and high school. In October, we used the Chapter 1 and 5 Spot Audit Checklist to collect CD Chapter 5 data at the same four schools at which we were concurrently collecting Chapter 1 data: Cowell Elementary School ((TNLI); Force Elementary School (TNLI); Centennial Elementary School (ESL Resource Spanish); and George Washington High School (ELA-E with Spanish-qualified Resource Teacher).
Five sections of our Chapter 1 and 5 Spot Audit Checklist focused on CD Chapter 5. Section VIII is based on CD Chapter 5.I.B, which requires that ESL/ELA-E and TNLI/ELA-S classrooms be staffed with fully qualified or on-track teachers. Section IX is based on CD Chapter 5.IV.C, which requires that, when there are not enough on-track or fully qualified ELA-S teachers, Program classrooms be staffed with on-track or fully qualified ELA-E teachers with support from either a Spanish speaking paraprofessional or with the provision that students be regrouped for instruction so that core subject area instruction is provided in Spanish. Section X is based on CD Chapter 5.VII. B and 5.VIII.A, which describe requirements for teacher and staff appraisal. Section XI is based on CD Chapter 5.XII.A, which requires that paraprofessionals assigned to ELA-S classrooms demonstrate proficiency on a valid and reliable assessment of Spanish language proficiency. Section XII is based on CD Chapter 5.XIII.A-C, which specifies requirements for counselors who work with ELLs and requirements for notifying parents about the availability of Spanishspeaking counselors.
61

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 70 of 228
Our observations of ELA Teacher Qualification classes in September was based on the requirements detailed in CD Chapter 5.III.B and C, which specify the ELA training program structure and the knowledge and skills that should be covered in ELA coursework.
In November 2017, we collected CD Chapter 5 implementation data at the Central Office using the Chapter 5 section of the Chapters 1 and 5 Central Office Spot Audit Checklist. Three sections of that checklist focused on CD Chapter 5. The first of those sections is based on CD Chapter 5.III. D and F, which describe how satisfactory completion of the district’s ELA Training Program must be demonstrated (5.III.D) and the manner in which the district must track progress of designated teachers toward fully qualified status (5.III.F). The second Chapter 5 section is based on Chapter 5.VI.D, which requires that the district maintain records of its annual assessment and activities related to its recruitment of teachers and other staff. The third Chapter 5 section is based on CD Chapter 5.VII.B and D, which specify the factors that must be included in teacher appraisal (5.VII.B) and paraprofessional appraisal (5.VII.D). We collected data on all Chapter 5 parts of the Chapters 1 and 5 Central Office Spot Audit Checklist during our November visit except for the last section, 5.VII.D; we collected data for that section of the checklist during our December visit.
Results This summary of the results of the Chapter 5 spot audit are organized, first, by the Chapter 5 items from the Chapters 1 and 5 spot audit checklist used to collect data at the schools visited in fall 2017, and then, following that first section, by the Chapter 5 items from the Chapter 1 and 5 Central Office spot audit checklist. Following those, we then summarize the results of our observations of ELA teacher training.
62

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 71 of 228
Results of selected response checklist items from data collected at the schools using the Chapters 1 and 5 Spot Audit Checklist are summarized quantitatively and described narratively, as are the responses to constructed response items where responses could be coded into categories and counted. Data collected for CD Chapter 5 implementation using the Chapter 1 and 5 Central Office Spot Audit Checklist during Central Office interviews are summarized descriptively in the narrative, focusing on the main points made by the interviewees in response to questions we asked and supported by hyperlinks in the narrative to documents the district provided to us as evidence or as examples during the interviews. Chapter 5 Items from the Chapters 1 & 5 Spot Audit Checklist
We collected data related to the implementation of CD Chapter 5 using the Chapters 1 and 5 Spot Audit Checklist at eight schools in September and October 2017. Four schools were TNLI schools (Colfax, Pascual LeDoux, Cowell, and Force) and the remaining four were ESL/ELA-E (Dora Moore, Thomas Jefferson, Centennial, and George Washington). Item VIII.A. What percentage of ESL/ELA-E classrooms are staffed with fully qualified ELA-E teachers? (CD Chapter 5.I.B)
Table 5.1 shows the percent of ESL/ELA-E teachers who are fully qualified ELA-E teachers at each school. These percentages range from 50% FQ at Cowell to 92% FQ at Thomas Jefferson High School. At all eight schools, 100% of ELA-E teachers were FQ or OT; in other words, all ESL/ELA-E classrooms were covered by either a FQ or OT ELA-E teacher, as required by the CD. As noted in the Table 5.1 footnote, denominators used for two of the schools were based on the sum of FQ and OT teachers reported, which differed from the total number of ESL/ELA-E teachers recorded on our data sheets.
63

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 72 of 228

Table 5.1. Fully Qualified and On-Track ELA-E Teachers in ELA-E/ESL Classrooms

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Schools

#ELA-E/ESL

#FQ ELA-E

# OT ELA-E % FQ ELA-E

Classrooms

Teachers

Teachers Teachers

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Thomas Jefferson 60 teachers

55

Dora Moore

19

16

5

92%

3

84%

Cowell

8

4

4

50%

Force LeDoux

13

8

9 teachers

6

5

62%

3

67%

Centennial

25

15

11

58%*

George Washington

324

254

63

80%**

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

*Denominator used for Centennial was 26 (15 + 11) **Denominator used for George

Washington was 317 teachers (63 + 254). These are different from the number of

classrooms at each of these two schools.

Item VIII.B. What percentage of TNLI/ELA-S classrooms are staffed with fully qualified ELA-S

teachers? (CD Chapter 5.I.B)

Table 5.2 shows, for the four TNLI schools we visited in September and October, the

percent of ELA-S classrooms staffed by FQ ELA-S teachers. The table shows the percentage

of FQ ELA-S teachers ranges from 33% at Colfax to 100% at Force and Pascual LeDoux. At

Colfax, the ELA-S classrooms not staffed by FQ ELA-S teachers were staffed by OT ELA-S

teachers, as required by the CD, and at Cowell, four of the five ELA-S classrooms were

staffed by on-track ELA-S teachers and one by an on-track ELA-E teacher who was

collaborating with an ELS-S teacher. This classroom was referred to as an “ELA-S/E”

64

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 73 of 228

classroom during our interview, with the administrator we spoke with stating that it had

been hard to find a fifth grade ELA-S teacher and that this had been the school’s first

posting in September 2017.

Table 5.2. Fully Qualified and On-Track ELA-S Teachers in TNLI/ELA-S Classrooms

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Schools

#TNLI

# FQ ELA-S # OT ELA-S % FQ ELA-S

Classrooms

Teachers Teachers Teachers

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Colfax

6

Cowell

12

2

4

7

4*

33% 58%

Force

7

7

0

100%

LeDoux

17 teachers

17

0

100%

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

*At Cowell, one ELA-S classroom is staffed by an OT ELA-E teacher who collaborates with

an ELA-S teacher.

Item IX.A. How many ELA-S classrooms are not staffed by an ELA-S teacher? (CD Chapter

5.IV.C)

As noted in the narrative above, of the four schools we visited with ELA-S

classrooms, all but one ELA-S classroom were staffed with FQ or OT ELA-S teachers, with

the one exception being at Cowell.

Item X.A. Who on the school staff evaluates ELA-E and ELA-S teachers at this school? (CD

Chapter 5.VIII.A-B)

At all eight schools we visited, 100% stated that the Principal, Assistant Principal,

and Teacher Leaders were evaluating ELA-E and ELA-S teachers. Others mentioned as

65

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 74 of 228
being involved in teacher evaluations included Instructional Deans (at two schools) and the instructional management team (one school). Item X.B. What type of training has DPS provided to each of these individuals in evaluating ESL/ELA-E or ELA-S instruction? (CD Chapter 5.VIII.A-B)
All eight schools cited LEAP training provided by DPS when asked this question. Other types of training referred to included feedback provided to teachers as a result of walk-throughs (three schools), peer observations (three schools), feedback from the school’s ELA partner (two schools), monthly professional development (two schools), and network meetings (two schools). Item X.C. What form is used by these individuals to document their teacher evaluations? (CD Chapter 5.VII.B)
Interviewees at seven of the eight schools cited LEAP as the form used for teacher evaluations. The one that did not, Pascual LeDoux, is an early childhood program and they reported using the Colorado state teacher evaluation form used for early childhood – the Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS). In addition to LEAP (and CLASS at Pascual LeDoux), other forms mentioned during the interviews included the Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP), the ELD rubric, and CLASS, each cited by one school. Two schools mentioned using other forms which they did not specify by name. Item X.D. How are teachers provided feedback on their ESL/ELA-E or ELA-S instruction? (CD Chapter 5.VIII.B.3)
Interviewees at all eight schools said that teachers are provided individual feedback. Interviewees at four schools stated this feedback was provided in a coaching environment and four schools cited LEAP indicators or LEAP. Interviewees at two schools each
66

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 75 of 228
indicated feedback was provided during full evaluations or partial evaluations. Other answers given in response to this question, at one school each, included RELAY feedback, videotapes, walk throughs, and email. Item X.E. How is the determination made that a teacher requires additional support based on the observation of their ESL/ELA-E or ELA-S instruction? (CD Chapter 5.VIII.B.3)
At seven of the eight schools, interviewees said they made the determination as to whether a teacher requires additional support based on what the observation of the teacher revealed. At five of the eight schools, interviewees stated they used a score, the LEAP score, or the LEAP framework as the basis for making this determination. We did not document whether the same score was used at each school to determine the need for teacher support, the type of support provided, or the follow-up to the support. Item.XI.A. How many paraprofessionals are assigned to ELA-S classrooms and how was each paraprofessional’s Spanish language proficiency demonstrated? (CD Chapter 5.XII.A)
Interviewees at five of the eight schools indicated they have paraprofessionals assigned to ELA-S classrooms (Pascual LeDoux, 22 paraprofessionals; Colfax, 6; Cowell, 7; Force, 8; and George Washington, a “qualified” 0). At three of those schools (Pascual LeDoux, Colfax, and Force) interviewees stated paraprofessional Spanish proficiency had been documented using the Berlitz (two schools) or “pass the ‘SLP’” (one school). Cowell reported that none of their paraprofessionals were officially ELA-S paraprofessionals (i.e., the paraprofessionals had not passed a Spanish language proficiency test), but that all were native Spanish speakers. George Washington, which reported “0” in response to the first part of this item, provided the contextual information that the school had a Spanish speaking paraprofessional who had been traveling with ACCESS 1 students among classes
67

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 76 of 228
to provide Spanish language support. We did not record whether paraprofessionals who had not passed a Spanish language proficiency assessment both wrote and spoke Spanish. Item XII.A. (TNLI High School only) How many counselors are proficient in Spanish? (CD Chapter 5.XIII.A)
When we developed the Chapters 1 and 5 Spot Audit Checklist we anticipated visiting at least one TNLI High School, but our actual sample did not include a TNLI High School, so this item was not applicable to any of the schools we visited in September and October. Item XII.B. What training has DPS provided this year to counselors to support the needs of ELLs? (CD Chapter 5.XIII.B)
All eight schools responded to this item. Five of the eight schools had at least one counselor, but interviewees at the other three reported having a school psychologist rather than a counselor. The District clarified for us that DPS middle and high schools have specifically licensed (by the Colorado Department of Education – CDE) counselors who work with students on, for example, class scheduling, credits needed, or goal paths. Elementary schools all have either a CDE-licensed school psychologist or social worker whose main priority is providing IEP supports and who have different licensing than the secondary counselors. Of the five schools that had a counselor, two indicated that DPS had not provided much training to counselors on supporting the needs of ELLs, one school reported the counselor had attended DPS counselor training, one said the counselor “took courses,” and one said the counselor attended monthly counselor meetings. An interviewee at one of the two schools that indicated DPS had provided “Not Much” training
68

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 77 of 228
to the counselor stated that the counselor had participated in “school-based training” on ACCESS.
Of the three schools that had a school psychologist instead of a counselor, one reported that the school psychologist attended cultural responsiveness training conducted by DPS, one reported that “not much” training had been provided but that the school psychologist participated in ongoing professional development, and one reported that the school psychologist had been attending monthly counselor meetings. Item XII.C. (TNLI Schools) How did DPS notify parents of ELLs at the beginning of this school year about the presence of a Spanish-speaking counselor of Spanish-speaking teachers or administrators who are fulfilling the counselor role? (CD Chapter 5.XIII.C)
All four TNLI schools responded to this item and, at each, interviewees gave a unique answer to this item. One said parents were informed at registration (that a school psychologist was present), one said the school provides a list of resources, one said it was unclear if the parents knew in general that a Spanish speaking counselor was available, and the fourth responded that the counselor does not speak Spanish. Chapter 5 Items from the Chapters 1 and 5 Central Office Spot Audit Checklist
During our November 2017 visit to Denver, we collected CD Chapter 5 implementation data at the DPS Central Office using the Chapters 1 and 5 Central Office Spot Audit Checklist described earlier. As described in the Chapter 1 section of this report, our data collection at the Central Office consisted of interviews conducted with DPS personnel who had been identified as those best able to answer our questions about CD Chapter 1 and Chapter 5 implementation. We provided our questions to the ELA Department one to two weeks prior to our visit so they could ensure those individuals
69

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 78 of 228
were available to interview. The November interviews were conducted during two onehalf day meetings and a third one-hour meeting. Interviewees responded to the items on our spot audit checklist and in some cases provided written responses they had prepared prior to the interview as well as supporting documents. In the following summary of the CD Chapter 5 implementation data, hyperlinks are embedded to documents provided during the interviews. Item 7. How does the District document teacher proficiency in the District’s ELA Training Program? (CD Chapter 5.III.D)
In response to this item, the Central Office interviewees provided us with a document that describes each of the 10 courses that comprise the ELA Teacher Qualifications Training Program along with the assessments used in each one to document teacher proficiency. https://www.dropbox.com/s/xfs4znl137q2vh1/Report%207%20Chapter%205%20ELA %20Qualification%20Program.pdf?dl=0
As detailed in that document, the assessments used include an online interactive quiz, online written assignments, and a paper and pencil quiz. In addition to the assessments specified in the course descriptions, DPS requires that teachers enrolled in the courses provide videotapes showing their use of the instructional techniques they are learning about in the classes, longer term projects, and in-class feedback. This document includes a description of each of the 10 courses and also specifies course outcomes for each course that the assessments are designed to measure. An examination of the course descriptions and course outcomes in the document reflects a comprehensive coverage of
70

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 79 of 228
the district’s instructional program for ELLs and also shows that course outcomes, upon which the assessments are based, reflect course descriptions.
CD Chapter 5.III.D requires that the District assess the knowledge of each training participant within 21 days of the completion of training, that the District require additional training for any participant who fails to demonstrate sufficient knowledge of the material covered in the training, shall retest the participants following the supplemental training, and shall provide additional training until the participant demonstrates proficiency. The IM did not examine whether the District is meeting these CD requirements. Item 8. How does the district track the progress of its designated teachers toward fully qualified status? (CD Chapter 5.III.F)
Interviewees described and showed us examples of ELA Training Status spreadsheets that the district uses to track the progress of its designated teachers toward completion of the coursework that leads to full qualified status.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/f0rnlc3e9uj2fru/Report%207%20Chapter%205%20Teacher%20Qualification%2 0Monitoring%20Forms.pdf?dl=0
The first spreadsheet in the hyperlink shows how teachers’ progress is tracked within an individual class and the second spreadsheet shows an individual teacher’s profile, summarizing that teacher’s status for each course in the ELA Teacher Training Program toward completion (successfully completed or not), including specification of the date of that status for each course. The ELA Department has access to these reports and the interviewees reported the Department has a system in place to identify problems and take action for teachers who are not progressing as expected through the courses.
71

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 80 of 228
Item 9. What records does the district maintain of its annual assessment and activities related to its recruitment of teachers and other staff? (CD 5.VI.D)
District HR staff provided two documents during their interview as they discussed recruitment of teachers and other staff. The first of those documents was a list of 75 Talent Acquisition recruiting events already conducted or planned as of November 15, 2017, covering the time period from August 26, 2017 to November 2018 (events identified without specific dates attached). The events reflect local, regional, and national recruiting efforts. www.dropbox.com/sh/4snxap9o804c353/AAAcq07NpSdsL5o2bttmd6I3a/HR%20Recruit ment?dl=0&preview=DPS+Talent+Acquisition+Planned+Events+(as+of+11-15-17).xlsx
The second document provided by DPS during this interview was a summary of the ELA-S, ELA-E, and ELA-E/ELA-S postings and recruitment efforts during the 2017-2018 recruiting season and the plans for the 2018-2019 recruiting season. www.dropbox.com/sh/4snxap9o804c353/AAAcq07NpSdsL5o2bttmd6I3a/HR%20Recruit ment?dl=0&preview=HR+Recruitment+Handout.pdf
This document includes a breakdown of current and “to-date” (11/6/17) ELA and non-ELA teaching openings, and, by type of opening, the average number of applicants, total applicants, and surplus of applicants for the openings. Further, the document outlines the process of recruiting ELA educators, identifies highlights of the District’s current recruitment efforts, and includes a section titled “Additional Efforts and Known Opportunities for the 2018-2019 Recruitment Season.” Item 10. How does LEAP address each component of (CD) Chapter 5.VII.B? (CD Chapter 5.VII.B)
72

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 81 of 228
In the discussion with DPS staff regarding LEAP, we referred to a hard copy of the LEAP handbook as well as a handout prepared by the district titled “Central Office Supports” that described “three lenses” through which the LEAP system might be viewed. For the purpose of Item 10 on our spot audit checklist, “Lens 2” is of most interest because it identifies which sections of the LEAP system address the requirements for teacher evaluation listed in CD Chapter 5.VII.B. https://www.dropbox.com/s/6kfdn404350jmir/Report%207%20Central%20Office%20S upports.pdf?dl=0
Our own comparison of LEAP to the CD, for which we read through the LEAP Handbook and identified where in the LEAP system each requirement from this section of CD Chapter 5 is addressed, verifies the accuracy of the district’s alignment of LEAP sections to the CD requirements. In our opinion, and according to the district’s alignment in this document, all CD Chapter 5.VII.B requirements are explicitly addressed with the exception of the reading instruction requirements (5.VII.B.5.g & h), which specify “g. teaching reading comprehension skills (e.g., prediction, summarizing, making inferences, and identifying important information); and h. using reading strategies that are effective with ELLs (e.g., partner reading, reading aloud, and teacher think-alouds) and that include phonemic awareness, phonological awareness, decoding, word knowledge, and fluency while taking into account the ELLs’ ages and ELP levels.” (CD p. 33)
Examining the “Lens 2” section of the Central Office Support document, one can see that every other section of CD Section 5.VII.B is aligned with a specific section of the LEAP; for 5.g and 5.h, the district document states, “Reading skills such as comprehension, prediction, and summarizing are cognitive functions that we expect to see in all literacy
73

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 82 of 228
lessons and embedded in non-literacy labeled content because these are the functions required in any CLO. We would see these manifest in a lesson as the forms (syntax, vocabulary, etc.). LEAP assesses the performance level at which these are being planned for and observable during lessons.”
The IM’s concern is that failure to specify in LEAP the specific instructional approaches listed in the CD might lead to teacher evaluators not looking for these specific instructional activities, with the possible result that those instructional activities might not be used by teachers since they are not explicitly identified in LEAP. In our own review of LEAP, we identified reference to some of the specific instructional activities specified in the CD in LEAP sections I2 (Provides rigorous tasks that require critical thinking with appropriate digital and other supports to ensure student success), I3 (Intentionally uses instructional methods and pacing to teach the content-language objectives), and I4 (Ensures all students’ active and appropriate use of academic language).
Responding to our concern regarding lack of specification of the explicit reading strategies cited in the CD, ELA Executive Director Nadia Madam Morrow made the following points which we quote in full:
“The LEAP Framework is intended to be content-area agnostic meaning that an evaluator should be able to apply this framework to any lesson observed. It is implied that best practices for ELs would be utilized during a reading lesson. For example, in I.1 the observer of a reading lesson should be looking for the "CLO connection to the grade-level standard". The grade level standards for reading include items such as comprehension skills, phonemic awareness, decoding, etc. If a lesson does not reflect grade level standards and content in a reading lesson, this would be reflected in an observer's evidence and
74

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 83 of 228
rating of the lesson. In I.3, the observer is looking for the teacher to use "instructional methods and pacing to teach the content-language objective." This would include the use of strategies that are effective for ELs to be. used in the lesson. Similarly, I.6 calls for the teacher to provide "differentiation that address students' instructional needs and supports mastery of content-language objective." This means in the reading lesson, the teacher is "taking into account the ELLs' ages and ELP levels" and providing the appropriate accommodations and scaffolds to support student mastery. Therefore, while the LEAP tool does not directly address those CD requirements, it does indirectly and ensures that teachers employ best practices for ELs in all content areas, including reading. It is also important to note that not all teachers are reading teachers. And, the strategies called out in the CD such as phonemic awareness largely apply to our beginning readers and may not apply to our secondary students.” Item 11. How does DPS evaluate the effectiveness of each paraprofessional and tutor who assists in the instruction of ELLs? (CD Chapter 5.VII.D)
DPS paraprofessionals have their own bargaining unit and all are evaluated using an evaluation form for classified and nonaffiliated staff (paraprofessionals, office personnel, and pro techs) with the exception of paraprofessionals at 12 schools where a competencybased evaluation is being pilot-tested in hopes of moving to a districtwide on-line competency-based evaluation. Below is a hyperlink to the current evaluation form. www.dropbox.com/sh/k3u3yth4jcpvd1z/AABmn5lHqeBXJ94dq9hdwVRca/Paraprofessio nal?dl=0&preview=Paraprofessional.pdf&subfolder_nav_tracking=1
An examination of the form shows that six areas are rated on a five-point rubric by a paraprofessional’s supervisor: Job Knowledge, Organization, Productivity, Initiative,
75

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 84 of 228
Communication, and Teamwork. Additional job requirements listed in the form are Safety, Attendance, and Punctuality. The rating form does not make specific reference to working with students who are ELLs, and ELA personnel interviewed stated that HR is working with the ELA Department on “teasing out” indicators of paraprofessional effectiveness in working with ELLs so that this can be incorporated into future paraprofessional evaluations.
CD Chapter 5.VII.D states “The appraisal of each paraprofessional and tutor who assists in the instruction of ELLs shall include an evaluation of the paraprofessional’s or tutor’s effectiveness in assisting in the instruction of ELLs, consistent with the ELA program, this CD, and research-based language allocation guidelines where appropriate.” Thus, the District must bring its ELA paraprofessional evaluation form into compliance with this CD requirement. Observation of Classes in the DPS ELA Training Program
CD Chapter 5.III describes the ELA Teacher Qualification Program that DPS must provide for “teachers who: are not 1. State-endorsed in teaching the linguistically different; 2. Have not earned a Masters or doctorate degree in teaching the linguistically different; or 3. Have not completed the requirements to become fully qualified ELA teachers” (CD, p. 27).
During our September visit, we sat in on two ELA Teacher Qualification classes conducted in the evening at North High School: 1. ELA 105B - Sheltering; and 2. ELA 202 Literacy Development for ELLs. Both courses are 16-hour hybrid courses with three faceto-face sessions and five on-line sessions. ELA 105B is one of six ELA-T Basic Training courses and ELA 202 is one of five ELA-E Advanced Training courses.
76

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 85 of 228
The content of the ELA Teacher Qualifications Program has been thoroughly reviewed and commented on by DOJ consultant Dr. Claude Goldenberg, who has also conducted multiple observations of the courses in the ELA Teacher Qualification Program and has provided feedback to the district based on those observations. The purpose of our observations was to document that appropriate higher education level instruction was occurring in the two classes we observed.
In both classes, the instructor led a whole group discussion with the teachers that focused on course content appropriate based on the course description. In both courses, a portion of class time was also spent discussing assignments that were due and the remaining schedule of on-line and in-person sessions. The instruction was typical of what one sees in competently-run college or university classes. Both classrooms were full and, overall, the teachers were actively engaged throughout the two class sessions. For example, in one class, the instructor had the teachers view video scenarios of classroom instruction that then served as the basis for an in-class activity and discussion.
Both instructors were clearly knowledgeable in the course content each was teaching and both classes were held for the duration of the scheduled class time. The DPS ELA Administrator responsible for the Teacher Qualifications Program, who accompanied us during the observations, told us the instructors in the Teacher Qualifications Program had been carefully selected by DPS based on their knowledge of course content and familiarity with the ELA Program.
Our impression is that we observed classes that were carried out in a “business-asusual” manner – i.e., they were not staged just for our benefit. Assuming that what we observed was representative of the instruction in the ELA Teacher Qualifications Program,
77

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 86 of 228
and while we would defer to Dr. Goldenberg’s more informed judgement regarding program quality, in our opinion the quality of instruction we observed was high and should be providing teachers with the training they need to be fully qualified ELA-E or ELA-S teachers.
Summary Data were collected to verify CD Chapter 5 implementation during four visits to Denver in September, October, November and December 2017. Interview and document review data were collected in September and October during one-half day school site visits to eight schools (four TNLI and four ESL/ELA-E; three EC/K – 5 elementary schools, two high schools, one EC – grade 8 school, and one EC school). We also observed two ELA Teacher Qualification classes held in the evening at a DPS high school. Additional interview and document review data were collected during two visits to the DPS Central Office. Interview and document review data were collected using two spot audit checklists developed by the IM and Dr. Nelson based representative indicators of a sample of the 47 CD Chapter 5 requirements (defining a CD requirement as a primary chapter section; e.g., 5.I.A., 5.I.B., 5.I.C. are the first three requirements of CD Chapter 5). Since we had already collected and reported on data tied to the four requirements of Section XI of CD Chapter 5 (ISA Team training) in IM Report 6, we did not include those four requirements in our fall 2017 data collection. Collectively, with the two spot audit checklists and the direct observations, we collected data based on 14 of the remaining 43 Chapter 5 requirements, or approximately 33% of the CD Chapter 5 requirements. We can make the following observations regarding CD Chapter 5 implementation based on our data.
78

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 87 of 228
Staffing. At the eight schools we visited, all ELA-E/ESL and ELA-S classrooms were staffed by fully qualified or on-track teachers with the appropriate designation (ELA-E or ELA-S) with one exception, where the school had been unable to find and ELA-S teacher and was having an on-track ELA-E teacher collaborate with an ELA-S teacher to cover a classroom that was classified as “ELA-E/ELA-S.” At two of the eight schools, 100% of the teachers were fully qualified and at the remaining six, percentages of fully qualified teachers ranged from 33% to 92%.
Teacher Evaluation and Feedback. At all eight schools, teachers were being evaluated by trained school administrators (Principal, Assistant Principal) and teacher leaders. The LEAP framework was used as the primary evaluation tool at seven of the schools and the eighth school, which is an Early Childhood program school, reported using CLASS, the Colorado state teacher evaluation for Early Childhood programs. While we analyzed the LEAP framework for CD alignment, we did not analyze CLASS. Administrators at all eight schools reported providing individual teacher feedback based on these evaluations and using that feedback as the basis for providing teachers additional support if needed.
Spanish-speaking Paraprofessional Language Certification. Administrators at three of the five schools where Spanish-speaking paraprofessionals worked in ELA-S classrooms reported their paraprofessionals had passed a Spanish language proficiency assessment; at one school Spanish-speaking paraprofessionals working in ELA-S classrooms had not taken a certification exam; and the status of the one Spanish-speaking paraprofessional at the fifth school is not clear from our field notes.
79

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 88 of 228
Teacher Qualification Program. DPS has in place a Teacher Qualification Program through which ELA-T teachers are able to become fully qualified ELA-E or ELA-S teachers. The district tracks the progress of each teacher enrolled in the program so is able to determine if each teacher is on-track. Our review of course descriptions, tracking documents, and our observation of two Teacher Qualification courses verify that the Teacher Qualification Program and the district’s tracking system met the requirements in Chapter 5 of the CD.
Counselor/School Psychologist Training and Availability. Our impression from the eight schools we visited to examine CD Chapter 5 implementation is that the training of counselors (anticipated by the CD) and school psychologists (serving in place of counselors in several schools) to work with ELLs and their families may need additional attention from the district. School administrators who we asked about counselor/school psychologist training gave mixed responses regarding whether training like that required in the CD is being provided. Additionally, it was not clear in the four TNLI schools we visited that there is a systematic way for TNLI schools to let parents of Spanish-speaking ELLs know that a Spanish-speaking counselor is available through the school or that someone who speaks Spanish and can serve in the role of a counselor is available.
The LEAP teacher evaluation system aligns with CD requirements and is being used as the basis for teacher feedback and support. Our examination of the LEAP teacher evaluation system shows that the system aligns with CD Chapter 5 requirements, is being used to provide individualized feedback to teachers, and as the basis for the provision of additional support to teachers as needed. As detailed above, one suggestion we have is that the LEAP framework might make more explicit reference to specific reading instructional activities
80

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 89 of 228
specified in CD Chapter 5 to help ensure that teacher evaluators look for evidence of use of those strategies and to help ensure that teachers of ELLs are using them during reading instruction.
DPS is analyzing ELA Teacher Openings and Recruiting Teachers at Local, Regional, and National Levels. In our interviews at the Central Office we saw documentation of the district’s analysis of ELA teacher openings and a list of completed and planned talent acquisition activities as required by CD Chapter 5. IM Assessment of CD Chapter 5 Implementation
Our data show that for the areas of CD Chapter 5 on which we collected data (General Policy, Program Teacher Assignments, Teacher and Staff Appraisal, Training of Teacher Evaluators, Counselors, and Teacher Recruitment) the District is implementing CD Chapter 5 at an acceptable level, a judgement we make with three qualifications. One area that merits further attention from DPS is the use of Spanish-speaking paraprofessionals. There appears to be a need in some schools to ensure that those paraprofessionals working in ELA-S classrooms have passed a Spanish language proficiency exam, and the evaluation used with those paraprofessionals include specific expectations for paraprofessionals as who work with ELLs as specified in CD Chapter 5.VII.D. A second area the District might give attention to is the that of counselors and school psychologists who work with ELLs and their families. It is not clear that counselors and school psychologists are receiving systematic training in working with ELLs and their families. It is also not clear that there is a standard means within the District of informing families of Spanish-speaking ELLs at all school sites of the availability to them of a Spanish-speaking counselor or school staff member who can serve in a counseling role at their child’s school. A third area which
81

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 90 of 228
requires attention is the appraisal of paraprofessionals who work with ELLs. As noted earlier, the current DPS evaluation form does not include an evaluation of the effectiveness of the paraprofessional or tutor in assisting in the instruction of students who are ELLs, as required by the CD, and that should be added to the paraprofessional and tutor evaluation form.
Our CD Chapter 5 findings apply to the sections of that chapter on which we collected data. Data could be collected on additional sections of Chapter 5 to determine whether those sections of the chapter are being implemented, and verification of what was reported to us in interviews could be achieved through the collection of additional direct evidence of CD implementation in specific areas (e.g., training of teacher evaluators might be directly observed; use of the LEAP framework during actual teacher evaluations or provision of feedback to teachers based on the LEAP framework might be directly observed; teachers might be interviewed to verify that they receive LEAP-based feedback as reported to us during interviews with administrators).
82

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 91 of 228
CHAPTER 7: CONSIDERATIONS RELATED TO SPECIAL EDUCATION AND SECTION 504 SERVICES FOR ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS
Method The IM’s sixth report (Martinez, 2018) describes the results of a spot audit conducted in Spring 2016 of CD Chapter 7, Sections A through G, which specify content that is required in Individualized Education Plans (IEPs) and Section 504 plans for students who are English Learners. It was concluded in Report 6 that, in the five schools where we collected spot audit data, the evidence showed partial implementation of Chapter 7 CD requirements for Sections A through G. While the 504 plans spot audited for Report 6 generally contained the information required by the CD, the spot audits of the IEPs showed more mixed results. The Infinite Campus (IC) was not populating one IEP field as intended (documentation that the student is an ELL and the student’s language proficiency level, CD Chapter 7.F), and three of the other four representative indicators examined showed a roughly 75% implementation level related to documentation of program services and the linkage of student language proficiency to academic performance. In response to our findings - which we shared with the district as formative evaluation information as well as with CHE and DOJ at an all parties meeting before formally reporting it in Report 6 - DPS planned to take action to ensure that the IC would populate the IEP’s ELL and language proficiency field for IEPs going forward. In February 2018, we chose five representative schools to visit in order to carry out a second spot audit of CD Chapter 7. As was the case for the first Chapter 7 spot audit in Spring 2016, the focus was on CD Chapter 7 sections A through G. Since the Spring 2016
83

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 92 of 228
spot audit showed that ELLs’ 504 plans generally contained the information for ELLs required by the CD, only IEPs for a sample of ELLs at each school were examined in the second spot audit. The five schools visited in February 2018 were Green Valley Elementary (preK – 5, TNLI plus ESL Resource), Marie Greenwood Academy (1 – 8, TNLI plus ESL Resource), North High School (ELA –E with Spanish Resource), Gust Elementary (preK – 5, TNLI plus ESL Resource), and Farrell B. Howell (K – 8, TNLI plus ESL Secondary). In choosing the schools for the spot audit, considerations taken into account were whether the school had been previously visited, the desire for a relatively high percentage of students classified as ELLs to increase the IEP pool from which to choose a representative sample, school level, and type of ELA program.
Since we were interested in how CD Chapter 7 implementation compared to what we saw in 2016, we generally replicated the first spot audit. We selected several representative indicators from the Chapter 7 requirements to document at each school site and developed a Chapter 7 Spot Audit Checklist that was used to collect the information at each school (Appendix D).
In choosing the representative indicators for Chapter 7, we concentrated on Sections A through G of the chapter since those sections specified CD expectations of IEP content that could be documented in a one-half day school visit. We did not indicate to DPS until just prior to the visit which indicators from each section of Chapter 7 we would be looking at; as far as school personnel knew before our visit, we could be looking at anything Chapter 7 required of special education process and documentation. While we looked at several of the same indicators used in the previous 2016 Chapter 7 spot audit, we chose several new ones as well. As can be seen by examining the Chapter 7 Spot Audit checklist in
84

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 93 of 228
Appendix D, we chose as representative indicators seven requirements from CD Chapter 7.F (which focuses on identification of the student as an ELL, the student’s language proficiency, Program services, and any assessment accommodations provided). Five of the seven indicators tied to Chapter 7.F were also used in the 2016 spot audit, with the two additional ones used in 2018 being whether student LEP status was specified in the Family and Information section of the DPS IEP and whether LEP status was specified in the Consideration of Special Factors section of the IEP. Both sections prompt the user to indicate LEP status. One indicator was chosen from Chapter 7.G (the requirement for an analysis of the link between language proficiency and student assessment results), and this was the same indicator we looked at in the 2016 spot audit.
The IM was not able to participate in the February 2018 Chapter 7 spot audit, so Dr. Nelson led the data collection activities at each school site. Each site visit was attended by the ELA Executive Director, the ELA CD Manager, the school’s ELA Partner, and a DPS attorney. School staff typically included the Principal and/or Assistant Principal and at least one special education teacher. At each school, working with the special education teacher and/or the ELA Partner, we systematically selected up to 10 IEPs of ELs to review. School staff and the ELA Partner helped us identify ELs with IEPs at each school. Systematic sampling consists of drawing every “nth” record to get a specified sample size from a defined “population” within the school (e.g., drawing every 6th record from 60 EL IEPs to get a sample of 10 IEPs). Using this approach, we reviewed 10 IEPs at Greenwood, North High School, and Farrell B. Howell; 9 at Green Valley; and 8 at Gust, for a total of 47 IEPs. This is similar to the number of IEPs reviewed in the first Chapter 7 spot audit in 2016 during which 49 IEPs were reviewed.
85

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 94 of 228
The primary exceptionality was recorded for each of the 47 students, and the breakdown was as follows: Specific Learning Disability, 53.2% (25/47); Developmental Delay, 14.9% (7/47); Communication Disorder, 10.6% (5/47); Other Health Impaired, 8.5% (4/47); Intellectual Disability, 6.4% (3/47); and one each (2.1%) of Autism Spectrum, Severe Emotional Disturbance, and Multiple Disabilities.
At each school, the IEP review was a collaborative effort among the attendees led by Dr. Nelson during which the IEP and any IC links that were examined were projected on a wall or screen using the ELA partner’s laptop. This was a replication, albeit with more attendees at each school visit, of the process used in the first Chapter 7 spot audit. All attendees had a copy of the Chapter 7 spot audit checklist and this enabled everyone to participate in a dialogue about the IEP content for each student’s IEP that was reviewed. This had been arranged by the ELA Department and resulted in the data collection being an interactive process that enabled the collection of the spot audit data while at the same time providing formative feedback to the ELA and school staff about presence and adequacy of the ELL-related IEP information examined during the spot audit. Moreover, the process built in an informal check of interrater reliability (consistency or agreement across raters) and validity (drawing accurate inferences from the data). Taking the dialogue around each student record into account, Dr. Nelson, representing the IM, made the final decision about what to record on each data form.
This process was especially useful in recording data for the Chapter 7.G indicator in the spot audit checklist. Section 7.G of Chapter 7 requires that IEPs include “an analysis of the effect of proficiency in English and other languages on the student’s learning, including an analysis of the student’s assessment results in relation to the students’ language
86

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 95 of 228
proficiency.” In order to check “Yes” on this item of the spot audit checklist, the requirement was that, in some way (given individual differences in writing style), the IEP link language proficiency to the student’s assessment results. For example, in a description of an EL student’s language arts assessment performance on an achievement test like the Colorado Measures of Academic Success (CMAS), we might expect to see a statement linking the student’s English language proficiency scores on the ACCESS test to the student’s performance on the English language achievement test. As the IM and Dr. Nelson had done less formally during the first Chapter 7 spot audit in 2016, the determination as to whether to check “Yes” or “No” on this item was made for each student based on dialogue with the attendees.
Of course, a collaborative process involving the IM’s representative along with a DPS attorney and school staff raises the question as to whether DPS personnel might have unduly influenced the final decision about what to record on each data form. Dr. Nelson (a former Professor of Special Education with expertise in bilingual special education) was aware of that possibility and feels he was able to ensure, as the leader of the dialogue at each school site, that the items on the spot audit checklist were applied consistently across the school sites and that decisions made by each group were not unduly influenced or shaped by the opinions of the DPS personnel.
Results and Discussion The results of the Chapter 7 spot audit are summarized in Table 7.1. The indicator examined for Chapter 7.F showed that 100% (47/47) of the IEPs identified the student’s primary language in the Family and Information section. This is the section of the IEP that was not being populated by IC when we audited Chapter 7 in 2016, so the DPS “fix” for this
87

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 96 of 228
field undertaken in response to our 2016 findings worked. Of the 47 IEPs reviewed, 91.5% (43/47) of the students were identified as Spanish speakers, and one each (2.1%) spoke Amharic, Navajo, Somali, and Vietnamese.
Student English language proficiency level as determined using ACCESS scores was specified for 100% (47/47) of the students whose records were reviewed. As delineated in Table 7.1, language proficiency level was most often recorded in the IEP document (63.8% of the records), whereas language proficiency level was recorded in the IC for 27.7% of the records and in both the IEP and the IC for 8.5% of the records. This finding reflects the fact that, in about a quarter of the cases sampled, IEP teams link to student information in the IC that the CD anticipated being contained in the IEP document itself. School staff and the ELA partner demonstrated for multiple student records during the IEP review how they use the automated system dashboard to move among information sources to access the information required by the CD. Proficiency in any language other than English (L1 language proficiency) was not examined and thus not recorded on the spot audit data sheets, nor was a distinction consistently made on the data sheets as to whether overall English language proficiency versus proficiency in separate language modalities (i.e., speaking, listening, reading, writing) was contained in a student record.
The next representative indicator tied to CD Section 7.F we looked at was whether the student’s LEP status was specified in the IEP’s Student and Family Information section.
88

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 97 of 228

Table 7.1. CD Chapter 7 Spot Audit Results CD Chapter 7 Section 7.F. “ELLs’ IEPs and 504 plans shall document that the student is an ELL” 7.F. “ELLs’ IEPs and 504 plans shall document . . . the student’s language proficiency level”
7.F. “ELLs’ IEPs and 504 plans shall document . . . the Program services the

Spot Audit Results IEP Student & Family Information section specifies student’s primary language

Yes 100% (47) No 0% (0)

Language proficiency level specified

Yes, in the IEP Yes, in the IC Yes, in both IEP & IC No

63.8% (30/47) 27.7% (13/47) 8.5% (4/47) 0.0% (0/47)

LEP status in Student & Family Information*

Yes 0.0% (0/47) No 100.0% (47/47) *During the first school site visit it was determined that this IEP field was not being populated by the IC as had been intended.

LEP status in Consideration of Special Factors**

Yes 100.0% (47/47) No 0.0% (0/47) **Beyond recording whether LEP status was recorded in the Special Factors section, I additionally recorded if ”LEP” vs “Not LEP” was recorded for 45 of the 47 student records (95.7%). Of those 45, 51.1% (23) were identified as LEP while 48.9% (22) were identified as “Not LEP.” However, of those 22 “Not LEP” students, ACCESS scores in the IEP or IC showed that 6 students (27.3%) actually should have been classified as LEP.

Documentation of the Program services the student is receiving (i.e., ESL/ELA-E, TNLI)

89

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 98 of 228

student is receiving (i.e., ESL/ELA-E, TNLI)”
7.G. “The district shall maintain in all ELLs’ IEPs or 504 plans . .(b) an analysis of the effect of proficiency in English and other languages on the student’s learning, including an analysis of the student’s assessment results in relation to the student’s language proficiency”

Yes, in the IEP

76.1% (35/46)

Yes, in the IC

4.3% (2/46)

Yes, in both the IEP & IC 19.6% (9/46)

No

0.0% (0/46)

Yes, linked to lang. prof. 74.5% (35/47)

Yes, language discussed 14.9% (7/47)

but no clear link to lang.

prof.

No

10.6% (5/47)

This indicator was not used in the 2016 spot audit and was one of the ones we added for the 2018 spot audit. As noted in Table 7.1, it was discovered at the first school site visit that this field was not being populated by IC as the district intended, so 0.0% of the IEPs at the five schools contained this information. DPS staff participating in the site visits were the ones who determined that this was the case as we began looking through the IEPs, and stated they would follow-up and address the issue so student LEP status appears in this IEP section.
A second new Section 7.F representative indicator we used in 2018 was whether LEP status was recorded in the Special Factors section of the IEP. One hundred percent (47/47) of the IEPs we reviewed contained student LEP status. A couple records into the data collection process at the first school, and as referred to in Table 7.1, the decision was made to record not only whether LEP status was included in this IEP section, but additionally what that LEP status was (i.e., “LEP” versus “not LEP”). Further, closer attention was paid to whether the LEP designation matched with each student’s ACCESS scores. As also noted in Table 7.1, of the 45 records for which status was recorded on the
90

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 99 of 228
spot audit data sheets, 51.1% (23/45) were classified as LEP while 48.9% (22/45) were identified as not LEP. In comparing LEP status with ACCESS scores for the 22 students identified as “not LEP,” it was observed that 6 of the 22 (27.3%) had low enough ACCESS scores that they should have been identified as LEP. This suggests the need to ensure that IEP teams are aware of ACCESS score interpretations and the need to check the alignment between LEP status and ACCESS scores so that LEP status is accurate.
A final representative indicator used to document implementation of Section 7.F was whether type of ELA program service the student was receiving was documented for each student. This indicator was also used in the 2016 spot audit. Data on type of ELA program service the student was participating in was recorded for 46 students (it was inadvertently not recorded for one student). Table 7.1 shows that this information was identified for 100% of the 46 students whose records were reviewed, either in the IEP (76.1%), in the IC (4.3%), or in both the IEP and the IC (19.6%). This represents an improvement over the 2016 spot audit result which was that type of program service was cited in 72.9% of the IEPs reviewed. The type of program listed most often in the 46 records was “ELD” (73.9%, 34/46), followed by specification of “PPF2” and/or “ELA-E” (63.0%, 29/46), specification of “PPF1” and/or “ELA-S” (21.7%, 10/46), and the notation that a student was in special education language arts or was receiving ELD in special education language arts (15.2%, 7/46).
The last item on our Chapter 7 spot audit checklist was the same one we used in the 2016 Chapter 7 spot audit and linked to CD Chapter 7.G.b which states “The district shall maintain in all ELLs’ IEPs or 504 plans . . . (b) an analysis of the effect of proficiency in English and other languages on the student’s learning, including an analysis of the student’s
91

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 100 of 228
assessment results in relation to the student’s language proficiency.” As described above, a “Yes” versus “No” designation for this item was based, for each student, on the consensus among the attendees at each school site visit, with Dr. Nelson being the final decision maker as to what to record on the spot audit data form. To check “Yes,” narrative in the IEP needed to in some way link the student’s language proficiency to their learning (i.e., describe the effect of language proficiency on learning, as specified in the CD). Table 7.1 shows that, using the decision-making approach described, 74.5% (35/47) of the IEPs linked student language proficiency to student learning; 14.9% (7/47), while at least referring to student language skills, did not clearly link language proficiency to student learning (i.e., the narrative referred to student language skills but did not describe the effect of language skills on learning as the CD requires); and 10.6% (5/47) did not include discussion of student language skills in any parts of the IEP narrative. These findings are similar to those of the 2016 Chapter 7 spot audit, in which it was found that 77.6% of the IEPs had narrative that linked student learning to language proficiency, 10.2% mentioned language skills but did not link language to student learning, and 13.2% did not include discussion of student language in the IEP narrative (Martinez, 2018).
During the school site visits and meetings with ELA and other district staff at the Central Office, several topics arose that warrant reporting and comment. The first, arising from discussions during the school site visits, is that the ELA Department, working with Special Education, might provide models to IEP teams from existing “exemplar” district IEPs showing how to explicitly make the linkage between language proficiency and student performance in IEP narratives as required by CD Chapter 7.G. On multiple occasions, the group reviewing the IEPs commented that a particular narrative clearly linked student
92

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 101 of 228
language proficiency to student learning, whereas others addressed the requirement minimally or fell just short because the narrative did not describe the effect of student language proficiency on student learning. As noted in the summary of the results in Table 7.1, some IEPs failed to address this requirement at all. Clearly, IEP teams at some schools expertly address this requirement, and sharing their IEPs narratives as models could be an effective way to encourage “best practice” in meeting the CD Chapter 7.G requirement.
A second observation is that some of the best IEP narratives were reportedly written, or influenced, either by Speech Language Pathologists (SLP) on an IEP team due to a communication disorder (i.e., speech or language exceptionality) being a student’s primary or secondary exceptionality, or by members of the district’s SEAS (Special Education Assessment Services) team, which includes bilingual school psychologists, SLPs, social workers, and special education teachers. That SLP-influenced IEP narratives explicitly address language proficiency and student performance linkage is not surprising since SLPs’ expertise centers on the effect of student language on academic performance. Yet, a language difference is not a disability, and it is important, in the multi-tiered intervention process leading to possible special education referral, to differentiate a language difference arising from a typical second language acquisition process characteristic of ELLs (and which is not a learning problem or exceptionality) from a communication disorder. Of the 47 IEPs reviewed, five (10.6%) identified a communication disorder as the primary disability, and an additional 9 (19.1%) identified a communication disorder as the student’s secondary disability; six of the IEPs that identified a communication disorder as a secondary exceptionality were at two schools housing early childhood programs, meaning that 30% (6 out of 20 IEPs at the two schools) of the ELL
93

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 102 of 228
students at those schools whose IEPs were reviewed contained the communication disorder designation as a secondary exceptionality. These statistics align fairly closely with recent national figures which show that about 20% of students in special education are classified as having a communication disorder, and that about 50% of students served in early childhood special education programs have a communication disorder specified as a secondary exceptionality. This suggests that, based on the sample of IEPs reviewed, DPS is doing a good job of differentiating language difference from a language-based exceptionality.
When asked, school staff spoke highly of the SEAS team’s role in assisting IEP and MTSS teams in helping differentiate language difference from language disability for Spanish speaking students referred for tiered support or for special education. SEAS team members are able to assess a Spanish speaking student in both Spanish and English, a “best practice” for making the differentiation between language difference and disability (District interpreters are used to assess EL students in an L1 other than Spanish). A special education teacher participating in the Chapter 7 spot audit dialogue at one of the schools visited stated that maintaining access to SEAS services was “the most critical” need, “especially with primary students.” That teacher made the point that while districtprovided interpreters can bridge language differences in the assessment process used by MTSS and IEP teams, the professional knowledge along with the bilingual capabilities of SEAS team members allow them to make recommendations based not only on bilingual assessment but also based on their knowledge of effective instruction, for which interpreters do not have the training or experience.
94

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 103 of 228
This issue merits attention because, leading up to the February 2018 spot audit and during the visit, concerns were raised with the IM and with CHE that DPS was planning a restructuring of the SEAS team, and a main concern was that the planned restructuring would adversely affect SEAS services at the school level and thus the appropriate assessment of ELL students referred to the MTSS process or for special education. The District addressed these concerns in a meeting at the Central Office attended by Dr. Nelson and a CHE member, explaining that, from the District’s perspective, SEAS services would not be diluted or eliminated in the proposed reorganization, but would instead be more school-based and available to a greater number of schools. Ultimately, the District decided in spring 2018 to postpone SEAS reorganization due to higher priority District reorganization actions already underway and the desire on the part of the District to not take on too much systemic reorganization at the same time.
Summary The February 2018 spot audit of CD Chapter 7 requirements showed that the district has addressed issues raised in the first Chapter 7 spot audit in Spring 2016, with the result being that an IEP field not populated by IC in 2016 was being correctly populated in the IEPs reviewed in 2018. Additionally, information on student language proficiency was contained in either the IEP document or could be found in the IC using the ELA Department dashboard. As alluded to in the summary and discussion of the results of the Chapter 7 spot audit, the district’s evolving computer-based data management system has resulted in a situation where information anticipated in the Consent Decree as being in the IEP document may instead be available through links within the automated system, and to pull that information into the IEP document itself may be unnecessarily redundant. A
95

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 104 of 228
question that arises is whether IEP teams are accessing this information in different locations in the automated system on such important factors as a student’s relative levels of proficiency across different language modalities reflected in ACCESS subtest scores (e.g., listening proficiency versus reading proficiency). While that information is available in the automated system, it is only useful in decision-making if teams are accessing it during or in preparation for IEP, MTSS, and ISA team meetings.
While the District showed progress in CD Chapter 7 implementation since the spring 2016 Chapter 7 spot audit, an additional IEP field examined in the 2018 spot audit was not being populated by the IC and clear linkage of language proficiency to student learning was present in about the same percentage of IEPs as was the case in 2016. Moreover, the nature of the postponed SEAS reorganization is still of concern to CHE and to the IM – the concern being that if SEAS reorganization is to occur, that there be no dilution of bilingual assessment and subsequent programming recommendations by MTSS, ISA, and IEP teams for students who are Spanish speakers or who are bilingual in English and Spanish. Additionally, it is important that students with an L1 other than Spanish and their families are receiving the same CD-required services, safeguards, and benefits within the District’s three-tier system of support, including special education, that Spanish speaking ELs and their families receive. Whether this is the case should be a focus of a future IM visit. Taking into account the district’s progress, maintenance of desirable practices, and continuing challenges regarding CD Chapter 7, our judgment is that the district continues to partially implement CD Chapter 7 for Spanish-speaking ELs in the areas for which we collected data.
96

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 105 of 228
CHAPTER 9: ACCOUNTABILITY
Method The Consent Decree clearly states that to support the effective implementation of the Program, the District is required to meet a series of obligations listed in Chapter 9. These requirements are distributed across five major topical headings and include: I. Effective Program Implementation II. Student Progress III. Procedures for Parental Request for Review of Services IV. Evaluating Program Effectiveness V. Reports to the United States and to Private Plaintiffs We made the decision to spot-audit and report on this chapter in two ways. First, we created a Spot Audit Checklist for Chapter 9, consistent with our ongoing practice, that would provide us information at school sites and also at the DPS Central Office level. Further, we determined that in order to complete our spot-audit, we would collect information over two separate site visits during November and December, 2017. We selected requirements from sections I--IV above. We did not identify any requirements under V., Reports to the United States and to Private Plaintiffs, because the District reports information from Chapter 9.V. in the January and July reports they provide for the parties every year. The most recent of those reports was submitted to the Parties on July 15, 2018. Utilizing the process we described in detail in Report 6 for identifying schools to visit, we selected eight schools to conduct spot audits during November and December. We requested that DPS inform principals at the eight schools we identified to select a team
97

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 106 of 228
of persons from their respective staffs most qualified to address requirements comprising Chapter 9 of the CD. During November 2017 we visited four schools including:
 Sabin Elementary  Garden Place Elementary  Hill Campus of Arts and Sciences  Northfield High School During December of 2017, we visited an additional group of four schools:  McGlone Elementary  Grant Ranch (Small TNLI)  Lowry Elementary  West Leadership Academy At each of the eight schools, we met with the Principal, representatives of their Instructional Leadership Team, and the ELA Network Partner assigned to that school. Also present at each of our eight school visits was the District's Instructional Superintendent assigned to that school. As noted above, each site visit in November and December had an additional spot audit component that allowed us to begin collecting information from the DPS Central Office. Our spot-audit checklists, in addition to posing questions that we used to guide our school site visits, also contained a series of questions regarding Chapter 9 obligations for which we requested documentation from the Central Office. This included one or two questions from; Chapter 9.1.A through 9.1.E, 9.II.C, 9.., and 9.III.A and 9.IV.D (see Appendix E).
98

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 107 of 228
The findings we report of our Chapter 9 spot audit are presented in two ways. The information we gathered from the DPS Central Office is presented in narrative fashion based on conversations we held with DPS staff and, more importantly, from the supporting evidence or documentation they provided us. Within the narrative for each of the six questions we used to gather information at the DPS Central Office, we provide a hyperlink (if applicable) to the documents that the district provided to us.
During our December site visit, we focused part of our Central Office data gathering efforts around two questions, including 9.1.A and 9.1.B. To gain greater insight and an updated report concerning the sufficiency of instructional materials for ELs, we met with Dr. Cathy Martin, Executive Director of Curriculum and Instruction, ELA Executive Director Jorge Robles and others. Dr. Martin is ultimately responsible for addressing the instructional materials needs of DPS. Following is the first of two questions we asked from CD Chapter 9. Chapter 9.1.A Question 1. How does the district determine whether any schools lack sufficient instructional materials for ELLs?
When the IM began working on this project five years ago, CHE and DOJ representatives emphasized the fact that a lack of instructional materials for ELs existed in the district. As part of nearly every classroom observation and subsequent interview with the classroom teacher, I would ask about the sufficiency of instructional materials for ELs. More often than not, classroom teachers complained, especially, about the lack of quality materials to support instruction in Spanish. I noticed a shift in those concerns several years ago, and after numerous meetings with various persons charged with meeting this
99

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 108 of 228
obligation at the District level, I began to hear fewer complaints. Additionally, although I had witnessed collaboration between the ELA Program and Curriculum and Instruction (C& I) even as far back as 2013, what we heard and saw in terms of processes for meeting this requirement during December of 2017, suggested that a truly collaborative effort between both departments is now clearly in place and working more effectively than any time past. We should note that CHE has suggested that the IM ask more specific questions of C & I at another time related to 9.I.A. Specifically, do ELA classrooms have appropriate materials in Spanish for ELs, and if not, were the shortages rectified, and when. The IM will consider asking those questions during a future site visit to Denver. The following link provides a few responses to questions we posed to C & I that helped frame our conversations with Dr. Martin. www.dropbox.com/sh/k3u3yth4jcpvd1z/AABVNBEnIrt_YJYENi_9ENaUa/Materials%20Inventory ?dl=0&preview=ELA+Court+Monitor+Visit+12.6.17.docx&subfolder_nav_tracking=1
As we learned from Dr. Martin and Mr. Robles, network partners are key to meeting the requirements of the CD and, more importantly, the instructional needs of teachers and others who serve ELs. Just as the ELA Department has Network Partners assigned to every school in the District, every school also has literacy and math network partners assigned to them. The C&I Department has designated social studies and science curriculum specialists who work with every school either weekly or biweekly. It is the responsibility of the ELA Network Partners and the Math and Literacy Network Partners to ensure that schools have the necessary instructional materials for ELS.
We spent a considerable amount of our interview with Dr. Martin discussing the existing curriculum materials available in English and Spanish in core content areas for
100

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 109 of 228
grades kindergarten through 12. We reviewed documentation she presented that outlined all K-12 core content instructional materials currently in use by the DPS. In previous reports and in several conversations with DPS staff prior to Dr. Martin assuming her current role, I expressed my frustration at not having an inventory of available instructional materials by grade level for ELs. As shown by the document she provided us that outlines current instructional materials used in classrooms in grades K-12 by title of the materials, the district is much closer to demonstrating that they are addressing this important CD obligation. www.dropbox.com/sh/k3u3yth4jcpvd1z/AABVNBEnIrt_YJYENi_9ENaUa/Materials%20Inventory ?dl=0&preview=Materials+Inventory.pdf&subfolder_nav_tracking=1
As part of our conversation, we also discussed the evaluation tool that the district has designed to appraise instructional materials to assure alignment with the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), and several non-negotiable criteria. Equally important, the materials must be available in Spanish to be considered. Any time there is an adoption of materials such as the recent high school mathematics materials, a panel assesses them using an evaluation tool created internally for this purpose. An example of this Evaluation Tool (for High School Mathematics) can be accessed here: www.dropbox.com/sh/k3u3yth4jcpvd1z/AABVNBEnIrt_YJYENi_9ENaUa/Materials%20Inventory ?dl=0&preview=Materials+Inventory.pdf&subfolder_nav_tracking=1
As noted above, when curriculum adoptions occur, the RFP requires that studentfacing materials be available in Spanish. If C & I receives a submission that is NOT available in Spanish, that resource is removed from the review. In addition, when the schools decline the district-supported resource, they must indicate what materials will be used in its place
101

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 110 of 228
and attend a consultation where C & I representatives review the decision to ensure that student-facing materials will be available in Spanish.
Several examples among many of district-supported diverse, culturally relevant, high quality instructional materials that are currently available for various grade levels are:
 Amplify Middle School Science Curriculum, an English and Spanish language curriculum, that has two key features very supportive of language learners: 1) an online glossary in multiple languages including English, Spanish, Arabic, Chinese-French, Haitian-Creole, Indonesian, Portuguese, Russian, Tagalog, Urdu and Vietnamese; and 2) units that are written with a do, talk, read, write, and visualize model.
 Central texts with companion instructional materials written in secondary literacies (such as Spanish, Chinese, or Vietnamese) are available for all grade levels. These texts reflect DPS students’ diverse cultures and lived experiences. Two examples among many are: 1) Lyddie (for 7th grade students) that takes a deep look at the issues presented in Cesar Chavez’s “Commonwealth Club Address” in relation to a young girl’s experiences as a factory worker in the mid1800s; and 2) Just Like Us (for 10th graders) that tells the story of four Denver high school friends whose parents entered the country illegally. All four girls want to go to college and live “the American Dream,” though only two of them have documents.
The DPS Library Services is also tasked with developing and disseminating high quality instructional materials and fulfill its mission to create “equitable access to diverse,
102

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 111 of 228
high quality physical and digital resources aligned with students’ interests, abilities, culture, and curriculum.” Among the Library Services’ programs and resources are:
 The Diverse Books Initiative (http://weneeddiversebooks.org) that connects with a national grassroots project advocating “for essential changes in the publishing industry to produce and promote literature that reflects and honors the lives of all young people.”
 Overdrive eBooks is a multilingual district-wide eBook collection currently in English, Spanish, French, and Russian, that works to ensure that all DPS students in all schools and all neighborhoods have equitable access to high quality eBooks. It also includes an eBook professional library for teachers and staff with resources on culturally responsive instruction and the needs of English language learners.
 High Quality Digital Content (http://lion.dpsk12.org) in Spanish and other languages that was purchased by Library Services to support student inquiry and supplement the curriculum while meeting the diverse language needs of students in all grades. Examples include:
 Tumblebooks—a selection of read-along books in Spanish and French;  Brittanica Ecolar—digital encyclopedias in Spanish for K-12 students;  Brainpop Espanol—animated videos that support literacy, math, science art,
and music; and  PebbleGo Animales—database about animals and their habitats for 2nd – 5th
grade students;
103

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 112 of 228
 All other digital content/databases have built-in translation for up to 22 languages and provide a read aloud feature and interactive dictionaries.
Also the DPS Library Services works with publishers and book vendors to increase awareness of diverse books through featured titles in the DPS annual Expo where library, curriculum, and district staff can view the latest in children’s literature in order to create culturally responsive book collections for students. Library Services also creates system reports to analyze individual school library collections and increase books in Spanish (and the other most common DPS languages) to better reflect and serve the needs of each school community.
In addition to the DPS Library Services available to schools, DPS has partnered with the Denver Public Library to waive late fees for teachers who may want to check out nonEnglish resources for their students. Question 2: When a school is determined not to have sufficient instructional materials for ELLs, what action does the district take?
From our discussions with Dr. Martin, we learned that the DPS maintains a warehouse at the Science Resource Center where all textbooks and supplemental instructional materials are maintained for the district. An inventory of what is available to schools is maintained there. Teachers are informed about the warehouse during new teacher orientation, and if a school determines that there are not sufficient instructional materials, the first step is to determine whether the materials needed are at the warehouse. The contact person at that facility is Brandy Burdick. Ms. Burdick is responsible for sending the instructional materials, if they are available, directly to the school requesting them. If they are not available at the warehouse, C & I has a textbook buyer, Maggie Wolfe,
104

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 113 of 228
and she places an order for these instructional materials. Scanned purchase orders, which we were told about but did not examine, document spending by schools on instructional materials, including Spanish language materials. Dr. Martin noted that once the order is placed, delivery typically occurs within 7 to 10 days.
As new ELA Executive Director Nadia Madan expressed to me during one of several phone interviews prior to completion of this report, "We have really made some headway in addressing the core instructional materials for ELs and we're closer to parity than we have been." I also brought up the issue of supplemental instructional materials in Spanish for ELs. Ms. Madan responded that ELA-S teachers are constantly looking for supplemental materials in Spanish. Additionally, she noted that the flexibility for making budget decisions at each school site provides an option for purchasing materials in Spanish is much easier for schools than in previous times. At the close of our interview with Dr. Martin in December, she mentioned that, "ordering Spanish materials is a top priority" for Maggie Wolfe, C & I textbook buyer. Although Dr. Martin’s comment appeared sincere, the IM believes that the District needs to be even more diligent and aggressive in purchasing Spanish language materials. Chapter 9.1.B Question 3: How does the District annually evaluate the effectiveness of its ELA Training programs using objective evidence provided by participants and trainers.
Over the course of the past five years, we have participated in numerous ELA Teacher Qualifications (TQ) activities including participating in class sessions for a number of the courses offered; in large and small group discussions with team members; in planning sessions with the leadership of the TQ program; and in discussions between the
105

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 114 of 228
parties, TQ staff, and Dr. Claude Goldenberg, DOJ Consultant on TQ matters. We have interviewed course instructors, teachers enrolled in TQ courses, and individual TQ program staff and leadership. Like numerous other ELA Program systems that have been created and refined over the past five years, the TQ Program is one that has worked over time to improve course offerings, provide alternative forms of course delivery, create a program conceptual framework, and evaluate its effectiveness. To ascertain how the TQ program is addressing Question 3 above, we met with Sarah Grimm, Senior Program Manager, as well as ELD and ELA Teacher Qualifications and other DPS staff persons.
We learned from our discussions and review of documentation that the ELA Teacher Qualification team members are expected to lead an ongoing effort to monitor, evaluate and improve the quality and effectiveness of the DPS ELA Teacher Training program. The summative ELA Teacher Qualification Program Evaluation team retreat is conducted annually in the fall to assess the program outcomes from the previous year and action plan for the upcoming academic year. The following link provides a Power Point presentation that was shared with us by Sarah Grim and provides an overview of the discussion themes and issues which formed the basis for their most recent evaluation retreat. www.dropbox.com/sh/k3u3yth4jcpvd1z/AABsMvP58Feu22Uup3fjdq1Va/TQ%20Program%20Ev aluation?dl=0&preview=Court+Monitor+6DEC17+Visit.pptx&subfolder_nav_tracking=1#
The program evaluation criteria are based on objective evidence and feedback categorized under four areas: Program Quality, Instructor Development, ELA Teacher Qualification Processes, and Operational Efficiency.
A. Program Quality evaluation is based on objective evidence from the program goals, action plan, course surveys, evaluation of the instructors, review of the
106

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 115 of 228
course materials, access to teachers’ course progression data, and the availability of online support resources and tools. B. Instructor Development evaluation is based on objective evidence from instructor credential reviews, instructor surveys, class observations, instructor feedback forms, and instructor course training sessions. C. ELA Teacher Qualification Processes evaluation is based on objective evidence from Interim Measure Schools that are identified in the CD, updated course waiver documents, participant pass/fail numbers, updated course schedules, and the assurance that ELA 103 is included in the New Educator Welcome Week. As a reminder, Interim Measure Schools are those high needs schools where ELA courses are offered in the evenings, and then other nearby schools can attend. D. Operational Efficiency evaluation is based on objective evidence from course schedules, the presence of a diversity of course locations and times, the required posting locations of the course schedules, the updating of course schedules, specific training for instructors from a team trainer that relates to the course they are teaching, and the weekly ELA team meetings scheduled to review the course calendar, course updates, and evaluate program risks. In addition to the evaluation data collected from the above sources for the ELA TQ Programs, all ten courses of the ELA TQ Program (developed by the ELA Teacher Qualification Office) require online or written assessments that are graded by the instructor according to rigorous learning objectives. The following link outlines the Teacher Qualification courses required under the ELA-T, ELA-E, and ELA-S designations.
107

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 116 of 228
thecommons.dpsk12.org/cms/lib/CO01900837/Centricity/domain/107/teacher%20qualificatio n/Teacher_Qualification_Worksheet.pdf
For example, the course entitled ELA 103: The Denver ELA Program (required for all new teachers), is a 3.5 hour face-to-face class “designed to strengthen participants foundational understandings about teaching English learners.” The objective evidence of the effectiveness of the course provided by the class participants is a pencil and paper quiz on which they must demonstrate understanding of:
 the various populations of English learners in DPS;  how ELA school programs are determined,  how and why teachers are designated, and  content language objectives (CLO). As a further example, the 16-hour hybrid course (taught online and in occasional face-to-face classes) entitled ELA 105 A: English Language Development, “is designed to deepen participants’ knowledge around how to instruct Dedicated English Language Development (ELD) as a separate 45-minute instructional block of time.” The objective evidence of the effectiveness of the course provided by the class participants and graded by the course facilitator/instructor are online assignments that evaluate the participant’s ability to:  intentionally plan using forms and functions of language, and  plan for the linguistically appropriate development of language, interaction
structures, formative assessments, and supports. A final example of objective evidence of the effectiveness of an ELA course is the assessment of the 8-hour face-to-face course -- ELA 204: Transitioning Strategies for ELA-S
108

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 117 of 228
(Spanish). This course is designed to “further participants’ abilities to use Language Allocation Guidelines and research-based best practices to intentionally and systematically plan Spanish and English instruction to meet the critical needs of English learners…” The online assignment, graded by the instructor, must show that the participants are able to demonstrate the ability to:
 create a lesson that bridges the key academic language of a unit from Spanish to English, and
 create a metalinguistic analysis lesson to compare and contrast the linguistic systems of Spanish and English.
Our impression based on five years of interactions with the TQ staff and leadership is that the program continually strives to improve and become more effective. They continuously use the substantial amount of survey data they collect to improve course content, delivery, and quality of instruction. Course instructors, most of whom are DPS employees with Master's and Doctorate degrees, are well versed in the needs of ELs in DPS and the knowledge and instructional skills that teachers need to be effective. It is that melding of learner and teacher needs that has led to ongoing improvements and modifications that have resulted in a quality teacher preparation program. Chapter 9.I.C Question 4: How does the District monitor staffing assignments to ensure that they are consistent with the CD?
In an effort to better assess the manner by which the District monitors staffing assignments, we requested a meeting with Mr. Robles and key ELA Program staff that he felt could help us understand how they address this CD requirement. As our conversation
109

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 118 of 228
ensued, we realized that in order to determine how the monitoring process was implemented, we also had to more clearly understand how projections for school enrollment are made, and how resources were allocated in order to meet those projections. Although there were limits on our time during this meeting, Mr. Robles and staff provided us with information regarding the school budget cycle and is viewable at the link below: www.dropbox.com/sh/k3u3yth4jcpvd1z/AAATUhM7LtuT5pHaReB9DVFHa/Monitor%20Staffing ?dl=0&preview=Monitor+Staffing+and+Student+Progress.pdf&subfolder_nav_tracking=1
CHE recommended that the IM ask additional questions about the school budget process during a future site visit, which will be considered. Those questions include: At the start of the school year and at any point in time of the school year, were there staffing shortages at individual schools? Where were these documented and how and when were they resolved?
The school budget process is ongoing every school year over an approximately 10 month period. For the 2018-19 school year, the first steps that ultimately led to the adoption of the current budget began in August of 2017. There were four significant phases that took place as part of the school budget process. From August through November of 2017, DPS began by examining its preliminary enrollment counts near the start of the school year and again in October. Beginning in November and continuing through January of 2018, schools were provided with budget guidance, and a series of meetings took place between departments like ELA, district staff at the executive leadership level. Ultimately, allocations were determined. Continuing, from January through March, 2018, the budgeting process shifted to the school level. Budget-related guidance and all necessary forms were sent to schools and they in turn, engaged in budget development meetings
110

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 119 of 228
within their school. Budgets were finalized in March and principals began examining school staffing for the coming school year and their recruitment needs. During April and May of 2018, the DPS Board reviewed budgets and ultimately approved them. It was that budget determined in May 2018 that created the 2018-19 school year budget.
The District prepared a document which we did not have access to titled the Resource Allocation Automated Report. This report breaks down resource allocations school by school. It also allows the ELA Department to determine resource allocations to schools at any point in time. We were provided, however, with access to one school's allocation overview and were able to examine Place Bridge Academy's allocation of resources at the link which follows: https://www.dropbox.com/s/si2wy4u2upkii7x/ELAResourceAllocations_example_20181101.xlsx?dl=0 It is our understanding that every school in the district has a similar resource allocation profile and it is all of those profiles, school-by-school, that comprise the Resource Allocation Automated report.
The District provided us a more detailed graphic description of the process above and it provides more specificity to the process. This graphic is referred to as Resource Allocation & Projections and can be accessed at the following link: www.dropbox.com/sh/k3u3yth4jcpvd1z/AAATUhM7LtuT5pHaReB9DVFHa/Monitor%20Staffing ?dl=0&preview=Monitor+Staffing+and+Student+Progress.pdf&subfolder_nav_tracking=1
There are two important issues that relate to the budget process and are listed on the graphic. First, just as in most school districts that we are familiar with across the country, the October enrollment count is critical to the crafting of a district's budget. In the case of DPS, the October count drives funding for ELLs. Second, when the ELA Department
111

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 120 of 228
begins to prepare their budget for the following year, their projections regarding English learners takes into account number of provisional ELs, Spanish vs. other, ELP level, and those students enrolled in Early Childhood Education (ECE). Finally, we were reminded in this meeting, as we have been at previous times during the past several years, that DPS is invested in forecasting. They examine enrollment numbers, patterns, housing prices, expansion in neighborhoods, and numerous other factors which the District refers to as inputs. The five-year forecast, especially as it relates to enrollment trends, is a factor that goes into examining resources that will be needed for not only the current and following school year but into the next several years as well.
Regarding staffing assignments, the ELA Department monitors their staffing assignments using the following reports and data sources: 1) resource allocation and projections; 2) teacher placement, service percentage, and teacher designations; 3) the ELA Service System (ESS); 4) the ELA budget reviews; and 5) CD reports which are sent to the parties every six months.
In order to gain a better understanding regarding monitoring of staffing, it is helpful to view the process within the context of a timeline. In December and January, the ELA Executive Director and other staff, including the ELA Network Partners and HR, begin making projections for ELA staffing for the next year. In December of the 2018-2019 school year, they began the process of planning for the 2019-2020 school year. They reviewed school enrollment of ELA Program students at the school, current staffing, and examined key questions such as whether there are enough sections of ELD, etc. Based on all of their information gathering including enrollment projections, they prepared a staffing
112

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 121 of 228
plan for the school and the allocation of resources that this will require. Once the resource allocations have been planned, the school can start the budget process.
Following that timeline, in August and September, or near the start of the school year, the ELA Network Partners begin to monitor very closely in each of their assigned schools the accuracy of their enrollment projections and staffing needs that are actually occurring and in place. If staffing questions or issues arise that raise red flags, the Network Partners bring this back to the ELA Department and those concerns are examined internally there for a solution.
For example, a school involved in the Small TNLI Pilot had a staffing issue. The ELA Network Partner and the principal examined the service percentage data for the school and determined that they needed an ELA S teacher for the next school year. In April of 2018, the request was made and approved for an additional ELA S teacher. At the start of the 2018-2019 school year, the Network Partner flagged this allocation request because the school had not hired an ELA-S teacher prior to the start of school. It was discovered that the school leader could not find an ELA-S teacher to fill that slot. In such a case, the ELA Department, school principal, and HR then begin to address the issue to resolve it.
As part of the timeline, the ELA Network Partners began leading the program review process as part of the ELA Service System during April and May of 2018 for schools that were part of the 2018-19 school year. This is the process and point at which schools are held accountable. As mentioned above, one of the biggest challenges is that positions can be difficult to fill such as in the case of Place Bridge Academy. The school leaders there, based on several data sources, requested and received an allocation for for 10 native language tutors. However, they were unable to find qualified tutors to fill all of the
113

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 122 of 228
approved slots. Were ELA Network Partners not heavily involved with the school, the staff problem might not have been identified as early as it was so that a solution could be sought.
From the ELA Department's internal management of staff monitoring assignments, three critical departments or entities are involved in the monitoring process. The ELA Leadership and Program Management Team led by Director Veronica Maes works closely with the ELA Network Partners to determine the allocations for the coming school year during December and January. Once the school year starts, the ELA Strategic Planning and Accountability Team led by Director Elena Sodano, flags staffing issues for the Network Partners who then help intervene at the school level to address the issue/s. In April and May, the ELA Network Partners complete the ESS at the end of that school year.
While these are three major events that occur each year as part of the timeline described above, there are many intentional collaboration points that take place. The ESS Director and her team, for example, have standing bi-weekly meetings which are called ESS Collaboration Meetings and are held between her team and the ELA Network Partners. These meetings are critical to flag problems and then work with the Network Partners to address those issues. What is happening therefore is that staff assignment issues are flagged literally on a bi-weekly basis so that resolution of an issue begins to take place fairly quickly. The major challenges expressed to us recently regarding monitoring staffing assignments by the ELA Executive Director, Nadia Madan, again revolve around not finding enough qualified people to meet needs that are determined. We have heard this concern previously. Nonetheless, the system certainly seems to be in place to monitor staff assignments and the ELA Network Partners again are playing a pivotal role in identifying issues and needs early on so that solutions can be found.
114

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 123 of 228
Chapter 9.1.D Question 5: How does the District monitor each school's compliance with the CD?
During our December 2017 site visit to Denver, we discussed the critical requirement from Chapter 9 that addresses how DPS monitors each school's compliance with the CD. The ELA Program staff prepared a package of information that addresses this Question 5 and the related following one (Question 6). The discussion and review of documents was lengthy but very important and can be accessed at www.dropbox.com/sh/k3u3yth4jcpvd1z/AABjbrAPrOohqiNwsd9O2rha/Monitor%20Compliance?dl=0&preview=Monitor+Compliance.pdf&su bfolder_nav_tracking=1
DPS has developed an ELA Strategic Management System that connects ELA supports through collaboration and data-driven decisions to improve the academic achievement of English Learners. The ELA Management System starts with consent decree compliance data that is monitored continuously by the district and by each school’s ELA support system. The District is responsible for using the data to build systems to address compliance and identify gaps that need to be narrowed and eliminated. Each school’s ELA Support System recognizes noncompliance issues at the school level and responds by creating an individualized support plan. Each school is reviewed annually using a program review rubric that helps the principal, IS, and Network Partner define a high-quality ELA program, analyze student outcomes, and construct a clear actionable plan to address areas of need identified in data conversations.
The school’s individualized program review -- every school is reviewed every year-looks for root causes, and then becomes the driving force behind the creation of the ELA
115

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 124 of 228
Service Plan (ESP) with a tiered support system that provides individualized, data-driven assistance with the goal of improving student outcomes. The ELA Service Plan also helps guide the role of the school’s ELA Partner and can be used in LEAD (administrators’) evaluations.
As part of the ongoing ELA Service System cycle, formative reviews are required and conducted by the school principal, IS, and Network Partner in March and again in October for schools marked as Targeted (Approaching Expectations) or Strategic (not meeting expectations). In November and December, the school team reviews the ELA Service Plan (ESP) for progress. This review informs the school leaders and the End-of-Year ratings of the school. In January/February, the team conducts a Mid-Year Check-in of the school budget and its impact on the ESP. The End-of-Year Program Review is conducted in May/June and the finalized results are reported. The ELA Service Plan is then revised in August/September based on new data and if needed, a new school leader. Question 6: How does the District take action to remedy any noncompliance with the CD as soon as practicable and within a reasonable period of time?
The End-of-Year ELA Program Review mentioned above is guided by the following three Domain questions and sources of data evidence: Domain 1: “Are ELA Services provided in alignment with the Life Cycle of an English Learner?” The data sources are:
 Registration and enrollment forms;  Identification window, and  ISA team efficacy.
116

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 125 of 228
Domain 2: “Is the program designed to ensure that English Learners are acquiring both language and content?” The data sources are:
 ELD placement;  ACCESS, CMAS, CSLA;  Graduation rates;  Instructional support at school;  Language Allocation Guidelines;  Language of assessment, and  Process monitoring in-place. Domain 3: “Are families of English Learners informed?” The data sources are:  PAC/DAC;  Translation and interpretation, and  Program information provided at registration. In order for the school to meet expectations in all three Domains, all the indicators on the program review rubric must be rated as “Meets.” For any indicator in which the box is checked “Approaching” or “Does NOT Meet,” an ELA Service Plan is required to document how the school will remedy any noncompliance with the CD in a timely manner. Also, the overall ratings for the school are integrated with the LEAD competencies on the Principal LEAD Growth and Scoring Guide. Therefore, in order for the school leaders to be rated as effective, their school’s English Language Acquisition programming must be implemented fully and effectively as evidenced by an effective ELA Program Implementation rating. In order for the leaders to be rated as effective for this criterion,
117

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 126 of 228
schools must either 1) demonstrate an overall rating of Meets, or 2) demonstrate there is an ELA Service Plan in place to remedy any areas for improvement.
If the required review of a school’s ELA program indicates a school does Not Meet expectations with noncompliance in any of the three domains, a tiered support system is put into place within a reasonable period of time that addresses areas needing improvement while enhancing clarity and communication. The review also drives the ELA Partner work in the school, allowing for more precision, transparency, and accountability. In addition, the review helps the District ELA department provide individualized, datadriven support. Thus, due to the ongoing and timely formative and end-of-year reviews and check-ins of the ELA Service System cycle, a school deemed out of compliance is provided with timely support via the ELA Service Plan co-created by ELA Partners, IS, and school leaders.
To use one school as an example, the Bear Valley International School received a rating of “Approaching” on their Year End Program Review citing noncompliance in two Domain 2 indicators-- Indicator b (“English Learners will receive grade level appropriate content instruction that is designed to enable them to perform at grade level’) and Indicator d (“The school has a system to monitor the progress of English Learners”).
With the help of the Network Partner Jill Richards, the school developed an ELA Service Plan providing the following supports to remedy indicator b:
 Achieve 3000 Training in August;  School-wide professional development on accessing student WIDA levels, what
that means, and links to resources in August;  Providing the book Differentiating for English Learners, for school leaders;
118

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 127 of 228
 Links to content-specific resources that the principal will embed into meeting notes along with the Power point; and
 Observation of a highly qualified ELD teacher at another school for ELD support. Since Bear Valley International School was a Year 1 school in 2017-2018, the supports for Domain 2: Indicator d, are to have the Network Partner review the Progress Monitoring Plan during her October meeting with the principal and then record it by October 31 in the Note Catcher, as well as the school’s program review update sheet. CHE has raised questions about the comprehensiveness of the District’s ELA Strategic Management System as the means for meeting the requirement of CD 9.D that the District monitor each school’s compliance with the CD and take any action to remedy noncompliance. CHE maintains that the program review is based on a sample of CD requirements rather than all the CD requirements and, as a result, information is not collected on CD requirements such as whether the needs of EL special education students are being met, whether Spanish language materials are actually in use in classrooms, or how gifted EL students are being served. CHE also questions whether the end-of-year program review ensures the CD is being complied with at each school. The challenge for the District is to show which specific CD requirements the Strategic Management System covers and how CD requirements not addressed in the annual program review and resulting service plans are monitored, and lead to any necessary corrective actions taken in a reasonable period of time, through additional mechanisms the District has in place (e.g., school-level monitoring of Spanish language materials use in the classroom by the school principal or the ELA partner assigned to the school; monitoring of EL special education student and EL gifted student programming by
119

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 128 of 228
the District’s Student Equity and Opportunity Office). Additionally, the District must make the case that the formative reviews conducted during the year ensure CD compliance at each school during that year. Chapter 9.1.E Question 7: What are the names and positions of the DPS staff members responsible for each of the following:
a. Recruiting teachers b. Developing and implementing the training requirements of the CD c. Monitoring the availability of appropriate and adequate materials in Program
classrooms d. Implementing Program entry, redesignation, and exit procedures in accordance
with the CD e. Implementing the instructional program in accordance with the CD f. Overseeing and implementing parent communication requirements g. Implementing SPED and Section 504 requirements as they relate to ELLs h. Monitoring the curricula taught in Program classrooms i. Preparing reports to the United States and private plaintiffs pursuant to CD
Chapter 9.V During our December visit to Denver, we met with ELA Executive Director Jorge Robles and other ELA Program staff, DPS staff, and Deputy Legal Counsel Toni Wehman to discuss question 7. ELA Program staff prepared a graphic which addressed the question and served as a tool for discussion regarding staff responsibilities for items a through i above. Further, we learned from that discussion that this CD requirement has led to the
120

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 129 of 228
creation of an Accountability Framework which follows. Items a--i are identified as nine ELA Program Components in this Framework on the first column of the graphic. The additional four columns are labeled as; Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, and Informed. We sought clarification on the definition of these four column headings. Those persons who do the work to achieve each of the tasks related to the ELA Program Components are identified under Responsible. In some cases it is one person who is identified and, for several components, a classification of positions is listed such as Instructional Superintendents and Executive Directors. The final approving authority is identified under Accountable. According to Mr. Robles, the person who is answerable for assuring that tasks and deliverables are completed and who delegates the work to those responsible is listed under the Accountable column. Third, those persons whose opinions are sought and most often are subject matter experts, are those identified on the Framework as Consulted. This person or persons engage in two-way communication with those responsible for making progress or completing tasks and deliverables. Finally, under the fourth column titled Informed, persons or departments are identified to designate those who are kept updated on progress made within each of the nine ELA Program Components.
The Accountability Framework which follows identifies the names and positions of DPS staff members responsible for the nine component which correspond with items a--i. During our December 2017 Central Office meetings, Director Jorge Robles shared with us this Accountability Framework and the status at that time of those persons responsible and accountable for nine ELA Program components. After Mr. Robles' departure from DPS and prior to completion of this Report, we consulted with Dr. Darlene LeDoux-Renteria, former
121

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 130 of 228

ELA Executive Director who was advising the recently appointed Executive Director Nadia

Madan, and updated the contents of the Framework to assure that all names and

responsibilities are current. Numerous personnel changes have been made both within the

ELA Department and DPS. We verified responsibilities as outlined in the framework with a

majority of persons who are responsible for each of the nine components. Most of that

verification was done in face-to-face meetings with persons responsible for a component

including Sarah Almy, Nadia Madan, Cathy Martin, Tameka Brigham, Toni Wehman and

numerous Instructional Superintendents and Directors. The one person whom I did not

meet with personally was Robert Frantum-Allen, the Director of Student Services. We have

had numerous conversations over time with Adrienne Endres and Veronica Maes who are

now in critical strategic director positions within the ELA Department. We have also had

numerous conversations and meetings with Nadia Madan, the recently appointed ELA

Executive Director. Again, the Accountability Framework below is as current for the time

period covered by this report as we could determine. Information regarding the persons

responsible for implementing the CD is time limited and tentative.

Accountability Framework for Consent Decree Chapter 9

ELA Program Components 1. Recruiting teachers
2. Developing and implementing the training requirements of this CD

Responsible
HR Talent Management
Executive Director Sarah Almy Teacher Qualification: Executive Director ELA Nadia Madan

Accountable

Consulted

Informed

Chief of Human Resources
Debbie Hearty
Deputy Superintendent Susana Cordova

Executive Director
ELA Nadia Madan
Legal LTL, IS/EDs, Legal

LTL (Leadership, Teaching & Learning
Division)*, IS/EDs
Principals, Teachers, Teacher
Leaders, POs

122

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 131 of 228

Principal & Teacher PD:
HR Talent Management
Executive Director Sarah Almy

3. Monitoring the availability of appropriate and adequate materials in Program classrooms 4. Implementing the Program entry, redesignation, and exit procedures in accordance with this CD 5. Implementing the instructional Program in accordance with this CD
6. Overseeing and implementing parent communication requirements

Associate Chief Academic & innovation Office:
Ann Whalen Executive Director
Curriculum & Instruction Cathy Martin

Deputy Superintendent Susana Cordova

Instructional Superintendents
Executive Directors

Deputy Superintendent Susana Cordova

IS/EDs

Deputy Superintendent Susana Cordova

Chief of Family and Community
Engagement Tameka Brigham

Chief Communications
Officer Anna Alejo

ELA Department
Director Adrienne Endres
Legal
ELA Department
Director Elena Sodano & Veronica
Maes Legal
ELA Department
Director Adrienne Endres & Veronica
Maes Legal ELA Department Director Veronica Maes Legal

123

LTL, IS/EDs LTL LTL LTL

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 132 of 228

7. Implementing SPED and Section 504 requirements as they relate to ELLs 8. Monitoring the curricula taught in Program classrooms

Director Student Services
Robert FrantumAllen
IS/EDs

Associate Chief of Student Equity and Opportunity
Eldridge Greer
Deputy Superintendent Susana Cordova

9. Preparing reports to the United States and private plaintiffs pursuant to Section V of this Chapter

Narrative and Legal Process Toni Wehman Deputy Legal
Counsel
Report Production Nadia Madan
ED ELA Department

General Legal Counsel
Michelle Berge

ELA

LTL

Department

Director

Veronica

Maes

Legal

ELA Department
Director Adrienne Endres & Veronica
Maes Legal ELA Department, HR, Planning, LTL, T&L, Student Equity & Opportunity and all teams that generate the data and reports

LTL LTL, IS/EDs, HR

Chapter 9.II.C Question 8: What changes has the District recommended in services to ELLs to support high student achievement based on the District's monitoring of ELL's progress in schools and classrooms?
Prior to our December 2017 visit, we were aware that the District was moving from the old ELA Review system to a new ELA Support System that would provide supports to all schools in DPS every year. In the old system, only 25% of schools were monitored each year and complaints were often made by schools that the District was slow in

124

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 133 of 228
communicating the results of those reviews, thus making it difficult to institute changes in a timely way. In previous meetings of the parties, the ELA Department was upfront in suggesting that the review process provided a "snapshot" of a school's ELA effectiveness at a single point in time.
To their credit, the ELA Department realized that the old review process was outdated and needed improvement. During a number of our previous site visits to Denver during the 2016-17 school year, we began to hear about the new ELA Service System (ESS) that the District was creating, and as one ELA team member shared with us, "We want to create a system that goes beyond checking off CD requirements and develop a data driven system that ultimately provides supports to schools that help them become high performing ELA Program schools." The following link provides both a graphic and written description of the ESS and sets a context and framework for addressing Question 8. thecommons.dpsk12.org/Page/1998
At the December 2017 site visit, we set time aside to discuss the District's obligations under requirement 9.II.C of the CD. Executive Director Robles and other ELA Program staff began our conversation by creating a context and outlining five major monitoring practices that the DPS currently implements. These include:
 Use of the ESS to monitor student outcomes and plan for academic growth and English language proficiency (ELP)
 At the Elementary level, use EL Achieve and Benchmark progress monitoring for ELP
 At the Secondary level, use Inside and Edge progress monitoring for ELP  Examine ACCESS trajectory, and
125

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 134 of 228
 Examine ReadACT monitoring The five monitoring practices bulleted above have been discussed with us at varying times over the past several years. In conversations with Principals, Instructional Superintendents, ELA Network Partners, and ELA Program staff including Mr. Robles, we have developed a basic understanding of these monitoring practices. From an IM perspective, the challenge is not simply gaining an understanding of the various monitoring practices, but rather, determining if these practices will ultimately lead to services that support greater student achievement for ELs. There is certainly a greater expectation from the District that the new ESS has the potential, in large part, to serve as the system that guides efforts to higher school performance. Well after the December 2017 site visit and even after the April/May 2018 meeting of the parties, we continued to examine Question 8. Gradually, our understanding of the monitoring practices became more clear. It also became more obvious that the ESS is a system that holds a great deal of potential for helping key stakeholders like the principal, IS, and ELA Network Partner use multiple sets of data to guarantee that ELs receive appropriate services and a pathway to creating plans at individual schools that address areas of need for students. The ELA Program Review, which is part of the ESS annual cycle, includes multiple data points that target achievement and growth and include the CMAS EL MGP, ACCESS MGP, ACCESS Trajectory, Read Act Spanish status, CSLA Status, CSLA Growth, and COSAT MGP. The link below for the ELA Program Review provides a framework that shows which measures are captured in each indicator under Domain 2. This is the evidence collection framework for elementary schools https://www.dropbox.com/s/dafmbjl7jy3kbq1/ESS_Domain2_Evidence_elementary.pdf?dl=0
126

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 135 of 228
A similar evidence collection framework for secondary schools is part of the ELA Program Review as well. These frameworks are critical for progress monitoring. Additionally, the frameworks are not only essential for the end of the year review but also serve to guide data collection, progress monitoring, the scheduled mid-year check-in, and LEAD Evaluation for each school served over the course of a school year.
All of these frameworks, assessments, rubrics, tools, and strategies that comprise the District's monitoring practices lead to the fundamental question: What changes in services for ELs have either been proposed or implemented as a result? The ELA Department identified five examples of changes made. 1. Project Esperanza
Midway through 2017, the WK Kellogg Foundation funded a DPS Project called Project Esperanza. This is a pilot project funded for two years and according to the Kellogg Foundation, the goal is, "to build teacher and principal capacity in a K-5 dual language instructional model at select schools that will serve as the district's demonstration sites..." In a meeting attended by Martha Urioste from CHE and Dr. Nelson and I, several months before our December site visit, Project Esperanza Manager Rebecca Castellanos explained to us that the intent of the pilot was to narrow the achievement gap between ELs and native English speakers.
Since then, and including our December site visit, we've learned that the ultimate objective of Project Esperanza is to develop model bilingual program “Esperanza” sites across DPS, which build on students’ cultural and linguistic capital, and narrow the achievement gap between language minority and native English speaking preschool through 5th grade students in literacy and mathematics. The two-year grant will end in July
127

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 136 of 228
2019 and the five school sites selected to participate are Farrell B. Howell, Swansea, Ellis, Charles M. Schenck and Greenwood.
It was explained to us that within the context of progress monitoring, the five Project Esperanza schools use reading and writing data to identify strengths and areas of growth in each language for students. The instructional team (a combination of teachers at the school and dedicated .5 FTE from ELA) used this to inform instructional practices throughout the school year. 2. Co-Teaching and Rigor ELD Pilot Projects
Two changes that DPS made that are oriented toward high school ELs and focused on instruction in English language arts classes are the Co-Teaching and Rigor Pilot Projects. Co-Teaching is a highly coordinated practice in which two or more people share responsibility for teaching all of the students assigned to a classroom. In DPS, one teacher with a focus on English Language Arts and the other teacher with a focus on ELD provide instruction for ELs within a mainstream Language Arts classroom. The idea is to use the Co-Teaching model with ELs who have an intermediate or higher proficiency level (ACCESS Levels 2.6 and higher) and mainstream students who are then provided ELD within the academic instruction of Language Arts by the two co-teachers. One benefit of this approach is that intermediate through advanced students do not need to take "stand alone" ELD courses and they can then take more electives and college prep courses. The following link provides a brief overview of the DPS English Language Arts/English Language Development Co-Teaching Model.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/cqwpyjev55z820b/Co-Teaching%20One%20Pager.pdf?dl=0
128

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 137 of 228
The Rigor ELD model is geared toward ELs in 11th and 12th grade who have achieved the upper proficiency level (ACCESS Level 3.6 and higher). These students are then given the option of taking an additional English Language Arts class as an elective to meet their ELD requirement. The courses approved for the Rigor Pilot Project are any upper division Language Arts class, Drama, Debate, AP Language Arts, and concurrent enrollment Language Arts courses above 100-level courses. Students are allowed to select any upper division Language Arts course from an approved list. Teachers who participate in the pilot must attend 16 hours of professional development from August through May. A big focus of the professional development is how to differentiate for and teach to the needs of higher level ELs. Ultimately, by providing these students with elective courses in addition to their required English Language Arts course, Rigor ELD allows students to stay on-track to earn graduation credits, increase their overall English language proficiency, perform better on high stakes tests, and gain exposure to higher level English language. The link which follows provides a brief overview of the 2018-2019 Pilot: Rigor ELD Course.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ww6naanxkm8r1rx/Rigor%20One%20Pager.pdf?dl=0
3. Integrated Content and Language Development (ICLD) A third change that the District is implementing that was described for us during our
Central Office spot audit, is less of a program type and more of an instructional approach. Integrated Content and Language Development (ICLD) refers to content instruction that is both rigorous and standards based; ICLD is the most recent term used in education for what the CD refers to as Sheltered Content Instruction. Intentional planning and supports for academic language are requisites of this approach to teaching. Proponents of ICLD suggest that it is an approach that not only benefits all students but is critical for ELs
129

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 138 of 228
because it facilitates learning content and skills in multiple content areas including language arts, science, math, and social studies. It should be noted that ELD is integrated into a content class and that this approach also allows students to take electives or meet graduation requirements in place of a stand-alone ELD class. The District does not use ICLD to replace dedicated ELD for students who still need it; ICLD is provided in addition to ELD. There are times when ELD is co-taught in a language arts class by a qualified ELD teacher, while in many other classes ICLD is provided by core content teachers who help students increase English language development with a focus on core content-specific vocabulary as well as on the class’s core content. The following link provides a description of the ICLD instructional approach that DPS uses.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/bxd0aq8ei1m34h4/ICLD1pagerEngSpanFinal813%20%281%29.pdf?dl=0
ICLD was observable in almost every classroom observation that we conducted over the past several years. The instructional approach is rooted in five areas or SERVE components as they are often referred to. These include; Student Talk, Explicit Academic Language Instruction, Access to Rigorous Grade Level Content, Extensive Use of Visuals, and Learning Environment which is respectful, equitable, and encourages effort-based learning, respects and encourages use of the home language, and incorporates culturally responsive practices. 4. Gifted and Talented Identification Practices
For the past several years, we have met with Dr. Rebecca McKinney, the Director of Gifted and Talented Education at DPS, on multiple occasions. From the earliest meetings with her, she has been adamant about the disproportionality of ELs in DPS identified for Gifted and Talented services. In a March 2017 Research Brief prepared by ARE at DPS in
130

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 139 of 228
consultation with Dr. McKinney and her staff, the point is made that even though 34% of the District's population gets identified for GT services, only 3% of ELs have been identified since 2012.
When Dr. McKinney was appointed as Director, she made it clear to the IM that she was making it a priority to increase the number of ELs who are identified for GT. Over the past several years, we've been impressed that she has engaged in meetings and conversations district-wide in addressing the issue of disproportionality of ELs receiving GT services while stressing the need to find and utilize alternative methods to identify EL students. Another point that she has stressed to us, and that the Research Brief points out, is that giftedness is independent of the language any student speaks and ELs should be identified for GT before they are redesignated.
In the 2015-16 school year, the District began a universal screening program and every student in kindergarten, second and sixth grade was tested for giftedness. During the 2016-17 school year, DPS instituted a program they call Talent Pool which gives students who are not identified as gifted but could be later, access at their school site to gifted services. Gifted services are set aside in each school for 10% of students. If a school has a percentage of identified gifted students smaller than 10%, talent pool students are added until they reach that criterion. Talent Pool students are now tracked by DPS to determine how much growth they've achieved and whether they eventually get identified as gifted. After the first year of universal screening, the percentage of Hispanic students identified as gifted doubled from the previous year to nearly 25%. These finding were summarized in a Chalkbeat article linked below:
131

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 140 of 228
chalkbeat.org/posts/co/2017/02/21/denver-public-schools-is-identifying-more-students-ofcolor-as-highly-gifted-but-big-disparities-remain/ 5. Data Driven Instructional Protocol (DDI) and Student Learning Objectives (SLO)
The final two changes implemented by the District intended to increase achievement for ELs are the DDI and SLO. The SLOs are now part of District policy and related to a teacher's LEAP rating and tied to student growth. This DPS policy is a response to Senate Bill 10-191 in Colorado which changes the way teachers and principals are evaluated. The Bill supports professional growth that leads to greater student achievement.
Each SLO must contain at least two state standards and three or more performance indicators that are measured throughout the year. Teachers are required to collect a body of evidence for each student aligned to the SLO and report student growth at the end of the school year. The SLO process as described for us is designed to be implemented along a year-long continuum that begins in September shortly after school begins. Teachers determine each student's preparedness based on mastery of the previous year's standards and how well prepared they are for the current year. Teachers then gather a body of evidence over much of the school year to show student progress toward meeting the standards which comprise that classroom teacher’s SLO. Based on the body of evidence collected and results of summative measures which are utilized, teachers determine each student's expectation level at the end of the school year. Teachers are strongly encouraged to collaborate with other teachers, grade level teams, and school leadership to determine both the baseline preparation of students as well as their end of school year or course expectations.
132

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 141 of 228
At the end of the school year, the teacher is assigned an SLO score by the principal and that becomes part of the teacher effectiveness rating that is used in part to calculate student growth percentage.
We got the impression that teachers receive much support regarding SLOs at their school level site as well as within the district. There is an SLO Resource Bank that provides District model SLOs and examples of performance-based tasks. The ARE Department has assigned an assessment specialist for each content area that teachers and leaders are encouraged to contact directly. Every school in the District also has assigned SLO Leads, teacher leaders, and administrators who can answer questions. The following link provides a short overview of Student Learning Objectives from the DPS website.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/m4vshdbs0s5rchx/SLO-1-Pager%5B1%5D.pdf?dl=0
The final issue discussed, albeit briefly, as part of 9.II.C was the change made by DPS referred to as Data Driven Instruction (DDI). Our conversation touched more on the DDI Protocol to Analyze ELD Assessments, the Scoring Rubric for Assessment Tasks, and the WIDA Speaking and Writing Interpretive Rubrics. These tools can be reviewed in the hyperlink which follows:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/o7ypqjjzwx925t5/ELD%20DDI%20Protocol%20with%20EL%20Achieve%20and% 20WIDA%20rubrics%20Revised%20Nov%202017%5B2%5D.pdf?dl=0
For the past several years, we have heard about DDI and observed it in practice during our many school site visits. DDI is embedded in teaching and learning that leads to improved student achievement through high quality instructional best practices. Teachers, leaders, instructional support professionals, and others we've spoken with and observed at school sites, have been operating under the basic principles of DDI which call for
133

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 142 of 228
systematic data collection and analysis of data as the basis for instructional decisions that help improve student outcomes. We've also observed countless examples of data walls, data management software, and data management teams that meet weekly, and professional development associated with DDI including professional learning communities. Additionally, we've interviewed many teachers and leaders who are thoroughly invested in the DDI processes and practices.
Among the many leaders in DPS who have embraced DDI practices and who can speak articulately about the numerous facets that comprise DDI is Dr. Christian Sawyer, Principal at Hamilton Middle School. We have made multiple site visits over the past five years to Hamilton Middle School and discussed DDI practices with the leadership and staff there. On one of the IM's most recent visits to the school, we discussed analysis of student work as part of ISA Teams. The DPS have even recorded a series of DDI video exemplars featuring Dr. Sawyer that are very instructive and can be viewed on YouTube at the following link: plc.dpsk12.org/video-exemplars-of-ddi-in-action/
During our December site visit, discussion centered on the DDI Protocol to Analyze ELD Assessments since this is one change the District has implemented. Details about the Protocol are available and accessible in the DPS Schoology Module, which is set to only be accessible by DPS staff with DPS email addresses and log-in names due to Colorado’s Student Data Privacy Law (Colorado has one of the nation’s toughest student data privacy laws which prevents student data from being accessible to any non-DPS entity). We learned however, that the DDI Protocol has been presented to teacher leads, school leaders, and ELD teachers through professional development sessions on multiple occasions. The
134

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 143 of 228
DDI Protocol has also been presented during multiple ELD Curriculum trainings and it is provided for all teachers enrolled in the ELA 105A Teacher Qualifications course. During these three professional development sessions and the course, participants go through the entire training module which includes the ELD Scoring Rubric and the two WIDA Interpretive Rubrics covering speaking and writing.
There are three major points that were brought up regarding this specific change. First, after participating in the training, the DDI analysis of ELD Assessments at the building level is typically led by ELD teachers. However, this does vary on occasion since teacher leads and school leaders are also trained on the Protocol and there are times when they have led the analysis work as outlined in the DDI Protocol in collaboration with ELD teachers. Second, the DDI Protocol is used to assess actual student data at school sites as the first step in a process. Third, the Laying Foundation section of the Schoology Module helps teachers and others apply the ELD Scoring Rubric and the WIDA Speaking and Writing Interpretive Rubrics to assess results. Those results are then discussed between ELD teachers in a school or within data teams which use the results to better inform instructional practice for ELs. It is the District’s position that basing the DDI process at the classroom level is extremely beneficial for ELLs as it ensures that ELL-specific data are considered by classroom teachers. Moreover, since it is classroom-based, DDI is a shared responsibility of the classroom teacher and the ISA team. Chapter 9.III.A Question 9: If parents of an ELL contact the ELA Department asking that Program implementation at a school be investigated as it relates to services for their child, what does the ELA Department do?
135

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 144 of 228
We have discussed this issue at different times with various ELA Program staff over the past year and, it was a focus question when we conducted our Central Office Audit of Chapter 9 in December. During the December site visit we designated some time to speak with Mr. Robles and Bridget Galati who, during the 2016-17 school year, had been assigned lead responsibility for overseeing many of the District's obligations regarding PACs and the DAC. We also met separately with Theresa Becker, Executive Director of Family Constituency Services at DPS's Family and Community Engagement (FACE) Department. Both the ELA Department and FACE collaborate on numerous parent and family related activities. Ms. Galati and Ms. Becker are designated from their programs to be the point persons assigned to deal with parent concerns. However, we learned that concerns from parents can come from multiple entry points. At individual schools, concerns may be expressed to a school secretary, parent liaison, the principal, or to members of the PAC. From the data we reviewed when we prepared Report 6, we discovered that complaints or concerns from parents are sometimes expressed at DAC meetings since parents are encouraged to discuss or bring forth any concerns at this forum.
Because concerns can be expressed at multiple entry points, the need for close communication is essential. Once more, ELA Network Partners play a critical role at school sites in addressing and responding to parent concerns. Executive Director Robles (and more recently Nadia Madan) expressed to us that ELA staff, especially the Network Partners, are well aware that when concerns or questions are raised by parents, it is essential that they be addressed in a prompt and timely fashion. We found out from our discussions in December 2017 that at school sites, resolution of parent concerns is often a team undertaking that involves the principal or assistant principal, the ELA Network
136

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 145 of 228
Partner, and Ms. Galati. If other persons are needed to help resolve an issue, they identified and invited to participate in problem solving.
Since the time that we conducted our spot audit, several personnel changes have taken place. Nadia Madan is now the ELA Program Executive Director. Additionally, Bridget Galati left the district and moved out-of-state. Hope Flores was assigned her responsibilities and is now the ELA Program Monitoring Coordinator. In preparation for this report, I interviewed both of them by telephone to discuss questions 9 and 10. Ms. Madan made several points that coincided with information that Mr. Robles had expressed previously during our December 2017 meeting. First, there are very few times that they could recall that parents had contacted the ELA Department to ask that the actual implementation of the program be investigated. More typically, concerns are related to placement of a student in the program and clarifying for parents’ program options, which is usually addressed by the school principal or assistant. Other types of concerns include parents looking for resources and the ELA point person will work to try and identify sources to address their concerns. Ms. Flores also mentioned to me that in her new role, she has seen a few examples of information getting communicated incorrectly from one parent to another. She mentioned further that if parents contact her and the issue is one of unclear communication, she can resolve the issue by speaking with them in Spanish since she is bilingual. Question 10: How does the ELA Department record a concern about Program implementation and resolution of that concern? View examples if available.
Several years ago, DPS created an ELA Hotline which provided another avenue for parents to express any concerns that they had. The Hotline has a script that walks parents
137

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 146 of 228
through four prompts in both English and Spanish. The first prompt refers to the Summer Academy, the second informs parents to press 2 if they have questions about a letter they received from ELA (the ESSA letter post-Bush), press 3 if they have general questions about ELA services and , press 4 if they have any other type of concern/s. If they press 4, they are directed to FACE and their Family Constituency helpline. There are also prompts for secretaries, for teachers who have questions about ELA classes, and a last one for school leaders if they have ELA related questions. The script in both English and Spanish can be accessed at: www.dropbox.com/sh/k3u3yth4jcpvd1z/AACud8bUDgcbvsqPVPLxB4IMa/Parent%20Concerns? dl=0&preview=ELA+Hotline+Script+7216.docx&subfolder_nav_tracking=1. Until Bridget Galati left the District, she was the point person assigned to the Hotline and presently, Hope Flores, who is bilingual in Spanish and English, is the person in charge of reviewing those calls and initiating the problem solving next step which follows, just as Ms. Galati used to.
One example that Ms. Flores shared with me is worth noting. A student who had been living in a refugee camp with his mother because the father had disappeared, arrived in Denver and at some point enrolled as a Newcomer at Merrill Middle School. During the course of the year, the student was assessed and found in need of SPED services. The student has an IEP. At the start of this school year, he was supposed to attend George Washington High School. His mother had heard from others about South High School, however, and arranged to have him attend South High School. The problem was that the student had no transportation and his mother wanted to ride the bus with him from home to South for the first month of school. The request for help came into the ELA Hotline and it
138

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 147 of 228
was taken by Hope Flores. She asked Nadia Madan to help her and they began to create solutions.
Working through several community-based organizations, they found a Community Navigator who spoke their native language and who has experience working with refugees. Hope made arrangements through DPS to get both the student and his mother a monthly RTD bus pass. She picked up the bus passes prior to the first day of school, took them to the mother's apartment, and made sure that the Community Navigator helped them get to school and back home on the RTD bus during the first week of school. Hope Flores followed up and things are working fine in terms of transportation; both the student and his mother are quite satisfied with South High School. Ms. Flores briefed Nadia Madan and the ELA Network Partner at South High School about this situation and the resolution of the family's transportation issue. As a result, other families of Newcomers have sought help from the ELA Program.
When I interviewed Nadia Madan regarding Question 10, she mentioned that she didn't maintain a log of the actions related to the ELA Hotline, however, she indicated that she did have notes and that "a document trail was available." When I interviewed Hope Flores, I also asked if there was documentation related to the example she described above or any other examples. She noted that she maintains a Note Taker, which is an organizational tool that allows people to keep notes, documentation, etc. Note Takers, sometimes referred to as Note Catchers, come in different formats including Cornell Notes, which provides a template that students often use, as well as self-created ones that teachers often use. She does not maintain a Note Taker or documentation organizer for the ELA Hotline or other requests made by parents. I recommended that she begin to
139

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 148 of 228
document concerns or issues that parents raise through the Hotline, via emails, separate phone calls (outside of the Hotline), etc., through a Note Taker or other form of documenting. She agreed that it was a good idea.
Finally, I want to address briefly our conversation with Elizabeth Battle from the FACE Department. She works with the Family Constituency Services at FACE and they too receive calls from parents district-wide. Some of the calls they receive are from parents of ELs. Her Office maintains an actual log of calls referred to as the Incident Report Form and they receive and document calls, referrals, and email inquiries. The IM did not determine how many Incident Report Forms were logged during the report period. The IM only reviewed several Report Forms that were shared with him and that contained redacted information. The issues that were reflected on the forms were conflicts between students. The link that follows provides an example of the log referred to above. www.dropbox.com/sh/k3u3yth4jcpvd1z/AACud8bUDgcbvsqPVPLxB4IMa/Parent%20Concerns? dl=0&preview=20171218_Parent+Engagement+Screen+Shot.docx&subfolder_nav_tracking=1. FACE staff assign every call a Ticket Number for documenting and tracking purposes. On that log, they list what the issue or incident is that the call is about and a description of the solution they initiated. In her Office, they receive calls that range in topics or issues from housing, to social services, and to specific questions that are school-related such as parent concerns over conflicts between their child and a teacher. They do much of their work resolving conflicts between parents and schools and even mediate in certain situations. I verified through Bridget Galati in early 2018 and later through Hope Flores that FACE contacts them when they receive an ELA-related request. Both confirmed that this indeed
140

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 149 of 228
is the case. Also, Family Constituency Services holds group meetings with ELA Network Partners every few months. Chapter 9.IV.D Question 11: What is the status of the longitudinal study referred to in CD Chapter 9.IV.D?
In December of 2017, Dr. Nelson and I met with Mr. Robles and two staff persons from the Accountability, Research and Evaluation Department (ARE) in DPS who were leading the Longitudinal Study effort. In terms of our providing an update to the Court since concerns with the Longitudinal Study were expressed by the DOJ and CHE, we learned of several related longitudinal and descriptive studies that ARE has undertaken since 2012. The link to the documentation shared with us by the ARE staff and Jorge Robles is: www.dropbox.com/sh/k3u3yth4jcpvd1z/AABAX2Gb5lyy9gOkKPZe9qGQa/Longitudinal%20Study?dl=0& preview=2017LongitudinalStudyOverview12_6_17.pptx&subfolder_nav_tracking=1.
During our discussion, we learned seven longitudinal studies (since 2012) have been conducted in order to answer the following two research questions:
1. Are ELs overcoming language barriers within a reasonable period of time? 2. Are Exited and Redesignated ELs participating meaningfully and equally in
education programs? To answer research question number one above, five of the seven studies were undertaken. What follows is a description and summary of results for the five studies. Following that are a description and summary of results for two additional longitudinal studies that were designed to answer research question number 2.
141

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 150 of 228
Long Term EL Longitudinal Study (2016) The ARE Department examined data for 2,602 students who were continuously
enrolled Spanish speaking ELs at some point during a time period from 2007 through 2015. ARE Department researchers found that Bilingual programming is effective. More specifically, one finding is that for every year between kindergarten to fourth grade that a student receives bilingual instruction (Spanish and English), they are 23% more likely to be successful. Success was defined as students who become English proficient and reclassified by 8th grade, are proficient in literacy, or making expected progress toward language acquisition.
A second finding is that reading proficiency is critical to student success. The study determined that as early as kindergarten and third grade, the receptive levels of students predict whether they will be successful. Early Literacy Longitudinal Study (2017)
In this second study, ARE examined data from 2013-2016, for 5,828 continuously enrolled students in kindergarten through third grade or first through fourth grade. Findings from this longitudinal study again show that instruction in two languages is effective. For every year between kindergarten and third grade that a student receives bilingual instruction, they tend to score .04 performance bands higher on CMAS Literacy when compared to Spanish speaking ELs not receiving bilingual instruction. In addition, ARE found that Spanish speaking students who take Second Language Acquisition score
142

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 151 of 228
1.04 performance bands higher on the CMAS Literacy exam than if they take English language acquisition at the end of third grade.
ACCESS Trajectory Predictive Modeling (2017) Although ARE shared with us the results of one year of data (2017), they examined
20,421 students who were ELs with an ACCESS Trajectory Status (on or off-track). Again, they shared with us that their findings point to the effectiveness of bilingual programming. The study found that by the end of third grade, students who receive bilingual instruction (Spanish and English) in elementary grades are 68% more likely to be on-track and score 1.04 performance bands higher on CMAS Literacy than if they are only in English language acquisition classes. Second, students who receive bilingual instruction in middle school are 208% more likely to be On-track. ACCESS Trajectory
In this study, ARE examined four years of data through 2014 for students who had at least two years of data and were ELs with an ACCESS Trajectory Status, either on or offtrack. There were five findings that were shared with us. First, ELs are acquiring language and progressing through the Trajectory. Second, the DPS On-track rate increased to 65% in 2017. Third, students who receive ELA-S instruction are most likely to be On-track. Fourth, ELA programming has shown to have a positive effect on language acquisition. Finally, data revealed that there is a positive relationship between On-track status and CMAS Literacy scores. Students who are On-track are more likely to be proficient in CMAS than those who are Off-track. Redesignation Study (2017)
143

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 152 of 228
In this fifth longitudinal study, ARE examined data for all English language learners enrolled in DPS and redesignated in DPS over a 12 year period from 2005-2017. The major finding from this study is that English learners in DPS are in the ELA Program for an average of 5.8 years prior to redesignation.
The second research question that the district examined was whether Exited and Redesignated ELs participate meaningfully and equally in education programs. To address this research question, DPS through its ARE Department undertook two more studies. Following is a description of each of the two studies and a summary of results. TCAP and CMAS PARCC Study (2017)
The ARE Department examined data for DPS and State students’ performance on TCAP Reading, TCAP Writing, TCAP Math, CMAS English Language Arts, and CMAS Math over a 12-year period from 2005-2017. One stated outcome of this study was to determine the percentage of English learners (defined as students currently receiving ELA Program services, redesignated students, and exited students) meeting expectations on the CO English Language Arts Assessment.
Although ARE staff who met with us provided a number of examples of data they examined, there are the three major findings from this study. First, ELs in DPS performed lower than ELs in the rest of Colorado in Reading, Writing, and Math between 2005 and 2013. ELs in DPS were catching up with ELs in Colorado over this eight-year time period and in 2014 the district's ELs caught up to the state ELs and then surpassed them after 2014. The staff from ARE pointed out to us that, as a second finding, catching up to and eventually outperforming the state in CMAS displays the District's accomplishment in ensuring their ELs met academic standards and are able to participate meaningfully. A
144

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 153 of 228
third finding suggests that when looking at differences between ELs and non-ELs, both DPS and Colorado have decreased the gap between the percent of non-ELs meeting expectations on TCAP and CMAS from 2011 to 2017. SEAL of Biliteracy Study (2017)
The District examined nine years of student data for 12th graders in DPS who received the Seal of Biliteracy in 2017 and 2016. This study compared SEAL and Non-SEAL graduates in terms of assessments, Advanced Placement (AP), Concurrent Enrollment (CE), and college enrollment. In addition, ARE reviewed SEAL recipient and non-recipient performance on state assessments as third, fifth, and eighth graders. Although this is a descriptive study, ARE pointed out that 73% of students who received the SEAL of Biliteracy are redesignated or exited English learners. There were a number of findings from this study that are worth reporting:
 Students who received the SEAL had higher proficiency rates on CMAS ELA compared to students who did not receive the SEAL.
 Students receiving the SEAL had higher average ACT scores than students who did not receive the SEAL. SEAL recipients averaged 22 on the ACT composite.
 SEAL recipients outperformed their peers at eighth and third grade levels in both TCAP Reading and Writing.
 SEAL students take more AP and CE courses. 82% of SEAL students who took AP tests passed them.
 86% of SEAL graduates who enrolled the Fall semester after graduation attended four year colleges in 2017 and 71.8% of the class of 2016 did so as well.
145

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 154 of 228
 82% of SEAL of Biliteracy graduates who enrolled in college attended college in Colorado.
At the closure of a very informative meeting with the ARE Department staff, they shared with us several additional methodologies that they are considering to answer the two central research questions which I noted above. These methodologies being considered are in draft form and will merit a series of discussions with the parties to discuss them in more detail.
First, in order to determine if ELs in DPS are overcoming language barriers, a longitudinal cohort study is being considered that will answer three questions. First, how long does it take a DPS student to redesignate? Even though this question was answered in the Redesignation Study of 2017, ARE is asking this research question again in the proposed longitudinal cohort study. Second, what are the characteristics of students who redesignate? Third, what are the characteristics of students who are consistently on or offtrack?
Finally, ARE discussed the need for a longitudinal predictive analysis of high school grades in order to address whether ELs in DPS are participating meaningfully and equally in education programs. To accomplish this, ARE identified four questions that might anchor this study. First, how do redesignated or exited ELs compare with their non-EL peers on measures of student engagement? Second, what are the characteristics of ELs who exceed and fall below typical levels of engagement? Third, does time of redesignation relate to later educational success? Last, how does programming relate to later education success?
146

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 155 of 228
CHE offered some suggestions regarding ARE’s potential longitudinal predictive analysis of high school grades that the IM believes merits consideration: “A longitudinal study would need to look at all ELs, ever ELs, redesignated ELs, and long-term ELs and compare their content performance with never ELs and both state and district levels. While many students are ‘on track’ to meet the 5.8 year average time to redesignation, it appears that many are not and their performance must be included in the analysis.” School Based Spot Audit
As noted at the beginning of this section of the report, data and information were collected from different sources. The majority of the information presented up to this point was gathered from meetings, interviews, and document review at the DPS Central Office. As part of our spot audit of Chapter 9, we also collected information at school sites. The results of that effort follow below. Our school-based data collection regarding Chapter 9 was intended to contribute to our understanding of CD obligations under 9.II and 9.III.
The data we collected at the eight school sites are presented in Tables I, 2, and 3 which follow. Using a format consistent with one we followed in preparing Report 6, we cite the question tied to a CD requirement from Chapter 9 that we asked teams of respondents at each of the eight school sites, then present their responses in a corresponding table. After each table, we present a short summary of the data we collected.
During November 2017 when we conducted a spot audit of Chapter 1 of the CD, we identified three requirements from Chapter 9 that we felt we could pose to school leadership teams as well. The results of our information gathering is presented in more graphic fashion based on our interviews. After our Chapter 1 spot audit was completed at
147

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 156 of 228

each of the school sites, we informed the leadership teams that we were going to ask three

questions (8, 9, and 10) related to Chapter 9 (II and III) as part of our overall data collection

at that school. Following are the results of our data collection at the eight school sites.

Chapter 9.II

Question 8: Which of the following are used to measure ELL students' progress

toward DPS curricular goals?

Table 9.1

Measures of ELL Progress Toward DPS Curricular Goals Ongoing classroom assessment

Number of Schools
8

Percent 100

Teacher observations of student performance Student performance on interim and state assessments Other: Early Literacy Assessments

8

100

8

100

8

100

1

13

Ongoing conversation with teachers (based on monitoring of

2

25

MTSS tracker)

Student self-monitoring

2

25

Progress monitoring in English and Spanish using I-Station

2

25

Lucy Calkins writing curriculum

1

13

On our spot audit checklist, we listed three types of measures that the respondents could check-off to determine how progress toward District curricular goals were assessed. A fourth option that each school could check-off was Other, and in our on-site interviews, we discussed school specific responses with the teams that met with us. As Table 9.1 illustrates, at the eight schools we visited, all of them (100%) noted that they use ongoing
148

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 157 of 228
classroom assessments to determine progress. When we asked for examples, several school actually showed us records of the number of ongoing classroom assessments. One team in particular noted that as of that date in December, they had done nine formative and three interim classroom assessments with the goal that 100% of ELLs in the school would perform one performance band higher than the previous year. Additionally, eight of eight school teams (100%) indicated that they use teacher observation of student performance and student performance on interim and state assessments to also measure ELL students' progress toward the DPS curricular goals. Responses to these three categories of measures of ELL progress are consistent with what we have observed in classrooms at many schools over the past several years.
Where we saw variation in responses was on the item Other. For example, one school responded that they use Early Literacy Assessments (13%) to measure ELL students' progress and when pressed to show us examples, they pointed out on their data wall a Development Map for Student Reading Growth as evidence. Two schools (25%) responded that their schools have ongoing conversations between teachers to measure progress. Both schools noted in our interviews that they use the MTSS Tracker, which is a monitoring tool, to guide those conversations. Two schools (25%) noted that students do self-monitoring to actually track their own progress and one school elaborated that, as part of this self-monitoring, students graph their own progress and this becomes the basis for conversations between students and teachers. One assistant principal shared with us that "we believe that everything that is in a student's body of evidence is something for us to look at through a consistency lens," to determine progress toward meeting District goals.
149

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 158 of 228

Finally, two schools of the eight (25%) stated under Other that they do progress

monitoring in English and Spanish using I-Station. Last, one school's (13%) Instructional

Leadership Team cited the Lucy Calkins Writing Curriculum. Lucy Calkins is a highly

regarded literacy educator and her writing workshops have been adopted in classrooms

nationwide. In summary under Other, eight schools cited five different measures of ELL

progress for meeting DPS curricular goals with some measures such as student self-

monitoring being identified by more than one school.

Question 9: How are parents of ELLs provided information about their child's

performance in a language they understand?

Table 9.2

Ways that ELL parents receive information about child's performance in language they understand.

Number

Percent

Standards-based progress reports

8

100

Conferences with teachers

8

100

Results of district assessments

8

100

Other

8

100

Phone calls with parents

5

63

Text messages

1

13

Home visits by bilingual staff

2

25

Weekly planners (students write down work due and parents

2

25

sign)

Equity Committee meetings

1

13

Report cards

2

25

Formal conferences with parents (required by MTSS)

1

13

150

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 159 of 228

At PAC meetings, parents encouraged to ask questions

1

13

Regarding our inquiry at the eight schools about ways that parents receive information about their children's performance in a language that they understand, 100% of the schools reported that standards-based progress reports are one of several means. Without prompting, two of the schools mentioned that progress reports are shared with parents at ELA PAC meetings and interviewees at one of the two schools indicated that their ELA Partner does an excellent job of providing parents with as much information as possible about student progress. One of the schools mentioned that their progress reports are in both Spanish and English and two of the schools shared with us that standards-based progress reports go out to parents with online report cards and that teachers are frequently in contact with parents through phone calls and parents stopping by the school to talk.
All eight schools (100%) cited parent conferences with teachers as being another way that they share information about student progress with parents. Two schools noted that interpreters are present when parent-teacher conferences are scheduled if needed. One of these two schools elaborated that the principal requested an interpreter for Portuguese speaking parents on several occasions to discuss student progress. Another school mentioned that CMAS scores are discussed with parents at one of the scheduled ELA PAC meetings. At one of the schools we visited, a parent-teacher conference was actually taking place and we were able to sit in the meeting for a few minutes. After reviewing a first draft of this report, DPS pointed out that these responses were provided to an openended rather than a selected response (or multiple choice) interview item, and that more
151

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 160 of 228
than two schools likely would have stated they used interpreters had that choice been provided to them. Our experience has been that school staff or teachers who are bilingual often interpret for parents, and when they are not available interpreters from DPS are made available.
The third item that interviewees at all eight schools (100%) responded to affirmatively as a way of sharing progress-related information with parents was results of DPS assessments. As we discussed this further at the eight schools, two principals apprised us that results of district assessments go out to parents with a letter explaining those results both in Spanish and English. A third school specified that "CMAS and PARCC results in English and Spanish are shared with every parent in writing." Finally, one school mentioned to us that Friday Folders are sent home with students and there is always an invitation extended to parents in Spanish and English to stop by the school at any time to speak with the student's teacher about their progress.
When we asked the eight schools if there were any other ways that ELL parents receive information about student progress, we received a variety of responses. Notably, some schools listed more than one way that parents of ELLs receive information about their children's performance in a language they understand. Five of the eight schools (63%) identified phone calls with parents as a frequent means of communicating while one school (13%) cited text messages as a frequent form of communication. Two schools (25%) responded that they use home visits as ways to communicate with ELL parents. Two schools (25%) noted that they used weekly planners where students identify work that is due and then parents are required to sign them. Two schools (25%) also specifically mentioned that report cards are an effective way to communicate student progress.
152

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 161 of 228

13% of schools made very specific references to meetings as a means of

communicating with parents. One school identified their Equity Committee Meeting as a

vehicle for communicating, a second school made reference to more formal meetings with

parents that are required by MTSS, and a third school mentioned that their ELA PAC

meetings are one of the most effective ways that they've found to communicate directly

with ELL parents.

In summary, the eight schools identified 15 Other ways that parents of ELLs receive

information about their children's performance since some of the eight schools listed more

than one way. Schools were not limited to the number of ways under Other that they could

identify.

Chapter 9.III

Question 10: If parents question whether their child is being served as required by

the CD, what does the school do?

Table 9.3

What school does if parents question whether their child is being served per CD requirement.
Principal would address any concern

Number 3

Percent 38

School would schedule meeting with principal and parents

1

13

and review concerns

Talk to family, involves ILT and, seek support from ELA Partner if necessary

1

13

Other

3

38

If it ever happened, follow protocol that the district outlines

1

13

Open door policy is in effect and parents always urged to

1

13

express concerns

153

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 162 of 228

Staff advocates for students and families to ensure the child

1

13

is served as required by CD

Principals at five of the eight schools we visited qualified their response to Question 10 by offering that they did not know of one single instance where parents of ELs had ever posed questions regarding their children being served by the CD. Due to time limitations, the IM did not verify that parents at these schools knew of the CD and what it entailed for their students. Principals at those five schools then described what they would do if asked the question by parents. Three different responses were provided by interviewees at these five schools. At 38% (3) of the schools, the response to our question was that the principal would address any concerns regarding the CD that a parent might bring to them. One interviewee (13%) stated that the school would schedule a meeting with the parents in her role as principal and review their concerns. Another school team (13%) shared that if this were to occur, the school would talk to the family, involve the Instructional Leadership Team (ILT), and seek support from their ELA Network Partner.
Other responses that we received from three of the eight schools included one response (13%) where we were informed that if this were to ever occur, they would follow the protocol that the district outlines. When we probed as to what that protocol was, the response was that the school would contact the ELA Program and seek their guidance. At one other school (13%), the principal asserted that her school has an open door policy and parents are constantly urged to express any concern they have to school personnel. Finally, at one of the eight schools (13%), the principal noted that her staff advocates for EL students and their families to ensure that their children are served as required by the CD.

154

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 163 of 228
We should note that we received many comments from Principals and Assistant Principals regarding question 10. At the school where the response was that staff advocate for students and families, the principal went on to say that, "(the high school’s) students understand the Consent Decree because we have shared it with them and have made specific connections between what happens in the classroom and the Decree." Another principal stated very assertively that, "We believe in the CD. We have a fundamental belief at this school that best practices are in-place for ELs. " She went on to stress that, "We communicate to parents that we want our students to become bilingual, bicultural, and biliterate.” Finally, one of the eight principals informed us that "the school has never been asked this before, but if the question were surfaced by parents of students at Northfield, the school would schedule a meeting with her for the family to meet and discuss their concerns." She went on to say that, "The school would review the concerns and determine what appropriate strategies and/or scheduling practices need to be implemented to better support the students, in collaboration with all teachers, to ensure that strategies are being implemented both inside and outside the classroom."
Summary We collected data based on our Chapter 9 Spot Audit Checklist at 10 school sites and at the DPS Central Office as well. We utilized a combination of data gathering activities including interviews with on-site school personnel, ELA Program staff, and District staff; document reviews; and meetings where information was presented by District staff from departments outside of the ELA Program. We devoted several monthly site visits to our effort to gain a better understanding of DPS' progress in meeting the requirements of Chapter 9.
155

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 164 of 228
Our findings suggest that DPS has made a great deal of progress in meeting its obligations as required in this chapter. First, the District has made major strides from just three years ago to the present in identifying, reviewing, and adopting core content instructional materials in English and Spanish that align with the Common Core State Standards. In achieving this goal, the collaboration between the Department of Curriculum and Instruction and the ELA Program is notable. Spanish language supplemental resources are now more available to schools, site based budgeting at school sites allows for easier access and purchase of supplemental materials, and the C&I Department has expanded its use of digital print and resources to supplement core content instructional materials used in the ELA Program.
Second, our review of data and multiple observations of Teacher Qualifications courses show DPS is doing an excellent job of providing content that is both strategic, research based, and applicable for teachers enrolled in the TQ coursework. The ELA Program has followed and implemented the majority of recommendations made by the DOJ consultant in this area and the quality of instruction that we viewed during our observations was high. Equally important however, the TQ program evaluation criteria is clear, concise, and being utilized not only to meet program requirements but also to inform the ELA Department on ways to improve and enhance the quality of courses and the applicability of the content delivered.
We were impressed with the direction the District has taken in assuring that they monitor every school's compliance with CD requirements covered by the Program Review and that we spot-audited during the time period covered by this report. To this end, the ELA Strategic Management System now requires the review of every school's ELA Program
156

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 165 of 228
every year. It is the outcome of these reviews that leads to the creation, and any future modification, of an ELA Service Plan. It is this service plan that guides the efforts of the ELA Network Partner at each school. Moreover, the implementation of these service plans is now tied, in part, to the evaluation of administrators at every school. When schools are found to be non-compliant with CD requirements across three domains, these issues are identified at the end of each school year and corrective plans put into place. Critical supports to meet these deficiencies are developed by the ELA Network Partner, the IS, and a school's leader and they become the key element of the ongoing ELA Service System cycle for the following year. This new system of CD compliance monitoring has evolved over the past several years and has qualitative and quantitative qualities that are important and essential to better implementation of the CD obligations by the District.
Additionally, and related to monitoring, DPS is currently implementing an ELA Support System which includes a monitoring plan that uses five key progress monitoring practices. As a result of the implementation of this ELA Support System, a number of changes are now either being pilot tested or implemented by DPS to determine their efficacy in meeting ELA student needs. These include; Project Esperanza, a Co-Teaching and Rigor ELD pilot, improved Gifted and Talented student identification practices, and Data Driven Instructional Protocol and Student Learning Objectives initiatives to improve teacher instructional practices for ELs.
A fifth area that we examined has to do with the District's handling of parent concerns. Although our review of this area was limited by time, we didn't see or hear of parents expressing specific concerns about ELA Program implementation. Most respondents were clear on the actions they would take if these type of concerns were
157

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 166 of 228
expressed by parents and how individual schools would go about resolving such issues. The District does have in place, however, a hotline for parents where they can leave phone messages with questions and concerns and the ELA Department actively monitors that hotline. We did discover that the ELA Department could do a better job of tracking the numbers and types of concerns or questions it does receive on that hotline. We proposed this as a suggestion to the person charged with monitoring the hotline and she agreed that it was a good idea to maintain better documentation. One significant problem solving situation was provided to us that involved a refugee student and his mother's desire to have him transfer to another school. From our understanding of this concern, the ELA Department went above and beyond their role in helping this student and his parent and included identifying a Community Navigator who helped the family and the District resolve the issue expressed.
Last, the District through its ARE Department continues to engage actively in addressing the requirement of completing a Longitudinal Study referred to in Chapter 9. Director Jorge Robles worked very closely with staff and researchers at the ARE Department to expand the previous Longitudinal Study effort into a model that includes additional pilot studies and smaller yet related longitudinal studies. These changes and modifications are now driven by two key research questions:
1. Are ELs overcoming language barriers within a reasonable period of time? 2. Are Exited and Redesignated ELs participating meaningfully and equally in
education programs? In addressing the first research question, ARE has undertaken five studies. Perhaps the most noteworthy of these five studies is the one dealing with ACCESS Trajectory. We
158

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 167 of 228
learned that based on ARE's findings, ELs are acquiring language and progressing through the Trajectory. Second, the DPS On-track rate increased to 65% in 2017. Third, students who receive ELA-S instruction are most likely to be On-track. Fourth, ELA programming has shown to have a positive effect on language acquisition. Finally, data revealed that there is a positive relationship between On-track status and CMAS Literacy.
Two additional studies are being conducted to address the second research question. Those two studies are the TCAP and CMAS PARCC Study and the SEAL of Biliteracy Study. The results of the TCAP and CMAS PARCC Study revealed some interesting and positive results based the findings shared with us. First, ELs in DPS performed lower than ELs in the rest of Colorado in Reading, Writing, and Math between 2005 and 2013. ELs in DPS were catching up with ELs in Colorado over this eight-year time period, and in 2014 the district's ELs caught up to the state ELs and then surpassed them after 2014. The staff from ARE pointed out to us that, as a second finding, catching up to and eventually outperforming the state in CMAS displays the District's accomplishment in ensuring their ELs met academic standards and are able to participate meaningfully. A third finding suggests that when looking at differences between ELs and Non ELs, both DPS and Colorado have decreased the gap between the percent of non ELs meeting expectations on TCAP and CMAS from 2011 to 2017.
As noted throughout this section of our report, Chapter 9 was one of the most challenging chapters to spot audit that we have encountered. Based on our findings including the evidence presented in this section of our report, we suggest that the DPS is meeting the requirements of Chapter 9 of the CD. As we have also noted in other places in this report, our findings regarding CD Chapter 9 are based on the sections of that chapter
159

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 168 of 228 for which we were able to collect data and could be verified through the collection of additional direct evidence that the systems and services described to us during interviews are being implemented as required by the CD.
160

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 169 of 228
CHAPTER 10: DURATION OF CONSENT DECREE, ENFORCEMENT, AND REMEDIES FOR NONCOMPLIANCE
Method During the week of March 3-5, 2018, we conducted the last of our spot audits for the timeframe covered by this report. The primary focus of our site visit was to complete a spot audit of Chapter 10, the final chapter of the Consent Decree. In preparing for the spot audit, we reviewed the obligations of the District under Chapter 10 and we chose to concentrate our efforts on gathering information, conducting interviews, and reviewing documentation related to requirements 10.D, 10.E and, 10.F. Rather than create a spot audit checklist as we've done previously, we instead crafted four questions related to these three requirements and used them to guide our discussions and information gathering. More specifically, we posed the following four questions to the District: 1. Describe how DPS has addressed Chapter 10.D., the requirement that the District
make reasonable efforts to preserve electronic and hard copies of information and data related to its compliance with the CD. 2. How has DPS's data management system related to the CD evolved since 2012? 3. What challenges has DPS faced in complying with 10.D and how have those challenges been met? 4. What site visits to the District has DPS hosted since 2012 as referred to in Chapter 10.E and 10.F? In addition to the four questions above, we also identified nine questions that entailed possible issues for follow-up by Dr. Nelson when he assumes the IM role. These
161

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 170 of 228
questions are ones we aggregated from numerous site visits over the past several years. The questions are related to various CD requirements and deal with issues such as ELAPACs, follow-up progress to Chapter 7 concerns, status of the Small TNLI schools model, the School Performance Framework (SPF), and others. The purpose of identifying these nine questions is two-fold. First, these questions are related to the obligations of DPS under the CD, and Dr. Nelson and I had interest in getting updates from the district on how each question was being addressed. Second, these are questions that could help define the role of the IM in coming months. Although we do not provide updates to these questions in this report with the exception of one, The Six Concerns section, they are listed in Appendix F which follows.
Finally, we did not make any school visits during the March 2018 site visit. Our information gathering all took place at the DPS Central Office. Members of CHE were invited to join us for all of the sessions over the three-day period that we were there and several of them did. We also held a meeting with CHE members after our last session on Wednesday afternoon, March 5th.
Following is the information we gathered over the site visit. Table 10.D.1 is correlated to question 1. Table 10.D.2 relates to questions 2 and 3, and Table 10.D. 3 and 10.D. 4 refer to question 4. After each table, a discussion follows. Due to the amount of information in the first two tables, they are provided in landscape format.
162

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 171 of 228

Table 10.D.1

Preserving Electronic and Hard Copies of Data and Information

CD Chapter Ch. 1

Description
Information on what the school program is, the number of students at the school and if the students are receiving the appropriate instruction.

Ch. 2

Information the ISA Team uses to make recommendations to the ELA Department consistent with this MCD, supported by objective evidence, regarding Program entry, redesignation, and or reentry, and change(s) in services. *Includes student monitoring (Ch.3), Redesignation and Exiting (Ch. 4), ISA Training (Ch. 5)

Report/Data Point
School Program and the number of students
Service Percentage Students scheduled in ELD Students not scheduled in ELD Missing HLQ and PPF Life cycles of an ELL (LCE) evidence related to identification, monitoring, or redesignation

'12 - '13 '13 - '14 '14 - '15 '15 - '16 '16 - '17 '17 - '18

This is reported in CD report 9VA2 in January and July each

year from data collected and maintained in the ODS by the

District's Department of Technology Services. The report is

also validated by the Accountability, Research and Evaluation

(ARE) team.

Monitored but the data was Report Report saved in

not archived

saved in share drive and is

share archived weekly.

drive Emails sent in

response to

reports are

maintained in

Outlook.

Archives of actual Bodies of Body of Evidence and data

Evidence such as writing

relating to ELL stages are in

samples may be stored at

Infinite Campus (IC), for

schools

example a student's ACCESS

scores, assessment data and

Schoolnet archives who

grades

completed ISA team training

The online Moodle archives

ELAWeb App archived who

who completed training

was on the ISA team

Redesignation triggers are saved in the share drive

State assessment results are saved in Infinite Campus (IC)

163

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 172 of 228

CD

Description

Chapter

Ch. 3 Student screening and placement

Ch. 5

Information on the Personnel and Training to serve ELLs

Report/Data Point
HLQ and PPF
WAPT
Translation / Interpretation
Teacher Qualifications and Training Courses
Teacher Waivers LEAP Results
End of year LEAD evaluations
Hiring Spanish Speaking Counselor Notification

'12 - '13 '13 - '14 '14 - '15 '15 - '16 '16 - '17 '17 - '18

Data are archived in infinite Campus (IC)

Actual HLQ and PPF forms are archived in various locations and

are accessible to ELA at any time (including PPF3 forms).

Past versions of videos or brochures are archived by the ELA

department.

Results are in Infinite Campus (IC) and item level details are in

Oasis

Reported in 9VC21 and repository of essential documents is

located online at:

https:multicultural.dpsk12.org/Pages/mdr.aspx

ELAWEB App for teachers who take District Teacher

Qualification classes. Status of teachers with appropriate

Master's Degrees or state certification is recorded in District

Human Resource Information System called Infor GHR where

most employees file information is maintained.

N/A

Saved in ELA Share Drive

Pilot

Info GHR has results maintained for each teacher

year

SSRS Data Reports-LEAP team accesses data to

analyze

Info HR - individual forms on the employee record under talent

profile

DPS Data Mart - Individual ratings to be able to pull together

into a report

N/A

Recruiting Metrics Report

The ELA Department has the archived letters and list of

students

164

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 173 of 228

CD

Description

Chapter

Ch. 6 Information on Parent Engagement

Ch. 7 Ch. 8

Information on considerations related to Special Education/504 and services for ELLs Information on Charter Schools

Ch. 9 Reports to the parties

Report/Data Point
PAC at every school
DACs Annual IEP Annual 504 Plans
Renewals ART Process ESS for Charters Ch. 9 CD Reports ESS

'12 - '13 '13 - '14 '14 - '15 '15 - '16 '16 - '17 '17 - '18

Reported in 9VC22 for top 40 schools only
Archived in share drive July 9VC20 Archived in Enrich Hard copies archived with 504 team

Reported in July 9VC22 and school detail is archived in share drive
Enrich

Archived on the DPS Board Docs for public viewing

Archived on the DPS Board Docs for public viewing

Archived in google drive

Archived in share drive (January, July, March and September)

Reported in July 9VC22 on select schools Reported in July

(generally 30-40 a year)

9VC22 and school

Also archived in the ELA Web App

detail is archived

in share drive

165

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 174 of 228
Discussion Question 1: Describe how DPS has addressed Chapter 10.D., the requirement that the District make reasonable efforts to preserve electronic and hard copies of information and data related to its compliance with the CD.
Prior to our March 2018 site visit, we posed this question to the District. Further, we asked for this to be a specific agenda item to discuss during the visit and urged the ELA Department to provide us any relevant documentation to support the fact that DPS was making a reasonable effort to preserve hard copy and electronic records of information and asked that they discuss this with us during the visit. The DPS provided us with a threepage document that constitutes Table 10.D.1. In reviewing this table while preparing Report 7, we made the decision to leave the table as it was presented to us because the information was organized by CD chapters, identified key data points, and provides reference to supporting evidence over a six- year period beginning with the 2012-2013 school year through the 2017-2018 school year. Much of the data summarized in Table 10.D.1 is from the IC, to which the parties have access. Access by the parties to additional databases could be further discussed with the District (the IM has seen most of the underlying databases for the information in the table).
The critical information that is described under Chapter 1 of the CD in terms of information and data preservation is what gets reported in Report 9VA2 to the parties in January and July of each year. Specifically, we refer to information on the school programs, number of students and the appropriateness of the instruction they receive. The key data points are total number of students, service percentage of students scheduled and not scheduled in ELD, and missing HLQ and PPF information. The school program and number
166

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 175 of 228
of students is found in the 9VA2 Reports which I reviewed dating back to the 2013-14 school year when I was appointed as the IM. Unfortunately, data related to students who received ELD and those who didn't from 2012-13 through the end of the 2014-15 school year was not archived. This has been a major source of contention for both CHE and the DOJ who have criticized DPS for not archiving these data. Beginning during the 2015-16 school year, the service percentage data and information relative to missing HLQs and PPFs was saved in a district share drive. With the full implementation of the ELA Department's automated system, this critical information on service percentage and ELD enrollment is presently saved in the share drive and has been archived weekly since October 24, 2016. We have seen evidence of this on multiple occasions through discussions with and demonstrations by ELA Program Quality Assurance staff.
Chapter 2 of the CD is related to the ISA Teams and has implications for program entry, resdesignation, and exit or reentry, as well as changes to services. These data points serve as the nucleus of what the ELA Program refers to as the Life Cycle of an ELL, and the district now collects information relative to identification of ELLS, the monitoring of these students, and redesignation information. From 2012-13 through 2013-14, information regarding those data points was archived in multiple ways. Two data management systems, Schoolnet and ELAWeb Application were the data bases where ISA Team training information was maintained and identified who served on ISA Teams at schools. Actual bodies of evidence including writing samples of students were archived and stored at some school sites and even in the district's data warehouse. Beginning in 2015-16 and with the full implementation of the ELA automated system, student bodies of evidence are stored in Infinite Campus, as are ACCESS scores and other assessment data. We reported on this in
167

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 176 of 228
Report 6 when we spot audited ISA Teams. All ISA Team members now undertake their required ISA Team training every year through an online Moodle which is structured to archive information related to all persons who complete the ISA training.
CD Chapter 3 information, which is tied to the screening and placement of students, is stored in several places. DPS uses and reports on three major data points. One of those is data related to the HLQ and PPFs of students. A second data point is the WAPT and a third is translation and interpretation services provided for students and families. The HLQ and PPF data are archived in Infinite Campus and the actual PPF and HLQ forms are archived in various locations. We saw evidence of the data archived in IC. The DPS currently administers the WAPT and the results are in IC and also in the data management system called Oasis which ARE uses. Colorado is shifting away from the WAPT beginning in fall 2018 and adopting the WIDA Screener as part of the process of ELL identification, and those data will also be maintained in IC and Oasis. Information regarding translation and interpretation services is reported to the parties in Report 9VC21 and located online at a repository of essential documents. The hyperlink which follows contains examples of the material in the repository and can be accessed at:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0kf9x16klgxfwuj/MulticulturalServicesRepository.docx?dl=0
We were able to review HLQ, PPF, WAPT, and translation information on IC and the web link provided. We did not ask the ARE Office to show us first-hand archiving of WAPT scores on their Oasis system, but know from previous interviews with School Assessment Leaders that they submit WAPT scores to ARE, which reports on item-level details.
Information on the Personnel and Training to serve ELs is the core of CD Chapter 5. There is a substantial amount of information generated from various reports and data
168

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 177 of 228
points that comprise this chapter. Table 10.D.1. identifies six of those data points, including teacher qualifications and the training courses that cover the requirements that teachers must meet, teacher waivers, LEAP results, LEAD evaluations which occur at the end of each school year, hiring of personnel, and Spanish speaking counselor notification. We learned that one system that is central for maintenance of personnel records is found in the DPS Human Resources Office and is called Infor GHR. It is in this information system that most DPS employee files are maintained. The ELAWeb Applicaton or App for teachers who take the qualifications classes, teachers who have appropriate Master's degrees or state certification is all recorded in the Infor GHR system. Teacher qualification and courserelated information for those personnel who serve ELs has been collected since the 20122013 school year. Information regarding teacher waivers, also part of CD Chapter 5, has been saved in the ELA Share Drive since the 2013-2014 school year.
The DPS uses two major evaluation systems to assess the growth and performance of district teachers and school leaders. The teacher system is called Leading Effective Academic Practice (LEAP) and measures growth and performance of all teachers in the district. Similarly, the Leadership Excellence and Development (LEAD) structure measures growth and performance of school leaders by rating them on several indicators tied to student growth and professional practice. LEAP results are a central data point of CD Chapter 5 and information for each teacher in the district beginning with the 2013-2014 school year through the present is maintained in the Infor GHR system maintained by the Human Resources Department. The LEAD system for measuring the growth and performance of school leaders has been scrutinized by the parties over the past five years. Information regarding school leaders’ growth and performance that comes from LEAD
169

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 178 of 228
evaluations goes directly to the ELA Department in preparation for the January and July reports that get submitted to the parties. The HR and LEAD Program persons who met with Dr. Nelson and I discussed the maintenance of evaluations in the Infor GHR system and showed us where in their system the employee records are maintained. The DPScreated Data Warehouse that I referenced earlier has a system called the Data Mart where ratings of school leaders are stored and these data can be retrieved for various reports. LEAD data for school leaders has been collected and maintained within DPS for the past six years.
The Human Resources Department representatives who met with us discussed in detail the hiring processes the district undertakes to meet personnel needs. The hiring of teachers, leaders, and other personnel who serve English learners has been discussed numerous times over the past five years in other meetings and presentations as well. The entire human resources effort in DPS is large, complex, and involves numerous persons, departments and teams. The CD makes it clear that the district must make all efforts to recruit and hire personnel who serve ELs and we gathered from the documents that they provided us, in discussions with recruiters, and conversations with DPS leadership that district continues to explore ways to meet this requirement. As part of its effort to address CD Chapter 5 requirements, the HR Department has created what they call the Recruiting Metrics Report which contains much of the critical information related to hiring of personnel. This Report contains information dating back to the 2013-2014 school year.
A final data point specified in CD Chapter 5 is the Spanish speaking counselor notification. More specifically, the CD requires the district to provide parents of ELs in TNLI schools with written notification of the availability of Spanish speaking counselors at
170

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 179 of 228
their child's school or administrators who are Spanish speaking and fulfilling this obligation. The ELA Department maintains an archive of the list of students affected by this requirement and the letters of notification that are sent to parents. The ELA Department provided us with access to these archived letters.
Table 10.D. 2 and the discussion which follows addresses questions 2 and 3. Question 2 is: How has the DPS's data management system related to the CD evolved since 2012? Question 3 asks: What challenges has DPS faced in complying with 10.D. and how have those challenges been addressed? During our March site visit, the ELA Department prepared a document that addressed these two questions. Since we felt that the document did a good job of providing us with answers to these two questions, we duplicated it and present the information in Table 10.D.2.
We spent the entire day on March 5th discussing all four questions that we posed. During our discussion, the ELA Department provided us with a number of supporting documents or showed us on their computers where supporting data was stored, maintained, or archived that we could see. Many of those data bases are ones we don't have access to. For example, the Principal Portal and Infinite Campus are examples of databases that we rely on ELA Program staff to provide us access to through their work computers.
One of the greatest challenges that the DPS has faced during the past five years is the management of an enormous body of data. An equally challenging subset of the larger district data issues is the creation and maintenance of a data management system related to the CD that the ELA Program oversees. In 2012, such a system didn't exist and the only solution was to create one. This required not only a substantial amount of fiscal resources,
171

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 180 of 228
its success was incumbent on designing it, making it operational, training staff not only in the ELA Program but even teachers and support staff on using it, and interfacing it with the larger district databases. The maintenance of this system required a very high level of interaction between computer programmers, information technology specialists, ELA Program staff, other DPS offices and programs such as ARE, and end users such as ISA Team members who upload bodies of evidence of students into the system at the local school level.
The Denver Public Schools has over 93,000 students enrolled with nearly 35,000 of them being identified as English Learners. These students can be found in 208 schools from Early Childhood Education through high school. Data for these students is stored in multiple databases across the district. Information for the teachers and leaders of these students can also be found in multiple databases including those maintained by the District's HR Office. Within the ELA Department, the major responsibilities for overseeing the operation of the ELA data management system lie with Elena Sodano, Director of ELA Strategic Planning and Accountability, and multiple key staff persons who support program quality assurance, the CD and Seal of Biliteracy, the ELA Portfolio, and program monitoring.
In the section which follows, we report on specific ways in which the new data management system related to the CD has evolved over the past six years. I have watched the evolution over five of those years from days where data was recorded with pencil and paper and stored in warehouses across Denver. I have interviewed teachers and staff who've struggled during year one of the data management system implementation, observed as those frustrations were expressed, and witnessed the DPS improve them. It is
172

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 181 of 228
not a perfect management system but superior to what existed in 2013. The district should take pride in what it has created.
Within Table 10.D.2, the District identified seven topical areas that are part of the new data management system that the ELA Department assisted in helping develop and now implements fully. These seven topics include:
 The Life Cycle of an ELA Student (LCE)  The English Language Development (ELD) Report  Service Percentage  Information related to PPF3 students  Teacher Waivers  CD Chapter 9 Reports (submitted to the parties in January and July of each year),
and  ELA Service System (ESS) Further, each of the seven topical areas noted above is listed and then a side-by-side comparison of what was present in 2012 compared to the present is presented in Table 10.D.2 which follows. The seven topics that the ELA Program identified are ones we have examined and reported on during previous spot audits and reports.
173

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 182 of 228

Table 10.D.2

Evolution of DPS Data Management System since 2012/Challenges Faced in Complying

with 10.D and How DPS Addressed Them

Topic

2012

LCE
ELD Service Percentage

 Forms were generated by the ELA department and sent to schools via interoffice mail
 Forms were returned to the ELA department via interoffice mail
 No clear windows for monitoring or redesignating
 Hardbook and centralized training for ISA teams
Challenges  Interoffice mail was slow and unreliable  Everything was manually generated, processed and entered  Safe centralized storage space
 Not reported on Challenges
 Identify and electronically tagging courses properly as ELD
 Having consistent codes for ELD courses
 Clarity in what exactly was ELD curriculum
 Reported as ELL list that included Service Percentage
 ELL lists were downloaded and emailed to ISA teams monthly
 Provided Principal and ISA team access in summer of 2012
Challenges

Present
 Began automated LCE system in '15-'16 SY via Infinite Campus (IC)
 All Body of Evidence info and transactions are archived in Infinite Campus (IC)
 ISA teams use the Infinite Campus (IC) system to trigger all actions
 ISA Specialist support, guidance, training
 Began reporting in the '15-'16 school year
 Currently archived weekly  Available adhoc and analyzed
by ELA and school staff  Metric is a Key Performance
Indicator (KPI) in Principal Portal
 ELL lists that include Service Percentage are available adhoc
 Service Percentage is available in the School Scorecard Brief
 Metric is a KPI in Principal Portal

174

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 183 of 228

 Lists were not available to schools unless requested through the ELA department

Topic PPF3
Teacher Waivers

2012
 Were processed at schools Challenges
 Process was not standardized  PPF3 process allowed for
parents to make uninformed decisions about program selection  The process was being developed during the '12-'13 school year

Ch. 9 Reports
ESS

 Reported Challenges
 Report had to be generated manually
 Data points were not standardized
 Select schools (30-40 schools) reviewed '12-'13 to '14-'15
Challenges  Didn't have the capacity to review more than 40 schools  Review was not connected to any other District accountability systems  Review process only reflected one snapshot in time rather than the holistic picture

Present
 Began central processing in the '13-'14 school year
 Available adhoc and reviewed/approved by ELA when needed
 Began processing waivers for the '13-'14 school year
 Subsequent adjustments have been made each year
 Automated and updated data for Student and Teacher Data reports in the '13-'14 school year
 Reports are now available adhoc  All data points are now captured
in the ELA Scorecard Brief  Began in the '15-'16 school year  Reflects ongoing work in the
schools and includes student outcomes  Using ELA partners we can review all schools every year  ESS is now connected to LEAD and strategic schools planning processes

Discussion Question 2: How has the DPS Data Management System evolved since 2012?

175

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 184 of 228
The parties along with the IM have seen the evolution of the DPS's current data management system since at least 2013. Table 10.D.2 reflects the processes and systems for collecting and maintaining essential ELA Program information and data across seven topical areas during 2012 and comparing and contrasting that information with the system currently in place. The differences reflected over a six-year period are significant. As expressed multiple times in this report and previous ones, the District's system for managing ELA Program data has gone from a pencil and paper one that had limited uses to a much more comprehensive electronic system that has far more capability. The current electronic data management system, which was pilot tested in 2014 and implemented during the 2015-16 school year, has been modified and improved based on feedback from teachers, school leaders, and even ELA Program staff.
Table 10.D.2 clearly shows the limitations of the District's data management efforts dating all the way back to 2012. More important, the column labeled Present clearly demonstrates, by contrast, the capacity of the current electronic data management system and how many of the challenges identified as far back as 2012 have been addressed in the current system. As one of numerous examples of how the current system evolved, I can still recall early in my tenure as IM that something as essential as an ELL List for a school was not available unless requested from the ELA Department. The current data management system allows for immediate access to current lists of ELs at any school, Service Percentage data current through that day, and availability of these data on the recently developed School Scorecard Brief. Numerous other examples of essential information that is now available in the electronic data management system are reflected in this table as well.
176

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 185 of 228
Discussion Question 3: What challenges has DPS faced complying with 10.D and how were they addressed?
As the IM over the past five years, I've seen first-hand or heard of numerous challenges that DPS encountered over the past six years in meeting its obligations under the CD. With regard to Chapter 10 of the CD, the ELA Department identified challenges in seven specific areas. Table 10.D.2 above lists what DPS considers as significant challenges dating all the way back to the 2012-2013 school year and how those same challenges have been addressed.
The first topic identified in Table 10.D.2 is the Lifecycle of an English learner (LCE). The LCE represents each phase that an EL in DPS goes through on their way to achieving proficiency in English. The parties are all familiar with the pencil and paper record keeping system that was in place during 2012-2013 and the many shortcomings and inconsistencies with a non-electronic information system. The ELA Department used interoffice mail to send forms to schools and if completed, they were then returned to the ELA Department through that same mail system. The challenges indeed were many. We've learned over time that the interoffice mail system was quite slow and unreliable. Both at the school level and ELA Program Offices, persons were designated to manually process and enter all CD-required information and the District then faced the challenge of storing volumes of paper in a secure and centralized space. Additionally, there were no clear windows for monitoring and redesignating students and this was both confusing and created suspicions among the DOJ and CHE. Another challenge was that training for ISA
177

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 186 of 228
Teams was often scheduled in multiple locations and the ISA Handbook was a work-inprogress.
Presently, the challenges cited above have been addressed in a way that is both automated and systemic. After several years of design, implementation, and refinement, the automated LCE system was fully implemented via Infinite Campus in 2015-2016. From the IM perspective, we have seen the system implemented at both ends; the school sites and in the ELA Program Office. Additionally, ELA Program staff have been trained on the automated system and network partners with ISA Team responsibilities are now in place. No longer are students’ bodies of evidence copied and submitted via interoffice mail. All Body-of-Evidence- related information is uploaded at the school site, submitted to the ELA Department, and archived in Infinite Campus. ISA teams are now trained on an online Moodle and they used the IC system to trigger all actions including monitoring and redesignation during the designated windows or timeframes identified each school year.
A second topic identified by the District that was full of challenges was what is now referred to as the ELD Report. We have learned over the past several years that much to the chagrin of CHE and the DOJ, information related to ELD was not reported on in the 2012-2013 school year. The major challenges were many. There was a curriculum in place that was identified as the ELD curriculum but left much to be desired. There was even disagreement among teachers and leaders about the validity of the existent ELD curriculum dating back to the first New Teachers Institute that I attended in 2013. Additional challenges included the lack of proper methods for identifying and tagging ELD courses. Related to this challenge, the District lacked consistent codes for ELD courses, which hampered accurate data gathering and reporting as required in the CD. DPS has made huge
178

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 187 of 228
strides in addressing many of these challenges. One key response was the creation of the ELD Report during the 2015-2016 school year, a document at every school that we have used to guide our information gathering efforts for Reports 6 and 7. Information related to ELD is archived weekly by the ELA Program. This has been one of the most significant achievements of the past five years. Additionally, not only is there a report in place but the data contained in the ELD Report are analyzed by ELA staff and others across the district on a regular and consistent basis. ELD courses are now coded accurately and tagged properly as part of the system. The District has taken huge strides in selecting more appropriate ELD curriculums and offering individual school sites some flexibility in selection of a curriculum for each school site. ELD is now part of the metric in assessing Key Performance Indicators for school leaders as part of the Principal Portal. One competency that principals are evaluated on for example, is how well they build, develop, and empower a school's Instructional Leadership Team. There are a series of indicators that principals must demonstrate in order to meet this competency. Among these indicators are Equity in Instruction, Instructional Excellence, Rigorous and Relevant Curricula, and Use of Student Data. The district currently examines to what extent ELD is implemented across these four indicators as part of the evaluation of school leaders. This is obviously a significant change from 2012-2013 when the ELD requirement was not even reported on.
A third topic that contained several challenges for DPS in order to comply with their obligations under CD Chapter 10.D was data related to Service Percentage. Service Percentage refers to the percent of ELs who are properly identified and placed in classrooms with teachers who have the requisite language skills and meet the teacher
179

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 188 of 228
qualifications requirements necessary for students to receive appropriate instruction as specified in the CD based on student language, ACCESS level, and PPF category, and are receiving appropriate instruction as per the Language Allocation Guidelines. In 2012-2013, the DPS maintained an ELL List that included service percentage and these were often downloaded and emailed to ISA teams monthly. Principals could also request the ELL lists for their schools and they were downloaded and sent to them as well beginning in the summer of 2012. The biggest challenge at that time therefore, was that ELL Lists were not available or readily accessible to schools unless they were requested from the ELA Department who then provided them.
The DPS overcame this challenge by expanding the ELL Lists to include more strategic information and most importantly, by making them available to every school. Currently, ELL Lists identify ELs requesting services by school to ensure that they are appropriately placed. Furthermore, the List compares student information with teacher and classroom/course information. Each school now has readily available their ELL List that includes student assessment data, ELD enrollment, and primary language of students. The ELA Department has expanded beyond the ELL Report and is producing what they refer to as a Scorecard Brief for every school in the district. The Scorecard Brief is a condensed version of the ELL List and, in one page, summarizes information in four categories: Student and Teacher Alignment, Parent Options and Engagement, Course Enrollment, and Academic Progress. Additionally, the Scorecard Brief contains a school and district profile with enrollment counts, languages count, center program identifiers, and ELA Program model identifier. The Scorecard Briefs are now produced, and were pilot tested internally, with the expectation that they would be available for each school at the
180

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 189 of 228
beginning of the 2018-2019 school year. The current version of the ELL Lists served as a key performance indicator in the Principal Portal in the same way that the ELD Report did.
A fourth topic identified by the ELA Department that proved to be a challenge was the incompleteness of the PPF3 process. Under the provisions of the CD, parents can request a waiver of ELA Services (PPF3) if certain criteria are met. To meet this CD requirement, a student was assessed with the W-APT, assessment results were collected and mailed to the home, and parents conferred with the student's classroom teacher or building administrator. Only after this process was undertaken could parents opt their child out of receiving program services. PPF3 processes occurred in schools with almost no involvement from the ELA Department during 2012-2013. I recall several teachers informing me in confidence during the fall of 2013 that the decisions made by some parents of their child opting out from receiving program services was inconsistent at best. This issue was brought up in discussions between the parties on several occasions through conference calls and meetings. The district recognized this and identified multiple challenges.
First off, the entire process for identifying PPF3 lacked standardization and left decisions open to multiple interpretations. Second, the PPF3 process followed back in 2012 allowed parents to make uninformed decisions about program selection and the benefits of their children receiving program services. During the 2013-2014 school year, the ELA Department began a more central processing of PPF3 requests. The plan was to put into effect procedures such as the ones I noted above where students needed to undergo W-APT Testing at the time of registration, then providing parents with resources that described program services more clearly, consulting with parents about assessment
181

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 190 of 228
results, and requiring that parents confer with their child's teacher and/or school leader. At present, the PPF3 process is more clearly defined, processes are more clearly delineated, and personnel from school secretaries to classroom teachers, to school leaders, to ELA Network Partners have more defined roles. Most importantly, PPF3 requests are now both reviewed and approved by the ELA Department. As then Executive Director Jorge Robles informed us during our site visit, "Anytime PPF3 requests are made, they go through the ELA Department."
A fifth topic that posed challenges for DPS was teacher waivers. During the 20122013 school year, there was not a process for granting teacher waivers and so the District began to develop one. All teachers who are new to DPS receive an ELA Designation. These include ELA-T, ELA-E, or ELA-S. Because many teachers come from outside of DPS, it stands to reason that they often come with varying levels or types of coursework from the colleges and universities that granted their degrees. Additionally, many teachers who are new to the district have completed graduate degrees, sometimes in areas of specialization similar to teacher qualifications courses required by DPS. For these reasons, new teachers can request waivers from ELA teacher-training requirements. In 2012-2013, there was no waiver process in place and this was a definite challenge.
Beginning with the 2013-2014 school year, the District began processing teacher waivers. Since then, DPS has made adjustments over time to the waiver procedures and at present, the course waiver information is clear, readily accessible, presented to all new teacher hires, and decisions regarding waiver requests are completed on a timely basis. As just one example of the current waiver process, teachers who have a state Linguistically Diverse Endorsement (LDE) from a state outside of Colorado can submit their teacher
182

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 191 of 228
license with state approved endorsements. That documentation is then reviewed and the applicant notified, usually within ten days, which courses will be waived. In short, DPS has gone from no waiver process or policy that posed a challenge for the District, to a much more clearly defined and articulated policy that is now made available to all new teacher hires.
The DPS identified the Chapter 9 Reports, which are required by the CD and compiled and sent to the parties and IM every January and July, as a sixth challenge that they have overcome. Based on previous experience, we are aware that the Chapter 9 Reports required an almost "all hands on deck" approach in the month leading up to their final completion during 2013 and 2014. There was, and still continues to be, a significant amount of coordination between the ELA Department and the ARE Office which plays a major role in preparing the reports. An additional challenge that DPS shared with us is that the reports during the 2012-2013 school year had to be generated manually because of the amount of data they reported on. This created further challenges that I can recall since it was a labor intensive activity that required numerous staff in the ELA Department to temporarily place scheduled work on hold and tend to data gathering activities created by the generation of a report. An additional challenge that DPS identified in Table 10.2 and during our discussion, was that data points were not standardized.
Our belief is that the Chapter 9 reports that DPS now prepares for the parties, inclusive of the most recent July 2018 Report, have improved substantially since 20122013. Much of the credit for this is based on the new data management system that has been described in this report. The majority of the student and teacher data needed for these reports resides in District automated data management systems and is continually
183

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 192 of 228
updated. This makes for easier access to current data and the automation cuts down on the burden it places on staff time. The generation of the twice-a-year reports is still labor intensive but not nearly as much as it was in the past when reports were generated manually.
Additionally, over the past six years there has been a greater standardization of data points. A review of reports beginning with July 2013 through July 2018, shows the evolution of the standardization of data points taking place. The ELA Department has taken this process further by creating ELA Scorecard Briefs for every school in the district. As noted earlier, these Scorecard Briefs summarize on one page a school's profile which includes enrollment counts, language counts, center program identifiers, and an ELA Program identifier. These and other ELA Program metrics are grouped into four categories including Student and Teacher Alignment, Parent Options and Engagement, Course Enrollment, and Academic Progress.
The seventh and final challenge identified by the District is related to the ELA Service System or ESS. Prior to the 2015-2016 school year, DPS implemented an ESS that only monitored about one-fourth of all schools annually. That monitoring process, which DPS now refers to as the Old-ELA Review, was fraught with numerous challenges. The most notable was that the district didn't have the staff capacity to monitor more than 40 schools annually. In some respects, the ESS provided a snapshot of ELA's effectiveness at one point of time rather than a continuous integrated review system that was separate and apart from other district accountability systems. As DPS has pointed out previously, the old ESS was disconnected from existing accountability systems. The success of many monitoring systems is closely connected to the timeliness of communication with key
184

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 193 of 228
stakeholders. The old ESS lacked timely communication of results with those schools that were monitored, thus impeding effective change. A final challenge that the district identified is that the old ESS did not provide schools with explicit definitions of what constitutes a well implemented and highly effective ELA program.
The current ESS looks vastly different from the old system. This new ESS is more focused on providing targeted data-driven support for all schools throughout the school year. In short, it is designed to provide support where it is most needed in ways that sustain continuous improvement. Achieving this goal is heavily dependent on communication between ELA Program staff and schools. More specifically, the new ESS, through a Program Review Rubric, enables the school principal, Instructional Superintendent, and ELA Network Partner to review and analyze school-specific data continuously so that ELs receive the most appropriate services. This facilitates the development of action plans to address areas of need. Because every school has an assigned ELA Network Partner, all schools in DPS can currently be monitored every year.
The ELA Department has now created an ESS plan for the entire year beginning with aligning the ESS with the schools’ Strategic Plan in August and September. There is a more formative program review period in October to assess the current state of the school and make any necessary adjustments. In November and December, a mid-year check-in takes place and the ESS is reviewed to examine progress made and determine if adjustments are necessary. Because the new ESS is now aligned with principal performance indicators, program reviews are used to inform end-of-year LEAD ratings during February. Each school then has an end-of-year program review and levels of support are identified during
185

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 194 of 228

April and May. The school principal, IS, and Network Partner then create and agree upon a strategic plan for the next school year and identify summer work that needs to take place.
The new ESS is intended to provide a monitoring structure that goes beyond checking CD compliance in the sense that it is also intended to be useful as feedback for program improvement. The overarching goal is that all schools become High Performing ELA Program Schools. Through a more clearly identified and articulated process that engages school stakeholders continuously, plans are created to address identified areas of need. This work will inform LEAD evaluations and also prioritize ELA services.
The fourth question that we asked the District to respond to during our March site visit centered on site visits by the parties and their consultants. Table 10.3 which follows provides a summary by year beginning with 2012-2013 of the site visits made to the DPS by the CHE attorney, DOJ attorneys, and DOJ consultant, Dr. Claude Goldenberg. Table 10.3 Site Visits Hosted by the DPS Since 2012

Parties Month 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

CHE Atty. DOJ Attys. DOJ Consult.
Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

April

All

All

All

Parties Parties Parties

8 Schools 4 Schools 4 Schools

2016-17 2017-18
All Parties DOJ Consult.
6 Schools

186

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 195 of 228

May June

DOJ Consult. 3 Schools

July

Aug.

Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.

All Parties 3 Schools

DOJ Site Visit
5 Schools
All Parties 7 Schools

DOJ Consult. 4 Schools

Total Number of Schools Visited

8

4

7

15

4

6

Total Number of Schools Visited 2012 - 2018

44

Discussion Question 4: What site visits to the District has DPS hosted since 2012 as referred to in Chapter 10.E. and 10.F?
From 2012-2013 through the end of May, 2018, the attorneys for CHE and the DOJ have made eight site visits to Denver. In addition, Dr. Claude Goldenberg, a DOJ Consultant joined them for two of those site visits and completed another site visit on his own. In total, CHE and the DOJ including their representatives, made nine site visits to Denver and visited a total of 44 schools. I participated in all nine site visits. In previous reports by the IM, including this one, the site visits are referenced in Table 10.3 as All Parties Meetings. In September of 2016, attorneys from the DOJ made a site visit to Denver with the objective of
187

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 196 of 228
visiting Pathways Schools in the District. The site visits by Dr. Goldenberg during May and October of 2016 were primarily focused on his work with the DPS team responsible for teacher qualifications program matters including observing courses taught, interviewing faculty and teacher participants, and making recommendations for addressing CD requirements pertaining to ELA teacher qualifications.
The District has been an excellent host. They have provided meeting space, made staff available, provided meals, arranged for school site visits at the request of the parties, and prepared documents for review. The DPS has also collaborated with the DOJ and CHE in preparing meeting agendas and arranged upon request, for individuals that the parties wanted to interview to be present at determined times. During many of the onsite meetings of the parties, district leadership including the Superintendent, Deputy Superintendent, and School Board members attended parts of the All Parties Meetings. Local CHE members from Denver were always invited to participate in the All Parties Meetings and they did.
In addition to site visits to the DPS by the CHE and DOJ attorneys, DOJ Consultant, and members of CHE, the District has hosted numerous onsite visits from the IM. Over the course of the past five years, from July, 2013 through June 28, the IM made 35 site visits to Denver. My site visits were always planned in consultation with the DPS and I informed the DOJ and CHE. The District encouraged me to invite CHE members to join me at schools or scheduled meetings held at the DPS Central Office. Table 10.4 below lists the number of schools I visited during my five years as IM.
188

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 197 of 228

Table 10.4 School Visits by Independent Monitor
2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16
Independent Court Monitor

2016-17

2017-18

Total Number of Schools Visited

8

23

25

26

38

31

Annually

Total Number of Schools Visited 2012 - 2018

151

Over the five-year period that I served as the IM, I made 151 school visits, an average of slightly more than 30 school visits per year. Although I did not visit every school in the District during my tenure, I visited the majority of them. In some cases, I visited schools more than once during those five years. I maintained a spreadsheet with all schools visited by month and year. The ELA Department did the same and we coordinated annually to ensure that our records of schools visited matched.
Over the course of my 35-year career in education prior to being appointed as the IM, I visited hundreds of schools across many states and observed teachers, leaders, and students in countless classrooms. The DPS has served as an exceptional host for my site visits. I have selected the schools I wished to visit, identified topics I chose to discuss, and identified persons I wanted to interview. Overwhelmingly, I was treated with respect by school leaders, classroom teachers, and other school based personnel. During the past five years, I traveled from one end of the district to the other, across networks, school types,
189

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 198 of 228
and in many communities within Denver. District personnel who are housed at the Central Office were equally gracious during my visits. I interacted over the past five years with almost every office or program that impacts ELs. I met with hundreds of parents in formal settings like Parent Advisory Committees and the DAC at school sites, and informal settings as well. I've interacted annually with Superintendent Boasberg, several times a year with Deputy Superintendent Susana Cordova, with every District General Counsel, and with several School Board members.
I cannot speak highly enough of the support I've received from the ELA Department over the past five years. They arranged all of my school site visits along with Dr. Nelson's, coordinated with Instructional Superintendents, Network Partners, and ELA PAC leaders. The ELA Department provided us with data or information that we requested and coordinated all Central Office meetings with district personnel during many of our site visits.
Summary Chapter 10 of the CD: Duration of Consent Decree, Enforcement, and Remedies for Noncompliance, represents the last chapter that we spot audited for the timeframe covered by this report. In early March of 2018, we spent three days in Denver at the DPS Central Office interviewing ELA Program staff, gathering information, and reviewing documentation provided to us. We focused our spot audit effort on four questions from Chapter 10, specifically, 10D, 10E, and 10F. From our review of the documentation provided to us, the DPS is making reasonable efforts to preserve electronic and hard copies of information and data even though concerns have been expressed by both CHE and the DOJ at varying times about the lack of
190

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 199 of 228
certain data (ELD provision) and some of the systems used for collection and storage of requisite data (Infinite Campus). The District has faced the challenge of collecting and storing massive volumes of CD related data through a process that has evolved from pencil and paper recordkeeping to the creation of an electronic data management system that continues to progress. The IM has witnessed the progression from the early stages of preserving copies of information in boxes that resided in storage units all the way through the creation and present day implementation of the electronic system and storage of data in Infinite Campus. The development of a process to meet this District obligation still has its challenges but DPS continues to make reasonable efforts to preserve hard and electronic copies of requisite information. Additionally, the District is doing a far better job of archiving these data at present than it has done at certain points over the past five years.
The answers to our questions, which dealt with the evolution of the current electronic data management system and challenges identified and addressed by the District over the past six years, demonstrate more than a reasonable effort by DPS to create an effective system for collecting, storing, and maintaining essential program information. During our March 2018 visit to DPS, we viewed evidence of this system across multiple topical areas. It is not a perfect system nor do we suggest that it is. As the DOJ pointed out in a July 5, 2018 letter to DPS regarding their compliance review in April 2018, " Most notably, DOJ found that DPS has not developed or implemented a system to ensure that the progress of all in-program ELs is monitored." This is a concern that we believe will be less challenging for DPS to address within the current data management system than it would have in 2012.
191

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 200 of 228
Regarding the hosting of school site visits by DPS (Question 4) and connected to CD Chapter 10E and 10F, the data collected reflect the District's openness and availability to address this obligation. From 2012 through 2018, CHE and the DOJ (along with their consultant) visited 44 schools. Additionally, during the timeframe from July 2013 through the end of my tenure as IM on June 30, 2018, I made 151 documented school site visits. The District and in particular, ELA Program staff and the countless school leaders, teachers, and parents at individual school sites were generally welcoming, generous with their time, and provided information or documentation that we requested. Beginning with the IM’s first school visit in the fall of 2013, local CHE members in Denver were encouraged by DPS to attend meetings and join Dr. Nelson and I at any of our scheduled school site visits.
Based on our spot audit results for Chapter 10, the District's efforts to reasonably maintain hard and electronic copies of ELA Program information, the creation of an electronic data management system that continues to evolve based on anticipated and expressed needs, and finally, their efforts in welcoming and supporting school site visits by the parties and the IM, we feel that the DPS is fully implementing the obligations of this CD chapter.
192

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 201 of 228
RECOMMENDATIONS
The focus of the IM and Dr. Nelson's efforts during the timeframe covered by this report involved spot audits of CD Chapter 1, 5, 9, and 10. Additionally, a second spot audit of Chapter 7 was undertaken and our results presented. The following recommendations are based on our observations and findings resulting from the spot audits of five CD chapters. Additionally, two of the recommendations are directly related to findings shared with us by CHE and the DOJ after the All Parties meeting during late April and early May of 2018. 1. In completing this report, we recognize that a spot audit of CD Chapter 4 as a standalone chapter has not been conducted. As we discussed in the ADVANCE SUMMARY of this seventh report, we subsumed our summary of some of the requirements of CD Chapter 4, Redesignation and Exiting the Program, into our summary of CD Chapter 2 within the previous Report 6.
That summary of Chapter 2 deals more broadly with ISA requirements. Given the focus on ISA Teams during the school site visits during the All Parties Meeting in May of 2018 and some of the concerns expressed by both CHE and the DOJ, it is our recommendation that a separate and independent spot audit of CD Chapter 4 requirements be conducted by the IM as soon as is practicable. Moreover, the findings of that separate spot audit should be reported to all parties involved in a subsequent IM Report. 2. In reporting our findings regarding CD Chapter 9 (9.3.A), we described processes used by DPS to document parent concerns about Program implementation and resolutions proposed and achieved to address these concerns. Even though examples were cited for us
193

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 202 of 228
by ELA Program staff, they are not formally documented in a form that we could review. The District was certainly amenable to addressing this. We recommend that the DPS develop a system of documentation to track any concerns expressed by parents regarding implementation of the ELA Program via the ELA Hotline, written communication, or communicated orally, the outcomes of achieving resolution for such concerns, and person/s responsible for resolving the concerns to the satisfaction of parents. 3. In numerous communication exchanges between CHE and the DPS post-All Parties Meeting of May 2018, CHE has expressed concerns regarding ISA Team meeting documentation including; agendas, minutes, records, and notes. The District has responded to these concerns previously and more recently, on 07/12/2018. The DPS has apprised the IM on several occasions and Mr. Rice specifically in that July 12 correspondence that the District does not require ISA Teams to maintain specific agendas, meetings, and notes since the completion of on-line forms in the automated online system used to record ISA Team actions is accepted as the means of meeting documentation. Additionally, counsel for DPS has reminded the IM on multiple occasions that maintaining agendas, minutes of meetings, and notes is not a CD requirement; however, the District does in fact consider these forms of documentation as a "best practice." In her July 12, 2018 response to CHE Attorney Mr. Rice, DPS Deputy General Counsel Toni Wehman recognized that documentation of ISA Team meeting actions could improve. Specifically, she wrote that, “the District will improve ISA team training to encourage ISA teams to be more comprehensive in the narrative sections of the on-line forms or keep a team document or tracker to better record the information considered and their decision." We support this response and recommend that the DPS create a plan for modifying their online
194

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 203 of 228
Moodle training for all ISA Team members and provide evidence of this training to the IM prior to the start of the 2019-20 school year. 4. Also related to ISA Teams, Attorney Veronica Percia representing the DOJ communicated to the District on July 5, 2018 concerning their Compliance Review during the All Parties meeting in May, 2018. Accompanying the DOJ letter was a Compliance Chart in which the DOJ listed ISA-related CD requirements from CD Chapters 2, 3, 4, and 5, and then detailed “Compliance Issues” and “Site-specific Examples,” linked to each CD requirement, based on their May Compliance Review. Ms. Percia cited observations of several promising practices by ISA Teams in DPS including District efforts to transfer student files to Infinite Campus. She also commented positively on the work of ISA Teams at Archuleta Elementary and Hamilton Middle School identifying respective school leaders, teachers, and parents as key stakeholders engaged in supporting those schools’ ISA Teams to achieve compliance. The letter also addressed several concerns that the DOJ has and the need to address them soon. Attorney Percia wrote,
"Most notably, DOJ found that DPS has not developed or implemented a system to ensure that the progress of all in-program ELs is monitored. Additionally, for those ELs who are monitored as part of the formal redesignation, exit, or PPF3 review process, DOJ is concerned about the lack of consistency across the District with regard to how ISA Teams articulate and apply standards of academic progress and English language proficiency. We are also very concerned about the numerous examples of IC comments between schools and the ELA Department that go unresolved or unaddressed, leaving students in improper placements for indeterminate periods of time, as well as problems in the IC system that are affecting the provision of appropriate services to ELs. Finally, our review of student files
195

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 204 of 228
revealed that many ELs, including a significant number of ELs with poor academic records, have not received the ELA services they requested and/or were entitled to under the CD."
The District replied to the DOJ on September 28, 2018, with a cover letter accompanied by detailed responses to the concerns raised in the July DOJ cover letter and Compliance Chart. In the DPS cover letter, DPS Deputy General Counsel Toni Wehman stated, “The District’s ELA Department has invested an extensive amount of time and resources to upgrade its ISA Team process from the previous ‘binders of paper’ system to a more centralized electronic database system. However, as you noted, change always comes with positives and negatives especially at the beginning of implementation . . . The District has tried in good faith to create an ISA Team system and process that help it comply with Consent Decree requirements.”
DPS currently uses school-based data teams to regularly monitor the progress of all its students, including ELs. As the District explains in its response to the specific concerns raised by DOJ in the July 5 Compliance Chart, “Today, the use of Data Teams is well documented in educational research and has become a best practice and expectation in schools within DPS and nationally . . . The District utilizes both ISA Teams and Data Teams in the roles for which they were designed without creating duplication of effort. ISA Teams still complete all the tasks they are required to do in identifying, redesignating and monitoring ELLs at different times of the year. Data Teams do not perform any of these functions. However, Data Teams monitor all students’ data, including ELLs, on a frequent basis (weekly, bi-weekly, or monthly) . . . That said, the District agrees that it can improve and formalize collaboration between the two Teams to ensure language considerations are taken into account for all ELL students.”
196

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 205 of 228
The District acknowledged concerns DOJ raised in the July 5 communication about specific schools visited during the May 2018 All Parties meeting, with Deputy General Counsel Wehman writing in its September 2018 letter: “Many of the specific school concerns were shared by the District and corrected shortly after your visit by the ELA Department through ELA Partners at the end of the school year or at the start of this year.” While disagreeing with some of the characterizations by DOJ of ELL student monitoring and ISA Team practices, the District, in its response, also addressed systemic concerns raised by the DOJ and described actions already taken or planned to remedy those concerns. For example, the District stated that, during 2018-2019, it would have ISA Specialists provide more intense oversight of ELL identification and other ISA forms to help ensure timely submission of the forms by the ISA teams during the required window of time (the District noted that students with delayed identification had still received ELA services as provisional ELLs). The District is also updating guidance provided to ISA teams regarding the use of data, providing a decision tree for ISA teams to map the consideration of certain data points, and has also updated the ISA Team Handbook and ISA Team Moodle, including guidance for how to deal with conflicting data. These actions should help address the issue of consistency across schools in ISA Team decisions about academic progress and English language proficiency raised by the DOJ in the July 5 communication.
During 2018-2019, the District and the parties held several phone conferences to further discuss and resolve the issues identified by the DOJ and CHE during the May 2018 visit. The IM recommends that collaborative dialogue such as this among the parties continue as the District further develops and refines its monitoring system for ELLs and addresses other concerns raised by the parties. Dr. Nelson, in his first report as IM
197

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 206 of 228
covering the 2018-2019 school year, will discuss in detail the issues addressed during these phone conferences and actions the District has taken as a result. 5. Our examination of CD Chapter 1.V, a section of Chapter 1 that addresses response to instruction and intervention, raised the issue of how the several different school teams that are involved in monitoring ELL student progress and making instructional recommendations based on student progress (grade level teams, ISA teams, MTSS teams, and IEP teams) coordinate their activities and responsibilities. The CD, in Chapter 2.A, specifies that the ISA team has the responsibility for monitoring ELL performance and reviewing ELL services, and it would be helpful for the ELA Department to provide guidance to schools as to how to meet this CD requirement while still allowing for these different teams to carry out their mutual responsibilities as determined within each school. 6. A question that arises as a result of our CD Chapter 5 spot audit centers on the training and/or certification of school personnel specified in the CD as being part of the schoolbased support network (i.e., beyond teachers) provided to ELLs and their families. The CD requires that Spanish-speaking paraprofessionals who work in ELA-S classrooms have passed a Spanish language proficiency exam. Although we only asked about this at several schools, our impression is that it might be important for schools to differentiate whether a paraprofessional is required by the CD to have passed a Spanish language proficiency exam from those that do not. Chapter 5 of the CD also requires that the District provide annual training to counselors to support the needs of ELLs. It is unclear to us that annual systematic training in ELL support is provided to counselors and (in some schools) school psychologists who work with ELLs and their families. The ELA Department might provide guidance to schools regarding paraprofessional requirements for working in ELA-S
198

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 207 of 228 classrooms. The ELA Department could also coordinate with the appropriate department within DPS to ensure that counselors and school psychologists are receiving the annual training for supporting the needs of ELLs and their families specified in the CD. 7. The District should ensure that all information that should be in an ELL student’s electronic IEP or related documents (e.g., an evaluation summary) is being pulled in from the IC or manually entered, and that the information (e.g., home language, LEP status) is consistent within the IEP and related documents. The IM requests that the DPS address these seven recommendations during the 2019-2020 school year with an update on each of the seven expected to be provided to the IM by the end of the 2019-2020 year.
199

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 208 of 228 References
Consent Decree of the U. S. District Court (2012) Denver Public Schools English Language Acquisition Program. Denver, Colorado.
Martinez, P. E. (2018). Independent Monitor Report 6; Congress of Hispanic Educators Et Al., Petitioners, V School District #1, Denver, Colorado.
Mertens, D. M. (2015). Research and evaluation in education and psychology (4th ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.
Stringer, P. (2013). Capacity building for school improvement revisited. Rotterdam/Boston/Taipei: Sense.
200

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 209 of 228
Appendix A Chapters 1 & 5 Spot Audit Checklist
201

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 210 of 228

DPS Consent Decree Chapters 1 & 5 Spot Audit Checklist Draft 2

School _______________________

Date __________________

I.

Classification

____ ESL/ELA-E

____ TNLI

____ Other

II. If the school is ESL/ELA-E (Chapter 1.I.B & II.B):

A. Who provides ELD in reading, writing, speaking, and understanding of English?

____ Fully qualified ELA-E teacher(s)

____ # providing ELD

____ On-track ELA-E teacher(s)

____ # providing ELD

____ Other ____________________

____ # providing ELD

B. (Elementary) Do more than 15 students speak Spanish? ____ Yes ____ No If “Yes,” is the Resource Classroom Teacher . . . ____ Fully qualified ELA-S ____ On-track for ELA-S ____ Other (describe) _____________________________________________

C. (Secondary) Do more than 50 ELLs speak Spanish? ____ Yes ____ No If “Yes,” is there a Resource Teacher who is . . . ____ Fully qualified ELA-S ____ On-track ELA-S ____ Other (describe) _____________________________________________

III. If the school is a TNLI (Chapter 1.I.C & II.E)

A. (Elementary) Which of the following are provided, at which grades, & who provides? ____ Native language instruction Which grade levels? ___ All ___ Other (specify) ____________________ Who provides? ____ # fully qualified ELA-S ____ # on track ELA-S ___ #Other ____ Supported English content instruction Which grade levels? ___ All ___ Other (specify)_____________________ Who provides? ____ # fully qualified ELA-E ____ # on track ELA-E ___ #Other ____ ELD
202

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 211 of 228
Which grade levels? ___ All ___ Other (specify)_____________________ Who provides? ____ # fully qualified ELA-E ____ # on track ELA-E ___ #Other B. (Secondary) Which of the following are provided, at which grades, & who provides? ____ Native language instruction Which grade levels? ___ All ___ Other (specify) ____________________ Who provides? ____ # fully qualified ELA-S ____ # on track ELA-S ___ #Other ____ Supported English content instruction Which grade levels? ___ All ___ Other (specify)_____________________ Who provides? ____ # fully qualified ELA-E ____ # on track ELA-E ___ #Other ____ ELD Which grade levels? ___ All ___ Other (specify)_____________________ Who provides? ____ # fully qualified ELA-E ____ # on track ELA-E ___ #Other Notes:
IV. What process do you use for reviewing ELL assessment data? (Chapter 1.IV.2)
V. How do you ensure that explanations of the ELA program are understandable to parents who are LEP? (Chapter 1.IV.5)
VI. What language(s) do your front office staff speak?
VII. What does the school do if no one at the school speaks a language spoken by a parent who is LEP?
VIII. Chapter 5.I.B A. ____ # ESL/ELA-E classrooms ____ # ESL/ELA-E classrooms staffed with fully qualified ELA-E teachers ____ # ESL/ELA-E classrooms staffed with on-track ELA-E teachers 203

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 212 of 228
____ # ESL/ELA-E classrooms staffed with other teachers _________________ B. ____ # TNLI/ELA-S classrooms
____ # TNLI/ELA-S classrooms staffed with fully qualified ELA-S teachers ____# TNLI/ELA-S classrooms staffed with on-track ELA-S teachers IX. Chapter 5.IV.C A. ____ # of ELA-S classrooms not staffed by an ELA-S teacher If > 0, who staffs these ELA-S classrooms (e.g., on-track or fully qualified ELA-E) and are other provisions made (e.g., assign Spanish speaking paraprofessional or regroup students for instruction)?
X. Chapter 5.VII.B & VIII.A A. Who on the school staff evaluates ELA-E and ELA-S teachers in this school? ____ Principal ____ Assistant/Associate Principal ____ Other ______________________________________________ B. What type of training has DPS provided to each of these individuals in evaluating ESL/ELA-E or ELA-S instruction?
C. What form is used by these individuals to document their teacher evaluations? (Note: View & obtain copy of blank form to check for 5.VII.B expectations)
D. How are teachers provided feedback on their ESL/ELA-E or ELA-S instruction?
E. How is the determination made that a teacher requires additional support based on the observation of their ESL/ELA-E or ELA-S instruction?
XI. Chapter 5.XII.A A. ____ # of paraprofessionals assigned to ELA-S classrooms
204

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 213 of 228
If > 0, how was each paraprofessional’s Spanish language proficiency demonstrated? XII. Chapter 5.XIII.A – C
A. (TNLI High School only) ____ # of counselors who are proficient in Spanish If > 0, how did each counselor demonstrate Spanish language proficiency?
B. (All schools) What training has DPS provided this year to counselors to support the needs of ELLs?
C. (TNLI schools) How did DPS notify parents of ELLs at the beginning of this school year about the presence of a Spanish-speaking counselor or Spanish-speaking teachers or administrators who are fulfilling the counselor role?
205

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 214 of 228
Appendix B Chapters 1 & 9 Spot Audit Checklist
206

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 215 of 228

DPS Consent Decree Chapters 1 and 9 Spot Audit Checklist Version 2

School __________________________________

Date ________________

Chapter I.V. (All schools)

1. Prior to an ELL’s referral for targeted level or intensive level instruction, how does the school’s intervention team ensure an ELL has had sufficient access to ELD and core content instruction by on-track or fully qualified ELA teachers in an environment supportive of the student’s language development?

2. Does your intervention team include a fully qualified ELA teacher? ____ Yes ____ No
3. How are the unique linguistic needs of an ELL taken into account when providing RTI services (including assessment methods and interpretation of assessment results)?

4. How are ELL considerations for each ELL student documented by the intervention team? (Note: If available, review documentation for a sample of up to 10 ELL students)
Chapter I.VI. (All schools) 5. What are the differences between the curriculum used for ELLs in your school and the curriculum used for the mainstream English language instructional program?
6. Does your school use any Spanish language core content materials in ____ ELA-S classrooms (check if used) ____ ELA-E classrooms (check if used)
7. To what degree are the Spanish language core content materials comparable to English language materials in terms of addressing common core standards? ____ Comparable (common core standards coverage is about the same)
207

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 216 of 228
____ Somewhat Comparable (common core standards are covered but not to the same degree as with mainstream English language materials used in the school) ____ Not Comparable (common core standards are not covered)
Chapter I.VII. (TNLI only)
8. Which abilities are considered when you make the determination that an ELL student has the skills to move from transitional native language instruction to supported English content instruction? ____ Ability to understand academic English vocabulary ____ Ability to engage in classroom conversation in English ____ Ability to understand classroom materials in English ____ Other (specify) __________________________________________________________
9. What evidence have you used to make the determination that an ELL student has the skills to move from transitional native language instruction to supported English content instruction? ____ Assessment of English Language Proficiency (e.g., ACCESS) ____ Classroom performance ____ Interim and state assessments ____ Standard-based progress reports ____ Attendance ____ Classroom behavior ____ Other (specify) _________________________________________________________
10. How and how often do ELA-S and supported English content instruction teachers communicate about an ELL student’s assignment from TNLI to supported English content instruction to determine if the assignment is appropriate or should be reconsidered?
Chapter 9.II. (All schools)
11. Which of the following are used to measure ELL students’ progress toward DPS curricular goals? ____ Ongoing classroom assessment ____ Teacher observation of student performance ____ Student performance on interim and state assessments ____ Other (specify)___________________________________________________________
12. How are parents of ELLs provided information about their child’s performance in a language they understand? ____ Standards-based progress reports ____ Conferences with teachers ____ Results of District assessments ____ Other (specify) __________________________________________________________
208

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 217 of 228 Chapter 9.III. (All schools) 13. If parents question whether their child is being served as required by the Consent Decree, what does the school do?
209

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 218 of 228
Appendix C Chapters 1 & 5 Central Office Spot Audit Checklist
210

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 219 of 228
DPS Consent Decree Chapters 1 and 5 Central Office Spot Audit Checklist Date _________________ Chapter 1.V.A-D.
1. In the DPS RTI system, how does the District ensure that before ELLs are recommended for Targeted Level or Intensive Level services, these students have had sufficient access to ELD and core content instruction by on-track or fully-qualified ELA teachers?
2. How are the unique linguistic needs of ELLs considered in the provision of RTI services? (instruction and assessment)
Chapter 1.VI.B. 3. How does the District provide meaningful opportunity for ELLs to be considered for admission to gifted and talented programs and other advanced classes using criteria that do not screen out ELLs because of their limited English proficiency?
Chapter 1.VI.A,C,D. 4. How is the curriculum for ELLs the same as that used for the Mainstream English Language Instructional program?
5. How are Spanish-language core content materials used in ELA-S or ELA-E classrooms comparable to English-language content materials used in mainstream English-language classrooms? (NOTE: “Comparability” is determined with reference to Common Core State Standards)
211

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 220 of 228
Chapter 1.VIII.B 6. How does the District monitor the ELP and academic progress of ELLs regularly?
Chapter 5.III.D. & F. 7. How does the District document teacher proficiency in the District’s ELA Training Program? (NOTE: View records if available)
8. How does the District track the progress of its designated teachers toward fully qualified status? (NOTE: View records if available)
Chapter 5.VI.D. 9. What records does the District maintain of its annual assessment and activities related to its recruitment of teachers and other staff? (NOTE: View records if available)
Chapter 5.VII.B.D. 10. How does LEAP address each component of Chapter 5.VII.B?
11. How does DPS evaluate the effectiveness of each paraprofessional and tutor who assists in the instruction of ELLs?
212

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 221 of 228
Appendix D Chapter 7 Spot Audit Checklist
213

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 222 of 228

DPS CD Chapter 7 Spot Audit Checklist February 2018 Revision 2

School ________________________ Date______________

File # __________

CD Chapter 7 Section 7.F. “ELLs’ IEPs and 504 plans shall document that the student is an ELL”

Evidence/Notes IEP Student & Family Information section specifies student’s primary language

Yes ___ No ___ Language:

7.F. “ELLs’ IEPs and 504 plans shall document . . . the student’s language proficiency level”

Language proficiency level specified
Yes ___ No ___ Notes (where specified in IEP, assessment scores cited):

LEP status in Student & Family Information

Yes ___ Notes:

No ___

LEP status in Consideration of Special Factors

Yes ___ Notes:

No ___

7.F. “ELLs’ IEPs and 504 plans shall document . . . the Program services the student is receiving (i.e., ESL/ELA-E, TNLI)”

Documentation of the Program services the student is receiving (i.e., ESL/ELA-E, TNLI)
Yes ___ No ___ Notes (type of program):

7.G. “The district shall maintain in all ELLs’ IEPs or 504 plans . .(b) an analysis of the effect of proficiency in English and other languages on the student’s learning, including an analysis of the student’s assessment results in relation to the student’s language proficiency”

Yes ___ Notes:

No ___

214

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 223 of 228
Appendix E Chapter 9 Central Office Spot Audit Checklist
215

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 224 of 228
DPS Consent Decree Chapter 9 Central Office Spot Audit Checklist Date ____________________ Chapter 9.I.A.
1. How does the district determine whether any schools lack sufficient instructional materials for ELLs?
2. When a school is determined not to have sufficient instructional materials for ELLs, what action does the District take?
Chapter 9.I.B. 3. How does the District annually evaluate the effectiveness of its ELA training programs using objective evidence provided by participants and trainers?
Chapter 9.I.C. 4. How does the District monitor staffing assignments to ensure they are consistent with the CD?
Chapter 9.I.D. 5. How does the District monitor each school’s compliance with the CD?
216

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 225 of 228
6. How does the District take action to remedy any noncompliance with the CD as soon as practicable and within a reasonable period of time?
Chapter 9.I.E. 7. What are the names and positions of the DPS staff members responsible for each of the following: (Note: Might verify responsibility and role by in-person or email communication) a. Recruiting teachers b. Developing and implementing the training requirements of the CD c. Monitoring the availability of appropriate and adequate materials in Program classrooms d. Implementing the Program entry, redesignation, and exit procedures in accordance with the CD e. Implementing the instructional Program in accordance with the CD f. Overseeing and implementing parent communication requirements g. Implementing SPED and Section 504 requirements as they relate to ELLs h. Monitoring the curricula taught in Program classrooms i. Preparing reports to the United States and private plaintiffs pursuant to CD Chapter 9.V
Chapter 9.II.C 8. What changes has the District recommended in services to ELLs to support high student achievement based on the District’s monitoring of ELLs’ progress in schools and classrooms?
Chapter 9.III.A. 9. If parents of an ELL contact the ELA Department asking that Program implementation at a school be investigated as it relates to services for their child, what does the ELA Department do?
217

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 226 of 228 10. How does the ELA Department record a concern about Program implementation and resolution of that concern? (View examples if available)
Chapter 9.IV.D. 11. What is the status of the longitudinal study referred to in CD Chapter 9.IV.D?
218

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 227 of 228
Appendix F 9 Questions
219

Case 1:95-cv-02313-RBJ Document 112 Filed 07/17/19 USDC Colorado Page 228 of 228
1. PACS – Is there an ELA PAC in each school?
2. School restarts – Is there a guarantee by DPS that, if a TNLI school is restarted, the entity that is chosen to manage the restart will provide native language instruction as was provided in the TNLI school?
3. SPF – Does ARE have a document that addresses the validity and reliability of the SPF? What is the current status of concerns raised by the parties that the SPF may penalize schools that serve relatively higher numbers of ELs who are at lower levels of English language proficiency?
4. SEAS – How is DPS addressing the concerns that are being raised regarding the dismantling of SEAS, bilingual assessment of Spanish speaking students, and the decentralization of Special Education-related assessment? 5. LEAP – How has the language regarding Principal evaluations of teachers changed from the previous version of LEAP to the current version, and will this impact the ELA program? 6. IEP follow-up – How has DPS addressed the issues identified in the February 2018 spot audit of Chapter 7? 7. What is the current status of the small TNLI model and what plans have been discussed to ensure implementation of TNLI programs should the DPS ELL population continue to decline at some schools? Related to this issue, what is the effect of fast-changing school demographics on planning, especially the type of program offered in a school and ensuring that teachers have proper qualifications to carry out the ELA program at the school.
8. Are there specific issues with the final draft of Report 6 raised by CHE, DOJ, and/or DPS that need to be addressed?
9. Have the six concerns expressed by the parties and addressed in IM Reports 4, 5 and 7 been fully addressed?
220

 
 576 F.Supp. 1503 (1983)
Wilfred KEYES, et al., Plaintiffs, Congress of Hispanic Educators, et al., Plaintiff-Intervenors,
v. SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, DENVER, COLORADO, et al., Defendants.
Civ. A. No. C-1499.
United States District Court, D. Colorado.
December 30, 1983.
1504*1504 Peter D. Roos, Irma Herrera, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, San Francisco, Cal., Roger L. Rice, Camilo Perez-Bustillo, Cambridge, Mass., for plaintiff-intervenors.
Michael H. Jackson, Denver, Colo., John S. Pfeiffer, Denver, Colo., for defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ON LANGUAGE ISSUES
MATSCH, District Judge.
The delay in dealing with the particular issues discussed in this memorandum opinion is a result of the difficulties involved in using the adversary process to assess the efforts made by a public school district to obey a mandate to replace a segregated dual school system with a unitary system in which race and ethnicity are not limitations on access to the educational benefits provided. Among those difficulties are: (1) the polarization of positions through pleadings and proof, (2) the necessity to make a retrospective inquiry into a very fluid problem focusing on a static set of operative facts, (3) the limitations in the Rules of Evidence, (4) the tension between minority objectives and majoritarian values in the political process, (5) the time constraints imposed by the volume of other litigation, and (6) the inertia inherent in the bureaucratic structure of public education. While the following discourse is directed toward the problems of children with language barriers, it must be recognized that the analysis is made in the context of a desegregation case which has been in this court for more than a decade.
Stated in the most comprehensive form, the plaintiff-intervenors' contention is that within the pupil population of the Denver Public Schools, those children who have limited-English language proficiency ("LEP") are being denied equal access to educational opportunity because the school system has failed to take appropriate action to address their special needs. Accordingly, it is claimed that such children are denied the equal protection of the laws in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; that the school district has violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended; and that the

school district has violated the 1505*1505 mandate of Section 1703(f) of the Equal Educational Opportunities Act.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
These are ancillary issues in this litigation which began in 1969. In Keyes v. School District No. 1, 413 U.S. 189, 213, 93 S.Ct. 2686, 2699, 37 L.Ed.2d 548 (1973), the Supreme Court ordered trial of the factual question of whether the Denver School Board's policy of deliberate segregation in the Park Hill Schools constituted the entire school system a dual system. Judge William E. Doyle's findings that a dual system did exist required further proceedings to ensure that the school board discharged its "affirmative duty to desegregate the entire system `root and branch'." Id. That process is still continuing under this court's supervision.
The Congress of Hispanic Educators ("CHE") and thirteen individually named MexicanAmerican parents of minor children attending the Denver Public Schools filed a motion to intervene as plaintiffs to participate in the remedy phase hearings. Those plaintiffintervenors were represented by attorneys from the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF). Plaintiff-intervenors' motion to intervene was granted by Judge Doyle at a hearing on January 11, 1974. The only record of that order is in the handwritten minutes of the deputy clerk, which note, "Motion of Mexican American Legal Defense Fund to Intervene, Ordered-Motion to Intervene is Granted." The defendants never filed an answer or any other pleading in response to the complaint in intervention.
In that original complaint, the intervenors asserted claims under the Fourteenth Amendment, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, (42 U.S.C. § 2000d). Paragraph 9 of the complaint alleged that the action was brought as a Rule 23(b)(1) and (3) class action, with the class defined as follows:
(a) All Chicano school children, who by virtue of the actions of the Board complained of in the First Cause of Action, Section III of the plaintiff's complaint, are attending segregated schools and who are forced to receive unequal educational opportunity including inter alia, the absence of Chicano teachers and bilingual-bicultural programs; (b) All those Chicano school children, who by virtue of the actions or omissions of the Board complained of in the Second Cause of Action, Section IV of the plaintiff's complaint, are attending segregated schools, and who will be and have been receiving an unequal educational opportunity; (c) All those Chicano teachers, staff, and administrators who have been the victims of defendant's discriminatory hiring, promotion, recruitment, assignment, and selection practices and whose victimization has additionally caused educational injury to Chicano students in that Chicano teachers, staff, and administrators are either nonexistent or underemployed. Additionally, the class is composed of present and future teachers, staff, and administrators who may be affected by this court's impending relief in such a manner as to detrimentally affect Chicano children within said district.
There is no record of any order by Judge Doyle certifying such a class. MALDEF lawyers actively participated in the hearings on the desegregation plans submitted by the plaintiff

class and the defendant. There was no challenge to the standing of the parties they were representing.
On April 17, 1974, Judge Doyle ordered implementation of a desegregation plan based on the work of Dr. Finger, a court-appointed expert witness. Parts of that plan addressed the special interests and needs of Chicano children as urged by another expert witness, Dr. Jose Cardenas. On appeal, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals held that those special requirements went beyond Judge Doyle's findings. Keyes v. School District No. 1, 521 F.2d 465 (10th Cir.1975). The Court of Appeals ruled, in relevant part:
The [district] court made no finding, on remand, that either the School District's curricular offerings or its methods of educating minority students constituted 1506*1506 illegal segregative conduct or resulted from such conduct. Rather, the court determined that ... a meaningful desegregation plan must provide for the transition of Spanish-speaking children to the English language. But the court's adoption of the Cardenas Plan, in our view, goes well beyond helping Hispano school children to reach the proficiency in English necessary to learn other basic subjects. Instead of merely removing obstacles to effective desegregation, the court's order would impose upon school authorities a pervasive and detailed system for the education of minority children. We believe this goes too far. Other considerations lead us to the same conclusion. Direct local control over decisions vitally affecting the education of children `has long been thought essential both to the maintenance of community concern and support for public schools and to the quality of the educational process.' ... We believe that the district court's adoption of the Cardenas Plan would unjustifiably interfere with such state and local attempts to deal with the myriad economic, social and philosophical problems connected with the education of minority students. * * * * * * We remand for a determination of the relief, if any, necessary to ensure that Hispano and other minority children will have the opportunity to acquire proficiency in the English language. (emphasis added)
Id. at 482-83 (citations omitted).
After that remand, the parties agreed upon a plan to start the process of desegregation. That stipulated plan, approved by Judge Doyle in an order entered on March 26, 1976, did not contain any provisions dealing with the issues relating to limited-English language proficiency of any students. This civil action was reassigned to me immediately after the entry of that order.
On November 3, 1980, the plaintiff-intervenors filed a supplemental complaint in intervention, adding a claim under a provision of the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (the EEOA), 20 U.S.C. §§ 1701 et seq. Although the supplemental complaint indicated that the parties were the same as in the original complaint, the statement of the claims expanded the group of intervenors to "those students who are limited-English proficient," without regard to native language. The supplemental complaint did not contain class action allegations. The defendant did not respond to either the original complaint or the supplemental complaint.

The filing of the supplemental complaint in intervention followed several years of unsuccessful efforts to negotiate and compromise the English language proficiency issues. The failure of those efforts is indicative of the intractable character of this controversy. Throughout several years of discovery and up to the time for trial, the defendant school district never raised any question of plaintiff-intervenors' standing and never challenged the contention that these claims should be maintained as a class action. The first challenge was made on April 26, 1982, when the district suggested that the trial date be vacated. On the last day of trial, the plaintiff-intervenors tendered an amended supplemental complaint and filed motions to add parties, and for class certification. The motion to file the amended complaint to add the additional parties was granted and those additional parties are Hispanic parents whose children now attend the Denver Public Schools. The proposed class certification was simplified to consist of all limited English proficient Hispano children in the Denver Public Schools.
CLASS CERTIFICATION
The question of class certification must be considered before determining the factual and legal questions presented. It arises in an unusual, although not unique, procedural setting since the trial on the merits has already been held. See Amos v. Board of Directors of City of Milwaukee, 408 F.Supp. 765, 772 (E.D.Wis.1976). Anyone who has any familiarity with the history of this case knows that there has been a 1507*1507 de facto recognition of the standing of CHE in representing the Hispanic population group as a class since Judge Doyle first recognized participation by MALDEF attorneys in January, 1974. For example, in the March 26, 1976 order for implementation of the agreed pupil assignment plan, Judge Doyle said:
The order to modify the bi-lingual program has not been fulfilled and an extension of time (to April 1, 1976) to present a proposal has been granted to the Intervenors.
In determining the awards on applications for attorneys fees, Judge Finesilver commented on the role of the plaintiff-intervenors as follows:
Without the participation of the Congress of Hispanic Educators, the School District's largest minority group would have gone unrepresented. Their involvement assured a fair and balanced presentation of the various views, was important to the success of desegregation, and contributed to the acceptance of the plan by the Hispano community. The Congress of Hispanic Educators are a prevailing party in this litigation. Keyes v. School District No. 1, 439 F.Supp. 393, 400 (D.Colo.1977).
The optimistic expectation that an agreement on bilingual education could be achieved was not fulfilled and the disagreements came on for trial in 1982. At that trial, the complete program for addressing the special needs of all limited-English proficiency students was explored. Indeed, through the testimony of the witnesses and the arguments of counsel, the school district emphasized that because of the many languages spoken by the pupil population and the changes which have occurred in that population since this case was commenced, including the transient nature of attendance patterns, the scope of the problem is considerably wider than that which was defined in the pleadings prior to trial. It is clear

from the evidence presented at the trial that the Denver Public Schools now serve a population which is neither bi-racial, nor tri-ethnic. It is pluralistic.
The evidence fully supports the certification of a class identified as all children with limitedEnglish language proficiency who now attend, and who will in the future attend schools operated by the defendant district. That conclusion must, of course, be supported by the separate analysis of the record with respect to each of the requirements of Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Numerosity.
This prerequisite is not disputed by the defendant even if the class is limited to Spanishspeaking children with limited-English proficiency. Considering all classifications of LEP, there were more than 3,300 such children enrolled in the Denver Public Schools at the time of trial.
Common Questions Of Law Or Fact.
Here, there is a dispute. The defendant asserts that there is a conflict of interest between Hispanic and Indochinese students. While the arguments are focused more on the typicality and adequacy of representation prerequisites, the possibility of such a conflict must also be considered here. I do not find that conflict at this stage of the proceeding. We are now concerned with the question of whether the school district has failed to follow the requirements of two federal statutes and whether there has been a denial of equal protection of the laws. From the evidence presented at trial, I find that the limitations arising from the influence of a language other than English are the same without regard for the particular language affecting the student. Accordingly, there is a common question of what obligation is owing to all LEP children in the district.
Additionally, to limit the class to Spanish speakers would be inconsistent with the remand from the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals quoted on page 4 of this opinion. There, the appellate court directed "a determination of the relief necessary to ensure that Hispano and other minority children will have the opportunity to acquire proficiency in the English language." Keyes v. School District No. 1, 521 F.2d at 483. In the context of the opinion as a 1508*1508 whole, it is clear that the reference to "other minority children" refers to all children with limited-English language proficiency.
The issues common to all children of limited-English language proficiency now or hereafter enrolled in the Denver Public Schools to be considered in this litigation are whether the school district has denied them equal protection of the laws, whether the defendant has failed to follow the requirements of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and whether the school district has failed to follow the mandate of Section 1703(f) of the Equal Educational Opportunities Act.
Typicality.

Before trial of the language issues, CHE and the original intervenors were particularly identified with the Hispanic community. The additional intervenors who participated in the trial are also from that community. The typicality prerequisite is met if the claims of students with limited-English proficiency who are affected by the Spanish language are representative of the claims of children who are affected by other languages. I find that they are representative and therefore typical because there are Spanish-speaking children who do not have the opportunity to participate in the special bilingual programs provided for some Spanish speakers and who are, therefore, no different from speakers of other languages for whom there are no comparable programs in Denver. Whatever conflict may exist for those Spanish-speaking children who are receiving bilingual instruction, and who are thus provided better opportunities than those given to Indochinese or other children who are classified as LEP, there are other Spanish speakers who are attending schools under the same programs for those who speak Asian languages and the other identified language groups shown in the trial record in this case.
Adequacy of Representation.
The determination of this prerequisite has been made easy by the delay in class certification. The principal question in deciding whether the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class is the adequacy of the attorneys who are in appearance. One need only read the record of the trial and the briefs filed for the plaintiffintervenors to conclude that their counsel are highly competent lawyers who have vigorously asserted the interests of all present and future LEP pupils involved with the Denver Public Schools.
Having determined that all of the prerequisites required under Rule 23(a) are met, the court must then consider whether a class action is maintainable under one of the subsections of Rule 23(b). Again, the answer is self-evident from a review of the record in this case. The school district has designed its program in a manner which can be considered as action or refusal to act on grounds generally applicable to all LEP children and, therefore, the class action should be maintained under Rule 23(b)(2).
This court has not disregarded the defendant's concerns about the possibility that nonHispanic LEP children may be denied their constitutional protection of due process of law by being made a part of the class certified by this court. It is apparent that their rights and interests have been fully considered by the manner in which the evidence and legal arguments have been presented by plaintiff-intervenors' counsel in this case and by the procedural and evidentiary rulings made by this court to this time. It is appropriate, as plaintiff-intervenors' counsel have suggested, to distinguish between the liability and remedy phases of a class action lawsuit and, in the event of any remedy hearings which may involve a conflict, this court has the authority to change both the class certification and to order the separate representation of sub-classes.
SECTION 1703(f) OF THE EEOA

In enacting the Equal Educational Opportunities Act in 1974, the United States Congress was reacting to the many court cases in which the transportation of students from their residential neighborhoods was used as a means for removing 1509*1509 some of the effects of segregation from the operation of a dual school system. The statement of policy in Section 1701 includes a specific statement of support for neighborhood schools. That section, in its entirety, is as follows:
(a) The Congress declares it to be the policy of the United States that — (1) all children enrolled in public schools are entitled to equal educational opportunity without regard to race, color, sex, or national origin; and (2) the neighborhood is the appropriate basis for determining public school assignments. (b) In order to carry out this policy, it is the purpose of this sub-chapter to specify appropriate remedies for the orderly removal of the vestiges of the dual school system.
20 U.S.C. § 1701.
The legislative findings in Section 1702 of the EEOA include explicit criticism of extensive use of student transportation and, in the following language from Section 1702(a)(6), express a sense of frustration with the guidelines provided by the courts:
(6) the guidelines provided by the courts for fashioning remedies to dismantle dual school systems have been, as the Supreme Court of the United States has said, "incomplete and imperfect," and have not established, a clear, rational, and uniform standard for determining the extent to which a local educational agency is required to reassign and transport its students in order to eliminate the vestiges of a dual school system.
From the legislative findings, the Congress reached the following conclusion set forth in Section 1702(b):
(b) For the foregoing reasons, it is necessary and proper that the Congress, pursuant to the powers granted to it by the Constitution of the United States, specify appropriate remedies for the elimination of the vestiges of dual school systems, except that the provisions of this chapter are not intended to modify or diminish the authority of the courts of the United States to enforce fully the fifth and fourteenth amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
In this litigation, the transportation of students has been used as a part of the effort to remedy the effects of the past segregative policies in the Denver school system. Busing has been the primary means for the removal of racially isolated schools. That aspect of the case is not now directly under consideration, but, as will appear, it is unrealistic to parse out particular components of a school system when considering the fundamental issue of an equal educational opportunity for all students within the school population. The Congress showed the same perception in defining unlawful practices in Section 1703 of the EEOA, which reads as follows:
No State shall deny equal educational opportunity to an individual on account of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin, by —

(a) the deliberate segregation by an educational agency of students on the basis of race, color, or national origin among or within schools; (b) the failure of an educational agency which has formerly practiced such deliberate segregation to take affirmative steps, consistent with subpart 4 of this title, to remove the vestiges of a dual school system; (c) the assignment by an educational agency of a student to a school, other than the one closest to his or her place of residence within the school district in which he or she resides, if the assignment results in a greater degree of segregation of students on the basis of race, color, sex, or national origin among the schools of such agency than would result if such student were assigned to the school closest to his or her place of residence within the school district of such agency providing the appropriate grade level and type of education for such student; (d) discrimination by an educational agency on the basis of race, color, or national origin in the employment, employment conditions, or assignment to 1510*1510 schools of its faculty or staff, except to fulfill the purposes of subsection (f) below; (e) the transfer by an educational agency, whether voluntary or otherwise, of a student from one school to another if the purpose and effect of such transfer is to increase segregation of students on the basis of race, color, or national origin among the schools of such agency; or (f) the failure by an educational agency to take appropriate action to overcome language barriers that impede equal participation by its students in its instructional programs.
20 U.S.C. § 1703.
The present focus of attention is on subsection (f) of Section 1703. That subsection was analyzed carefully by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Castaneda v. Pickard, 648 F.2d 989 (5th Cir.1981), a case which is very instructive in the present controversy. There, the Court made the following pertinent observations:
We note that although Congress enacted both the Bilingual Education Act and the EEOA as part of the 1974 amendments to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Congress, in describing the remedial obligation it sought to impose on the states in the EEOA, did not specify that a state must provide a program of "bilingual education" to all limited English speaking students. We think Congress' use of the less specific term, "appropriate action," rather than "bilingual education," indicates that Congress intended to leave state and local educational authorities a substantial amount of latitude in choosing the programs and techniques they would use to meet their obligations under the EEOA. However, by including an obligation to address the problem of language barriers in the EEOA and granting limited English speaking students a private right of action to enforce that obligation in § 1706, Congress also must have intended to insure that schools made a genuine and good faith effort, consistent with local circumstances and resources, to remedy the language deficiencies of their students and deliberately placed on federal courts the difficult responsibility of determining whether that obligation had been met. Congress has provided us with almost no guidance, in the form of text or legislative history, to assist us in determining whether a school district's language remediation efforts are "appropriate." Thus we find ourselves confronted with a type of task which federal courts are ill-equipped to perform and which we are often criticized for undertaking — prescribing substantive standards and policies for institutions whose governance is properly reserved to

other levels and branches of our government (i.e., state and local educational agencies) which are better able to assimilate and assess the knowledge of professionals in the field. Confronted, reluctantly, with this type of task in this case, we have attempted to devise a mode of analysis which will permit ourselves and the lower courts to fulfill the responsibility Congress has assigned to us without unduly substituting our educational values and theories for the educational and political decisions reserved to state or local school authorities or the expert knowledge of educators.
Castaneda v. Pickard, 648 F.2d 989, 1009 (5th Cir.1981).
The suggested analysis is to ask three questions. First, is the school system pursuing a program based on an educational theory recognized as sound or at least as a legitimate experimental strategy by some of the experts in the field? Second, is the program reasonably calculated to implement that theory? Third, after being used for enough time to be a legitimate trial, has the program produced satisfactory results? United States v. State of Texas, 680 F.2d 356, 371 (5th Cir.1982).
THE EVIDENCE
Limited-English proficiency children in the district.
School District No. 1 has a duty to identify, assess and record those students who come within the provisions of the English 1511*1511 Language Proficiency Act, enacted by the Colorado General Assembly in 1981, codified at C.R.S. §§ 22-24-101 to 106 (1982 Cum.Supp.). The district uses classifications called Lau categories. These Lau categories were defined originally by the Department of Health, Education and Welfare ("HEW"), now the Department of Education, as part of its Lau Guidelines, which HEW drafted as administrative recommendations following the Supreme Court's decision in Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563, 94 S.Ct. 786, 39 L.Ed.2d 1 (1974).
Section 22-24-103(4) of the Colorado statute does not use the words "Lau A, B and C," but the definitions provided therein track the Lau categories. That section provides for the classification of children as follows:
"Student whose dominant language is not English" means a public school student whose academic achievement and English language proficiency are determined by his local school district, using instruments and tests approved by the department, to be impaired because of his inability to comprehend or speak English adequately due to the influence of a language other than English and who is one or more of the following: (a) A student who speaks a language other than English and does not comprehend or speak English; or (b) A student who comprehends or speaks some English, but whose predominant comprehension or speech is in a language other than English; or (c) A student who comprehends and speaks English and one or more other languages and whose dominant language is difficult to determine, if the student's English language development and comprehension is:

(I) At or below the district mean or below the mean or equivalent on a nationally standardized test; or (II) Below the acceptable proficiency level on an English language proficiency test developed by the department.
C.R.S. § 22-24-103(4).
For the 1981-82 school year, the defendant school district used a survey which identified 3,322 children as limited-English speaking. Of that total count, 2,429 were Lau categories A and B, and 893 were Lau category C, as those terms are defined under the Colorado English Language Proficiency Act. There were 42 separate language groups identified among these students in the Denver Public Schools.
At the elementary level (Grades K-6) 1,639 students were identified as Lau A and B and 637 as Lau C. In the secondary grades (7-12) there were 790 Lau A and B students and 256 Lau C. During the 1981-1982 school year, the school district operated 117 schools — 88 elementary, 19 junior high, and 10 senior high schools — with a total enrollment in grades 1-12 of 54,644 students. Lau Category A and B students in the 42 language groups attended 83 of the school district's 88 elementary schools and there were Lau A and B students in all 19 of the junior high schools and all 10 of the senior high schools.
Although 42 languages were represented among the district's limited-English proficiency children in 1981-82, the majority fell into two language groups. There were 1,851 children, or 55.72% of the total number of LEP students at all grade levels, whose other language was Spanish. The second largest group, comprising 36.48% of all LEP children in the district, consisted of 1,212 children who are influenced by one of four Indochinese languages: Cambodian (116); Hmong (417); Lao (174); and Vietnamese (505).
At the elementary level, 919 Spanish language students were identified as Lau A and B, which represents 2.8% of the K-6 population. At the time of the trial, 80% of the Spanish language Lau A and B children were in grades K-3. At the junior high level, 146 Spanish language A and B students were identified, representing 1.07% of the junior high school population. At the senior high school level, the survey identified 86 Spanish language A and B students or two-thirds of one percent (.67%) of the senior high population. District-wide the Spanish language A and B population K-12 totaled 1,151 or 1.9% of the total 1512*1512 district enrollment. An additional 700 Spanish language students were identified as Lau category C.
The school district's curriculum.
At the elementary level, a transitional bilingual program exists at twelve elementary schools: Boulevard, Bryant-Webster, Crofton, Del Pueblo, Fairmont, Fairview, Garden Place, Gilpin, Greenlee, Mitchell, Swansea and Valdez. At all those schools except Valdez, the program is for grades K-3; at Valdez it is provided for grades K-6. Not all classrooms in these schools are designated bilingual classrooms; most have one designated bilingual classroom for each grade level in the program. At Fairmont there are two designated bilingual classrooms for each grade level K-3. While only 13.4% of the total number of limited-English proficiency

children enrolled in the district (Lau A, B and C children, including all 42 language groups) were receiving instruction in bilingual classrooms during 1981-82, 31.03% of the total number of Spanish speaking, elementary level limited-English speaking children were in bilingual classrooms.
No speakers of languages other than Spanish, and no Spanish speaking Lau C children receive instruction in designated bilingual classrooms. The bilingual classrooms are intended to have about 40% limited-English proficiency children, and 60% English proficient children, but the actual figures deviate from this goal. Students who are placed in bilingual classrooms merge with the rest of the student body for classes in art, music and physical education, and for lunch and recess.
There are differences in the teaching staff in the desegregated bilingual schools. Each bilingual classroom is taught by a certified teacher, but many of those teachers are monolingual English. Most teachers, including all of the monolingual English teachers, have a bilingual aide to assist in communicating with those children who do not speak English. It is a fair inference that any instruction in Spanish, in classrooms led by monolingual English teachers, occurs through these bilingual aides. In several designated bilingual classrooms, there are full or part-time ESL (English as a Second Language) tutors to assist in English language instruction. In other classrooms ESL is taught by the teachers and aides.
In addition, each bilingual school, except for Mitchell, has a bilingual resource teacher who serves in an administrative and supportive role. (Del Pueblo and Valdez have two bilingual resource teachers, while Bryant-Webster and Greenlee have half-time bilingual resource teachers.) The resource teacher's duties are extensive, including: coordinate between the classroom teacher and the aide in establishing an instructional program; provide technical and other assistance to bilingual classrooms; coordinate the total bilingual effort within the school; meet weekly with the teachers and aides to discuss student progress and other program concerns; provide at least two hours of in-service training to the aides weekly; develop curriculum and materials; involve parents and the community in the program; assess and evaluate limited-English speaking children; diagnose their needs and prescribe specialized curricula; demonstrate techniques and methodologies involved in bilingual instruction, second language acquisition, ESL, and Spanish oral language development; read to children in Spanish; and work with children on conceptual development using the child's native language. All the bilingual resource teachers are bilingual.
For those Lau A and B elementary level children who are not in designated bilingual classrooms — about 1,200 in all languages and about 500 Spanish-speaking children — the district provides two modes of ESL instruction. Four elementary schools — Brown, Cheltenham, Goldrick and Mitchell — have a full-time ESL teacher. The remaining elementary schools (and the non-Spanish speaking Lau A and B children in the twelve bilingual schools) are served by full or part-time tutors who instruct in ESL. All ESL instruction, whether it is by a teacher or tutor, occurs on a "pull-out" basis: the children are taken from their regular classrooms to receive from 30 to 60 minutes of ESL instruction each day. The 1513*1513 school district's 55 tutors serve Lau A and B children in 75 elementary schools, generally meeting with groups of two to four children at one time, and tutoring an average of 20 children per six-hour day. For the rest of the day, the child

receives content instruction in the regular classroom, entirely in English. Some regular classroom teachers are bilingual and the child may receive some content instruction in his native language through those teachers. The elementary ESL program uses the "IDEA Kit," which employs pictures, actions and other materials to teach Lau A and B children oral skills in English.
At the secondary level, there is no program comparable to that found in the designated bilingual elementary schools.
The principal program for secondary level limited-English proficiency students is ESL taught by teachers and tutors for about 45 minutes each day. The ESL curriculum consists of four sequential levels of reading, writing and conversation instruction: levels I and II are for Lau A students; levels III and IV are for Lau B students. Lau C students do not receive ESL instruction unless they choose to take courses offered as electives, such as "Practical English," "Language Development in English," or language lab courses.
The October, 1981, survey identified 146 Spanish A and B Category students in the junior high schools. Of this number 121 or 82.8% attended schools with ESL programs. 108 of those students (89.2%) were in ESL programs conducted by a bilingual teacher.
In the senior high schools ESL programs are available in schools attended by 78 of the 86 identified Spanish speaking A and B students. In addition, 316 A and B students in other identified language groups attended schools with structured ESL programs.
At four of the district's thirty secondary schools — Hill Junior High, Hamilton Junior High, Manual High, and Thomas Jefferson High — ESL instruction is not available. At the time of trial there were either no limited-English speaking students, or only Lau C students, at Hill and Hamilton. For Lau A and B students at secondary schools without established ESL programs, and for some limited-English speaking students at other secondary schools in the district, the Fred Thomas Career Center provides ESL instruction. Students travel to the Center, which had an enrollment of 55 students in 1981-82, for ESL instruction by a teacher and two aides.
In addition to the specific ESL programs, course materials in content areas of American History, geography, physical science, natural science, mathematics, sex education, health and hygiene, and general hygiene have been translated into the five major language groups for use in the school curriculum. Materials have also been translated for use in the home economics, physical education, and industrial arts areas. Ms. Bonilla, the director of this program, is also engaged in the development of a program known as Transference of Learning from Native Language to English through Content Area Cassette Tapes and Supplementary Materials. This is a project designed to meet the needs of two populations — those students who are literate in their native language and need to develop cognitive skills while learning English, and, secondly, those who are illiterate in their own language and thus need to hear the content area material in order to have an understanding of it.
A final component of the school district's program is a summer ESL program. According to Mr. Hal Anderson, who directs the program, it was expected to serve from 400 to 500 Lau A

and B children in 22 classrooms. Students are selected for the summer program based on teacher referrals.
Testing.
The identification of limited-English speaking children, and the placement of those children in Lau categories A, B and C, does not occur through a formal testing process. Instead, the school district employs the Lau questionnaire. The questionnaire is filled out by each child's parents and is reviewed by a teacher. If the parents and teacher concur that the child is 1514*1514 not limited-English speaking, the district determines him to be ineligible for the bilingual/ESL program. It is common for parents to overstate the language abilities of their children, and the teacher's involvement in the questionnaire is intended to safeguard against that. Most of the district's teachers are not trained in linguistics, bilingual education, other languages, or in detecting language problems. At the secondary level those students who are identified as LEP are given an ESL test to place them in ESL level I, II, III or IV.
To measure the progress of elementary children receiving ESL instruction, the school district uses the IDEA Test, which is a part of the IDEA Kit. In addition to the IDEA Test, the district relies on the opinions of its teachers and staff to determine whether and how much the child has progressed. If the student achieves "mastery" of the IDEA Test, he leaves the ESL program, unless his tutor or teacher determines that it would not be appropriate to "mainstream" him at that point. The IDEA Test is also used for those students receiving instruction in designated bilingual classrooms, because part of the transitional bilingual program is ESL instruction through the IDEA Kit. If the child achieves mastery in the test, he will be released from the bilingual program. Of course, if a child becomes proficient in English during the school year he can remain in the bilingual classroom and simply do without the ESL instruction, effectively joining the English speaking children already in the classroom.
At the secondary level, the school district measures progress in the ESL program through the Structure Test of English Language, or STEL. That test is administered twice a year, on a pre/post basis.
The school district does not keep records of the progress of children who have left either the bilingual or ESL program. There is no continuing support provided to students who have exited from either program, and the district does not compare their performance against that of non-limited-English speaking children. None of the tests used by the district measures the capabilities of limited-English speaking children in their native languages in either language skills or content areas.
Staffing.
Teachers in designated bilingual classrooms are placed by the school district's personnel office, rather than by the bilingual program administrator, Mr. Moses Martinez. These placement decisions do not depend upon the teacher's proficiency in a second language or in bilingual instruction skills. For example, the personnel office often will assign tenured

teachers or teachers already working within a particular school, to fill vacancies in bilingual classrooms, even though those teachers are not bilingual and have no training for bilingual teaching, and even though a non-tenured bilingual teacher is available. There is no state endorsement for bilingual classroom teachers. Selection is based on an oral interview. The district does not administer a written test to evaluate either language skills or bilingual instruction skills.
No special training is required for ESL teachers and there is no state endorsement for ESL teachers. There is no formal district procedure to assess them for language proficiency or ESL teaching skills. ESL teachers are not required to be bilingual.
During the 1980-81 school year, over 200 of the district's teachers — predominantly teachers who did not lead designated bilingual classrooms or teach ESL — received an 18hour in-service training course which covered the basics of linguistics, ESL (including the IDEA Kit curriculum), and multicultural awareness. The school district did not follow up on whether those teachers actually used such training in their classrooms; nor did the school district know whether those teachers taught in classrooms or schools with large numbers of limited-English speaking children.
There are regular classroom teachers in the district who are bilingual, generally in English and Spanish. The evidence did not show the number of bilingual teachers who were working in the district during the 1981-82 school year.
1515*1515 The district's ESL tutors are classified as Paraprofessional III staff, which means they must have two years of college or equivalent experience. According to Mr. Martinez, many of the tutors have college and graduate degrees; a few have less than two years of college. ESL tutors are not required to have state certification for teaching, previous training in language acquisition or ESL instruction, bilingual capabilities, or past experience teaching ESL. The school district provides a two-day training session for new ESL tutors at the start of each school year. If tutors are hired during the school year (due to vacancies, which occur frequently), they receive one day of training at the office of bilingual education, and two days of observation in the field.
Bilingual classroom aides are designated as Paraprofessional II staff, which means they must have completed high school. Aides' bilingualism is measured through an oral interview only, without any written examination or classroom observation. The evidence does not disclose what, if any, training is required for bilingual aides. Bilingual resource teachers must be bilingual. As with other teachers, there is no written instrument for determining their bilingualism; instead, that determination is based on an oral interview.
Program Administration.
The school district's program for limited-English speaking students is directed by the Department of Bilingual and Multi-cultural Education headed by Mr. Martinez. That office is responsible for the coordination of the programs of Bilingual Education, English for Speakers of Other Languages, ESL Tutorial Programs and others. The staff consists of one secretary, three clerks, four teachers on special assignment, six paraprofessionals who

serve as translators and interpreters, one paraprofessional for community liaison, one paraprofessional resource librarian, and instrumental consultants. The community liaison paraprofessional works in the elementary bilingual program, does some liaison work at the secondary level, and works actively with Indochinese parents. She also teaches an English class for parents. The six paraprofessionals include native language speakers of Hmong, Laotian, Vietnamese, Cambodian, and Spanish. The paraprofessionals are primarily responsible for translating curriculum, and interpreting and translating messages and information for the parents of limited-English speaking students. The curriculum translations include units in social studies, science, and mathematics in the five major languages.
Program growth and funding.
The program of services for limited-English speaking students in the Denver Public Schools has been developed with the assistance of expert consultants from the Colorado Department of Education and from Bueno Bilingual Service Center at Boulder, Colorado. The current program began in September, 1980.
There has been an increase in the number of bilingual teachers from three (3) to thirty-six (36), an increase in tutors from twelve (12) to seventy-two (72), an increase of four (4) schools at the elementary level with ESL programs, and the placement of seventeen (17) tutors in addition to the regular classroom teachers and full-time ESL teachers in twentyseven (27) secondary schools.
During this same period, the school district substantially increased its funding for bilingual and ESL instruction from $139,326 in 1979 to $1,293,625 at the time of the trial. This commitment is in addition to the salaries of the regularly assigned teachers in the program. During the 1981-82 school year, the school district received $81,687 under a Title VII Computer Demonstration Grant, $137,200 under the Transition Act for Refugee Children, and $991,137 in state funds under the English Language Proficiency Act.
The funds from the state are computed pursuant to the formula set out in the Colorado English Language Proficiency Act, C.R.S. § 22-24-104. That section of the Act sets limits on the funding allowed for limited-English speaking children, and allots funds on a per-student basis. The maximum amount is $400 per year for a Lau A or B child, and $200 per year for a 1516*1516 Lau C child as that term is used in the Act. In addition, the Act prohibits funding of a particular student's educational program for longer than two years. Id. § 22-24-104(3).
HAS DENVER DESIGNED A PROGRAM BASED ON A SOUND EDUCATIONAL THEORY?
The defendant district has a freedom of choice among several educational theories which experts have recognized as valid strategies for language remediation in public schools. It is, of course, subject to the requirements of Colorado statutes. While the Colorado English Language Proficiency Act is essentially a funding program, it does establish an affirmative duty on Colorado school districts in § 22-24-105 which reads as follows:

(1) It is the duty of each district to: (a) Identify, through the observations and recommendations of parents, teachers, or other persons, students whose dominant language may not be English; (b) Assess such students, using instruments and techniques approved by the department, to determine if their dominant language is not English; (c) Certify to the department those students in the district whose dominant language is not English; (d) Administer and provide programs for students whose dominant language is not English.
The state has not, however, directed the use of any particular type of language program.
Denver has elected to use what is called a "transitional bilingual approach" which is well described in the following language from the Denver Public Schools' Bilingual Program Model for the 1981-82 School Year:
The intent of bilingual education is to facilitate the integration of the child into the regular school curriculum. English is not sacrificed, in fact it is emphasized; the native language is used as a medium of instruction to ensure academic success in content areas such as math, social studies, etc., while the child at the same time is acquiring proficiency of the English language.
(Intervenors' Exhibit 26).
The parties are in agreement and the testifying experts have all said that this is a recognized and satisfactory approach to the problem of educating LEP children. Mr. Martinez testified that this is a two-pronged approach. One is to provide the student with an opportunity to develop English language skills and the other is to provide content area to him in a language he understands while he is learning English. The experts agree that this approach not only should enable LEP students to enter the mainstream of instruction, it also helps to overcome the emotional barriers of fear, frustration, discouragement and anger by providing understandable content instruction in their native language during the transitional phase.
HAS DENVER PURSUED ITS PROGRAM WITH ADEQUATE RESOURCES, PERSONNEL AND PRACTICES?
The elementary bilingual classroom program is the best which Denver has to offer LEP children. Accordingly, the analysis should begin with a focus on the deficiencies in that program.
The key to an effective elementary bilingual classroom is the ability of the teacher to communicate with the children. Thus, if it is expected that understandable instruction will take place, there must be assurance that the teacher has the necessary bilingual skills. That is not the fact in Denver.

Teachers are designated as bilingual in Spanish and English based on an oral interview. There are no standardized testing procedures to determine the competence of the bilingual teacher in speaking and writing both languages. Accordingly, it is inappropriate to assume that effective communication is taking place even with the fortunate few Lau A Spanish speaking students who are assigned to bilingual classrooms 1517*1517 with bilingual teachers in the twelve elementary schools having that program.
Given the district's declaration of a transitional bilingual policy and the obvious need for the services of competent bilingual teachers, it would be reasonable to expect that the placement of teachers with those skills would be matched with the programs in the designated schools. That is not the case in Denver.
The assignment of teachers to bilingual schools in the defendant district is accomplished by the same procedure used for the assignment of teachers to all other schools. Teachers with tenure have preferential rights for assignment to vacancies according to their seniority. Accordingly, a monolingual English teacher may fill a vacancy in a bilingual classroom at a bilingual school even though a qualified bilingual teacher with less seniority is available for placement there. Likewise, tenured monolingual teachers cannot be removed from a bilingual classroom to create a vacancy for a competent bilingual teacher. The justification for this contradiction of common sense is that the movement and placement of teachers is restricted by personnel regulations and contractual commitments.
The ESL component of the program is being delivered by ESL designated instructors who have not been subjected to any standardized testing for their language skills and they receive very little training in ESL theory and methodology. The record shows that in the secondary schools there are designated ESL teachers who have no second language capability. There is no basis for assuming that the policy objectives of the program are being met in such schools. The tutorial program relies on paraprofessionals who may have second language skills but who are not required to show any competence or experience with content area knowledge, or teaching techniques, and who receive scant in-service training.
It should be noted that the inadequacy of the delivery system for the bilingual education program in Raymondville, Texas was one of the specific defects which the court required to be remedied in the Castaneda v. Pickard, supra, case from which opinion the following comment is taken:
The record in this case thus raises serious doubts about the actual language competency of the teachers employed in bilingual classrooms by RISD and about the degree to which the district is making a genuine effort to assess and improve the qualifications of its bilingual teachers. As in any educational program, qualified teachers are a critical component of the success of a language remediation program. A bilingual education program, however sound in theory, is clearly unlikely to have a significant impact on the language barriers confronting limited English speaking school children, if the teachers charged with day-to-day responsibility for educating these children are termed "qualified" despite the fact that they operate in the classroom under their own unremedied language disability. The use of Spanish speaking aides may be an appropriate interim measure, but such aides cannot,

RISD acknowledges, take the place of qualified bilingual teachers .... Nor can there be any question that deficiencies in the in-service training of teachers for bilingual classrooms seriously undermine the promise of the district's bilingual education program. Until deficiencies in this aspect of the program's implementation are remedied, we do not think RISD can be deemed to be taking "appropriate action" to overcome the language disabilities of its students.
648 F.2d at 1013.
The Spanish speakers in the elementary bilingual classrooms are the most fortunate of the limited-English proficient children. Most LEP students are not in those classrooms. Accordingly, it follows that for those students there is less commitment and effort to achieve implementation of the transitional bilingual policy. Significant numbers of limited-English proficient children attend schools which are not bilingual. Some of the secondary students from certain schools are brought together for extended ESL services at the Fred Thomas Center. That type of "clustering" has not 1518*1518 been used elsewhere. What appears from the record is that outside of the bilingual classrooms, the Lau A children and perhaps the Lau B children, are not receiving content area instruction in a language which they understand and that, at best, some remedial oral English training is being given to them.
The emphasis on the acquisition of oral English skills for LEP students is another cause for concern. The record indicates that on the average, ESL instruction by a teacher or tutor is limited to 40 minutes per day of remedial English instruction using an audiolingual approach. While there is no doubt that acquisition of oral English skills is vital for the students' participation in classroom work, it is equally obvious that reading and writing skills are also necessary if it is expected that "parity in participation" in the total academic experience will be achieved.
Another matter of concern is the apparent disregard of any special curriculum needs of Lau C children. The defendant considers Lau C children to be bilingual, presumably with equal proficiency in English and another language. The apparent assumption is that such students need not be participants in a remedial English language program. That view disregards the other element of the applicable definition in the Colorado Language Proficiency Act that the English language development and comprehension of such bilingual students is at or below the district mean or below an acceptable proficiency level on a national standardized test or a test developed by the Colorado Department of Education. Lau C students are within the class of persons for whom there is a statutory duty under both the Colorado Act and § 1703(f). Denver is not meeting that obligation.
The defendant's program is also flawed by the failure to adopt adequate tests to measure the results of what the district is doing. The operative philosophy exhibited in the evidence is that there is a "good faith" effort to provide "some service" to as many LEP students as possible. The lack of an adequate measurement of the effects of such service is a failure to take reasonable action to implement the transitional bilingual policy.
In summary, what is shown by this record is that the defendant district has failed, in varying degrees, to satisfy the requirements of § 1703(f) of the Equal Educational Opportunities Act.

The defendant seeks to justify its program by talking in numbers, and quoting from the concurring opinion of Justice Blackmun in Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563, 572, 94 S.Ct. 786, 791, 39 L.Ed.2d 1 (1974) and from the opinion in Serna v. Portales Municipal Schools, 499 F.2d 1147 (10th Cir.1974). There are two pertinent observations. First, the numbers of Lau A, B and C children for whom appropriate action has not been taken are substantial and significant. Second, the importance of numbers in an equal protection analysis under the Constitution is materially different from their use in considering the adequacy of compliance with the statutory mandate of § 1703(f). As the plaintiff-intervenors have observed, under § 1706, any individual denied an equal educational opportunity as defined in the Act may institute a civil action for private relief.
HAS THE DENVER TRANSITIONAL BILINGUAL PROGRAM ACHIEVED SATISFACTORY RESULTS?
This is the most difficult question in the Castaneda case analysis because it implies the establishment of a substantive standard of quality in educational benefits. It is beyond the competence of the courts to determine appropriate measurements of academic achievement and there is damage to the fabric of federalism when national courts dictate the use of any component of the educational process in schools governed by elected officers of local government.
Fortunately, it is not now necessary to discuss this question because of the findings of the district's failure to take reasonable action to implement the bilingual education policy which it adopted. The inadequacies of the programs and practices shown in this record make it premature to consider any analysis of the results. Moreover, 1519*1519 the program is still under development.
What is subject to comment are two very significant indications of failure in achieving the objective of equal educational opportunity for LEP children. One is the number of Hispanic "drop-outs" peaking in the tenth grade. There is an interesting relationship between that surge of dropouts and the sharp decline in the overall number of Lau C category students between grades 7-9 and grades 10-12. A second indicator of failure is the use of "levelled English" handouts for the district's LEP student population in the secondary schools. The evidence includes illustrations of such handouts and it is apparent from examining those exhibits that they are not comparable to the English language textbooks. The use of such materials is an acknowledgement by the school district that the LEP students have failed to attain a reasonable parity of participation with the other students in the educational process at the secondary school level.
CLAIMS FOR DENIAL OF EQUAL PROTECTION AND VIOLATION OF TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964

In Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563, 94 S.Ct. 786, 39 L.Ed.2d 1 (1974) the Supreme Court held that the failure of the San Francisco school system to provide meaningful education to nonEnglish-speaking Chinese students had the effect of denying them equal educational opportunity in violation of § 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d (Title VI). The Court did not find it necessary to consider whether that was also a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution. Here, it is not necessary to consider either the constitutional question or Title VI. Section 1703(f) is a much more specific direction and to take appropriate action under it would necessarily redress any violation of the equal educational opportunities requirements of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and of the Constitution. It may be observed parenthetically, that the vitality of Lau v. Nichols, supra, has been questioned since Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265, 98 S.Ct. 2733, 57 L.Ed.2d 750 (1978). See discussion in Otero v. Mesa County Valley School District No. 51, 470 F.Supp. 326, 330 (D.Colo.1979), aff'd on other grounds 628 F.2d 1271 (10th Cir.1982). If Bakke has altered Lau, to require a discriminatory intent, the evidence in the record in this case does not support a finding of such an intent with respect to Hispanic or any other language group.
The inquiry is not necessary here because it is clear from the plain language of the statute and from the opinion in Castaneda, supra, that the affirmative obligation to take appropriate action to remove language barriers imposed by 20 U.S.C. § 1703(f) does not depend upon any finding of discriminatory intent, and a failure to act is not excused by any amount of good faith.
REMEDY
The defendant district has amply demonstrated the many practical difficulties involved in attempting to take appropriate action to achieve equal educational opportunity for the limited-English proficiency student population. Denver does have public education burdens which are different from other districts in the state of Colorado. It serves a core city community. Students with many different language backgrounds and varying degrees of literacy in any language enter and leave the public schools of Denver, at all grade levels, and without any predictable patterns. This creates uncertainties making both the planning and delivery of remedial language services very difficult. The problem is further complicated by the great diversity of cultural and socio-economic conditions among the pupil population.
It is unreasonable to expect that the school district could provide a full bilingual education to every single LEP student who attends or will ever attend a Denver Public School. The law does not require such perfection. But the defendant does have 1520*1520 the duty to take appropriate action to eliminate language barriers which currently prevent a great number of students from participating equally in the educational programs offered by the district.
The findings made in this memorandum opinion compel the conclusion that the defendant has failed to perform this duty. Accordingly, under § 1706 of the EEOA, the members of the plaintiff-intervenors' class are entitled to "such relief as may be appropriate." That will include changes in the design of the program and in the system for delivery of services. Such changes must remedy the failure to give adequate consideration to Lau classifications in the pupil assignment plan; the failure to consider the need to serve Lau C children; the

lack of adequate standards and testing of the qualifications for bilingual teachers, ESL teachers, tutors and aides; the lack of adequate tests for classifying Lau A, B and C students; the failure to provide remedial training in the reading and writing of English; the lack of adequate testing for effects and results of the remedial program provided to the students; and the absence of any standards or testing for educational deficits resulting from their lack of participation in the regular classrooms.
These changes will increase the capacity of the system. That alone will not be effective. There must be a change in the institutional commitment to the objective and a recognition that to assist disadvantaged children to participate in public education is to help them enter the mainstream of our social, economic and political systems. The resulting benefits to the community are self-evident and the production of such benefits is the purpose of tax supported education in the United States. "[E]ducation provides the basic tools by which individuals might lead economically productive lives to the benefit of us all. In sum, education has a fundamental role in maintaining the fabric of our society. We cannot ignore the significant costs borne by our Nation when select groups are denied the means to absorb the values and skills upon which our social order rests." Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 221, 102 S.Ct. 2382, 2397, 72 L.Ed.2d 786 (1982). The character of the disadvantage, whether it results from racial identities or the language influences of different ethnicity, is relevant only to the methodology to be employed. Throughout the trial and in the post trial brief, the defendant district has consistently claimed that there has been a good faith effort to provide some service to every student in the district who needs assistance in gaining proficiency in English. To the extent that "good faith" is equated with a lack of discriminatory intent or an absence of a complete disregard for students who are disadvantaged by a lack of English language proficiency, the record supports that contention. That, however, is not an adequate defense to claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1706. What is required is an effort which will be reasonably effective in producing the intended result of removing language barriers to participation in the instructional programs offered by the district.
Whether that effort will be made internally through the normal processes of local government or externally, through the procedures of litigation in this court, will depend upon the degree of acceptance of responsibility by those who direct the defendant district. Those who are most critical of this nation's civil rights laws and court decisions must surely realize that the need for the use of the coercive forces of the legal system is in inverse proportion to the degree of recognition that the viability of a pluralistic democracy depends upon the willingness to accept all of the "thems" as "us." Whether the motives of the framers be considered moralistic or pragmatic, the structure of the Constitution rests on the foundational principle that successful self-governance can be achieved only through public institutions following egalitarian policies.
The approach to developing a remedy for the defendant's failure to obey the congressional mandate in 42 U.S.C. § 1703(f) must be considered in the complete context of this civil action. The record which was before the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals at the time of its rejection of the "Cardenas plan" aspects of the desegregation order in 1521*1521 1975 did not include any consideration of the claims under that statute. Indeed, the enactment of the EEOA in 1974 is one of the legal developments which occurred during the pendency of this

case. Consideration of the claims concerning language remediation is a new facet in this old problem.
During the course of this litigation, this court has repeatedly stressed the importance of recognizing that disestablishing a dual school system and creating a unitary system with equal educational opportunity requires attention to all aspects of public education. Unfortunately, the record of this case shows that those who have governed the district during the past decade have consistently centered their attention on the shibboleth of "forced busing." The requirement that some students must be transported from their residential areas to achieve a mix of racial and ethnic groups in individual schools has never been intended to be more than a lever to try to energize other efforts to ameliorate the historical disadvantages of race and national origin in a society which has long been dominated by a single group. Limited-English proficiency is one of those disadvantages.
The Congress had justification when, in § 1702 of the EEOA, they criticized the failure of the courts to articulate adequate guidance for local public officials in desegregation cases. The Denver Board of Education has expressed the same frustration. Yet, it is noted that the legislative mandate to take "appropriate action to overcome language barriers" appearing in § 1703(f) is not a particularly helpful contribution. As observed in the quotations from the Castaneda opinion, the lack of precision in that phraseology has resulted in a return to the courts to litigate these issues.
Perhaps what Congress did achieve is to give added emphasis to the importance of the educational opportunities which should be provided and to remind those who govern school districts that removing the vestiges of a dual school system requires more than maintaining ratios in pupil assignments.
Consideration of the deficiencies in Denver's efforts to remove the barriers to participation by limited-English proficiency students demonstrates, again, the inter-relationship of each integral aspect of a truly unitary school system. To remedy the lack of bilingual teachers involves aspects of the affirmative action plan which has never been completed in this case, and may require alterations in the use of the seniority system. The placement of pupils into appropriate bilingual language programs may require changes in pupil assignments and transfers, which impact on the mix of students in individual schools. The use of "clustering" and magnet schools are approaches which may be productive, but which also impact on other aspects of the system. Perhaps the computer can be a very significant teaching tool for language remediation as suggested by the demonstration grant program which was discussed in the testimony at trial.
In sum, the issues which have been brought before the court by the plaintiff-intervenors are part and parcel of the mandate to establish a unitary school system. Accordingly, no discrete remedy for these issues will now be ordered, but the school district has the responsibility for implementing appropriate action as a part of compliance with the mandate to remove the effects of past segregative policies and to establish a unitary school system in Denver, Colorado.

In a memorandum opinion and order entered on May 12, 1982, accepting a "consensus" pupil assignment plan, I gave the following definition of a unitary school system:
A unitary school system is one in which all of the students have equal access to the opportunity for education, with the publicly provided educational resources distributed equitably, and with the expectation that all students can acquire a community defined level of knowledge and skills consistent with their individual efforts and abilities. It provides a chance to develop fully each individual's potentials, without being restricted by an 1522*1522 identification with any racial or ethnic groups.
Keyes v. School District No. 1, Denver, Colorado, 540 F.Supp. 399, 403-04 (D.Colo. 1982).
A failure to take appropriate action to remove language barriers to equal participation in educational programs is a failure to establish a unitary school system.
On December 16, 1982, an order was entered appointing three persons as the Compliance Assistance Panel and at a hearing held on January 4, 1983, it was established that the panel would attempt to work with the district on the ten matters identified in an earlier order to show cause as necessary steps toward developing a final order in this case. While this court has some awareness that there have been contacts by the panel members with the Board of Education and administrative staff of the district, there has been no formal submission to this court on any of those items.
It being apparent that the remedying of the failure to take appropriate action to remove language barriers is implicitly involved in many of these matters, it is this court's conclusion that a hearing should be set for the purpose of establishing procedures and timing for the defendant to make the required submissions for consideration through the formal procedures of the litigation process and that the development of remedies for the discrete issues discussed in this memorandum opinion will be considered as a part of the total process directed toward the entry of a final judgment establishing the parameters of federal law within which the district will be governed according to the educational policies established by those who are selected for that purpose. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, that a hearing will be held on January 20, 1984 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom A, Second Floor, Post Office Building, 18th and Stout Streets (use 19th Street entrance), Denver, Colorado.

 
 B S S S S ™ ^ ^ ^ 1 Sch- District No. 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Chief Judge Richard P. Matsch
Civil Action No. 95-M-2313
CONGRESS OF HISPANIC EDUCATORS,

Ml 1 - 1999
JAMES R. MANSPEAKER J>\ FRft

Plaintiff,

UNITED STATES,

Intervenor,

v.

SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, DENVER, COLORADO,

Defendant.

ORDER APPROVING SPECIAL ENTRY OF APPEARANCE OF PADRES UNIDOS, INC. AND REQUEST FOR PERMISSION TO SUBMIT WRITTEN OBJECTIONS AND
TESTIMONY REGARDING PROPOSED SETTLEMENT

Upon review and consideration of the request filed by Padres Unidos, Inc. on May 28,1999, it is

ORDERED that the request is granted to permit the special entry of appearance of Padres Unidos, Inc. for the limited purpose of submitting written objections and oral testimony regarding the proposed settlement.

Dated: O. v^v«^^ I ^

1999

BY THE COURT:

Rich^rd/P. Matsch, Chief Judge

Adrienne Benavidez 621 17th St. #600 Denver, CO 80293

 
 Congress Hispanic Ed v. Sen. District No.
OT-CO-001-015
Exhibit A Objections and Comments of Padres Unidos, Inc. to Proposed Settlement of CHE
v. School District #1, Denver
The following represent serious concerns related to the proposed English Language Acquisition (ELA) Program proposed as settlement of CHE v. School District #1, Denver.
ParejitsJKM_REAJ^JnJtorniation -Pg. 11 of the proposed settlement agreement specifies that parents have the option of placing their child in an English Language Acquisition (ELA) program or choosing not to participate. The plan specifies that a written description of the ELA Program will be available to parents. Further, at parent request, an interpreter may be made available. Concerns with this aspect of the plan are as follows:
1. There is no guaranteeJhaLcgples_of the written plan describing the program to parents will be available in languages other than English at theschool site, unless parents pay a $3.00fee at the central district offices;
2. Non-English speaking parents mayjiot be Hteratejn theirnative language^thus written documents alone do not provide real access to information;
3. The plan outlines a provision to provide an oral interpreterjn ca§es_wJipra i no n r more students speak the same language. However, p^ren^sjrMstj^gu^st_these^ services. Information regarding the right to an interpreter that is provided only in English once again makes it unlikely that parents will have real access to information about the program;
4. As reported to the district Bilingual Parent Advisory Committee (BPAC) President Roja_Garcia by ELAdirectorJoie_Eerea, school secretaries will be given the responsibility of informing the parents about the program. In many cases, the school

secretary is not bilingual, once again making it doubtful that parents have real information.
It is unlikely that the plan, as written, will provide real information to parents allowing them to make informed decisions. It is suggested that the district be required to provide written information about the program in languages other than English which will not require a $3.00 fee. Padres Unidos also suggests that the attached "Parents Bill of Rights" be provided to parents at each school identified under the proposed settlement agreement, and that the district develop, with approval from the plaintiff or Padres Unidos, a videotape presentation for all schools to use which describes program options to parents. This "Parents Bill of Rights" and the video-tape should be available in languages other than English when at least 100 students speak that language.
Parents have no Right of Appeal - Pgs. 13-16 of the proposed settlement agreement outline procedures for exiting children from the program. If parents do not agree with the decision to exit their child from the program, they may request that the decision be reviewed by the ELA Director (pg. 14). The ELA director will keep a record of each request This procedure does nothing to insure that parents have a voice in their child's exit from the program. The right to appeal a decision and to have a record kept of it is a meaningless gesture, and may impede a child's opportunity to receive a meaningful education, and a parent's right to be involved with their child's education. It is suggested that thejanguageJor exjtij^^ldrenjrqm_thej?rogram._be aligned with the language for entering the program. Parents have the right to refuse to put their children in the program: they should also have the right to refuse to have them exited.
Monitoring - The new plan calls for an external monitor to evaluate the implementation of the program (pgs. 48-51). Parents and teachers who will be impacted by the new plan need to have

access to the program monitor. It is recommended that the district make available to each school and to all parents the namej>f thejnonitor and howjto gain access to the monitor.
Standards of Exit are Too Low - Exit criteria outlined on pgs. 13-16 of the plan are meant to be indicators that students are proficient enough in English to meaningfully participate in an English classrooms. The standards are so low, however, that it is questionable that they assure that a student who meets them will succeed after they are exited.
As an example, one of the standards outlined in this section of the plan, is that students can be exited from the program if they score between the 20th and 29th percentile on norm referenced reading and language tests provided they are orally proficient in English (pg.13). A score between the 20th and 29th percentile on a norm referenced test places a student in the lowest quartile of that exam. It is both inappropriate and misleading for students who score between the 20th and 29th percentile on a standardized test to be considered to be 'proficient' in reading in English. Ironically^at some DPS schools, a student who achievesjfliis^coj^oiLa^standardized test is
I. It is ironic that for the standard for being 'proficient in reading' for second language learners is the same standard that labels other students as being 'poor readers.'
The focus of the plan is to prepare English Language Learners to meaningfully participate in English only classrooms, yet the exit criteria are so low that it is highly unlikely that students who meet these criteria will have the requisite academic skills to be successful after exit.

As ELA director Jose Perea has reported to the Denver Post, elements of the ELA plan are already in place in DPS schools. Therefore, it is important to evaluate this years test results during initial implementation of the ELA plan. Examples of low standards for exiting students have already begun to emerge, and are demonstrated in the results on the 3rd grade Colorado CSAP reading tests (see attached page for Summary of Current Effects of ELA Plan Implementation).
English Language Learners in the proposed program should not be exited into failure. The exit criteria are likely to lead to failure. It is recommended that the exit criteria be rewritten and aligned with the high expectations and standards expected for all students in the district.
No Training for Administrators - School site administrators will have the greatest responsibility for implementing the new ELA plan. They will be responsible for identifying and selecting students, for creating and monitoring the ISA teams, and for evaluating and supervising teachers and other staff in the program. They will be held accountable for results. The plan, however, has absolutely no rgguirements tharpnncigajs^and othei^site^dministrators have training related to second language acquisition- and learning, or program development and supervision. An administrator training plan is needed to facilitate complete and appropriate implementation of the proposed plan. Such a plan should be developed prior to implementation of the new ELA plan.
Materials - The DPS has been cited by U.S. Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights and other groups for not having adequate and appropriate instructional materials for teaching' English as a Second Language and for instruction in languages other than English. Having appropriate instructional materials is critical to providing effective educational opportunities for all children, and is especially critical for English Language Learners. There are provisions in the plan for creating standards for materials (pgs. 48 & 50); however, there are NO provisions for materials acquisition. There are also no provisions to insure that classrooms and schools have

adequate instructional materials. It is recommended that the monitoring plan also include a component to assure that schools have adequate and appropriate instructional materials.
A Summary of Current Effects of ELA Plan Implementation with Reference to Third Grade Reading Achievement by Latino and Second Language Students in
Denver Public Schools: Cause for Concern The following is a brief summary of the reading achievement of third grade students in Denver Public Schools. The summary is limited to schools with large numbers of Latino students. These are also schools that will be impacted by the proposed settlement agreement, the English Language Acquisition Plan in DPS. In short, the results and changes over the course of one year are a grave cause of concern for the Latino community.
In general, these results represent a downward spiral for the entire school district. Of the 73 total schools whose results were reported in the Denver Post (5-6-99), 45 (62%) had lower scores in 1999 than 1998, 26 schools (35%) were higher, and 2 schools (3%) stayed the same.
This summary has been divided into two parts: Part I summarizes the results for schools in the district which have been identified under the proposed settlement agreement (ELA plan) as being elSssroom based Transitional Native Language Instruction (TNLI) Schools. These are schools where students will be given short term instruction in Spanish, coupled with English as a Second Language. The ELA program in these TNLI schools will be classroom based programs. These schools are the district schools that have the

largest number of students who speak languages other than English, and the largest number of Latinos. Summary results for these schools are as follows:
•Approximately 42 schools have been identified as classroom basedELA schools. Outcomes for each of these schools are reported individually at the end of this summary.
• 29 of these schools (69%) had fewer students passing the 3rd grade CSAP reading test in
1999 than in 1998.
• 10 of the schools had 10% or more students failing the 3rd grade CSAP this year than last
• 1 school (1%) posted the same results this year as last. • 13 schools (31%) had more students passing the 3rd grade CSAP this year than last.
From the groups of schools listed above, it is important to make reference to two specific cases. The first i£ Mitchell Elementary.
Mitchell school volunteered to be a pilot school for the new DPS-ELA program. During the past year, significant numbers of students at Mitchell have been "exited" from ELA classrooms to English only classrooms. Mitchell students went from having jQJSSLof-iheir students passing the 3rd grade CSAP in 1998 to having 14% pass in 1999, a drop of 16%. Mitchell has received a significant amount of additional district and foundation resources. Children at Mitchell went to school 4 more weeks than other DPS students, and received a reading program in English designed

to significantly improve reading achievement. The reading program known as the "Lindamood Bell Program," was funded to Mitchell at a cost of over $100,000.
AdditionaLdistricjj-esources for more English reading program, and four additional weeks of school resulted in a significant decline in achievement. Aft Fairmont, 1)5% more (22% to 37%) studentsjxissed1 the_3rd grade CSAP between 1998 and 1999. Fairmont also reported that 60% of the students talcing the 3rd grade CSAP in Spanish passed the test (17% above the overall district average). To our knowledge, Fairmont has not yeLbegujLto implement the new^ELA plan.
These results place serious doubt on the viability of the new ELA program.
Part II summarizes the results for schools in the district which have been identified under the proposed settlement agreement (ELA plan) as being^ resource room Transitional Native Language InstructionjTNLI) schools. These are schools where students will receive short-term instruction in Spanish (now called TNLI) with English as a Second Language. The delivery model will be resource room based rather than classroom based. These schools are the district schools that have significant numbers of student who speak languages other than English, and large numbers of Latinos. Results for these schools are summarized below.
•Approximately 18 schools have been identified as resource room ELA schools. Outcomes for each of these schools are listed individually at the end of this summary.

• 9 of these schools (50%) had fewer studenjs_passjjigJh£^rd.grMe.CSAP/eadin^..testJn 1999 than in 1998.
•9 of the schools had 10% or more students failing the 3rd grade CSAP this year than last.
'1 school (5%) posted the same results this year as last year.
• 8 schools (44%) had more students passing the 3rd grade CSAP this year than last.
It is important to consider these results with results for students who took the 3rd grade CSAP in Spanish. Results of the Spanish CSAP are available, but have not yet been summarized. Individual school results are listed below.

Table 1 Third Grade CSAP Results ELA schools with Proposed Classroom based TNLI and ESL

School
Amesse Ashley Barnum l Beach Court Brown Bryant-Webster Castro Cheltenham Colfax College View Columbian Columbine Cowell Del Pueblo Denison Eagleton Ebert Ellis Fairmont Fallis Force Ford Garden Place Gilpin Godsman Goldrick Greenlee Harrington Knapp McGlone McMeen Mitchell Moore Munroe Newlon Pioneer Remington Scheneck Smedley Swansea Valdez Valverde

3rd Grade CSAP 1998
35 11 30 46 33 48 34 35 41 40 39 31 36 42 66 37 37 68 22 62 44 23 47 30 34 45 25 52 33 43 50 30 64 37 57 23 26 40 25 31
14 48

3rd Grade CSAP 1999 Change

30

-5

20

+9

25

-5

52

+6

31

19

:\%}

42

+8

29

-6

51

+10

55

+15

31

-8

26

-5

26

-10

38

-4

67

+1

49

+8

31

-6

60

-8

37

+15

40

<VT)

65

26

•&T

40

-2

24

-6

41

+7

31

-14

24

-1

25

-17

25

-8

34

-9

57

+7

14

-16

43

20

-47-^

50

-7

9

-14

21

-5

38

-2

34

+9

20

-11

14

-&-^

21

{

Table 2 Third Grade CSAP Results ELA schools with Proposed Resource Room TNLI and ESL

School , Barnett Carson Centennial Edison Fairview Gust Hallet Holm Lincoln Marrama Palmer Park Hill Samuels Stedman Steele Teller Whittier Wyman

3rd Grade 1998 28 59 42 59 44 52 27 56 51 58 61 67 54 40 62 62 38 31

3rd Grade 1999 50 52 53 53 12 52 30 62 47 57 63 57 74 37 70 52 49 21

Change
( +2? )
-T + 11 -6 r -XT +3 +6 -4 -1 +2 -10
-3-" +8 -10 +11 -10

 
 District No. 1
OT-CO-00"016 PARENT BILL OF RIGHTS ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION PROGRAM DENVER PUBLIC SCHOOLS • You have the right to information in Spanish, in both written and verbal form
• You have the rightto say you do not want your child in an ELA program, and you have the right to say you DO want your child in the program
• You have the right to refuse to sign school documents related to your child, if these documents are not explained to you in Spanish
• You have the right to be informed WHENEVER the district considers a program change for your child
• You MUST be informed if the district is trying to "exit" your child from the program
• You have a right to object if the school want to place your child in an English only classroom and you feel he/she is not ready. You can object to the school, the ELA department and the monitor
• If your child is in the ELA-S classroom, he/she should be learning to read and write in Spanish.

• If your child is in any ELA classroom, he/she should be getting daily instruction in English as a Second Language (NOT English only).
• You have a right to contact the program monitor and express concerns about your child's educational program.
• You have a right to access your child's testing record and cumulative files at ANY TIME.
• You have a right to have your child's school records explained to you in Spanish.
• If your child is placed in an English only classroom and is not doing well, you have a right to request a different program.
• Your child has a right to adequate and appropriate instructional materials.

 
 iiniiiiiini Congress Hispanic Ed v. Sen. District No. 1 OT-CO-001-017 EXHIBIT 1 DENVER PUBLIC SCHOOLS
A PROGRAM FOR LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENT STUDENTS

INDEX

Chapter 1: Student Identification and Assessment

Chapter 2: Personnel

6

Chapter 3: Elementary Program

14

Chapter 4: Secondary Program

23

Chapter 2
Student Identification and Assessment
The Denver Public Schools shall identify all Limited English Proficient students who enroll in its schools for the purpose of providing them with an appropriate educational program.
Home Language Questions
A. The first step in the identification process shall be to determine if a student is potentially Limited English Proficient. All students so identified will be assessed pursuant to the procedures set forth in Section II for the purpose of making a final determination of whether a student is Limited English Proficient.
B. As early as possible in the second semester of the 1983-1984 school year, all students in the District will be given a Home Language Questionnaire. Those pupils currently identified as Lau A, B, or C need noT 5e~"reidentified. This questionnaire will ask two questions: (1) Was the first language spoken by the student a language other than English? and (2) Is there a language other than English spoken in the student's JTome?
C. The questionnaire will ask the questions in the five languages most commonly found among Denver Public Schools students.
D. If the questionnaire is not returned within ten school days, a person designated at each school site will make reasonable—jarjEflrEstp contact the parents. That person also shall seek, from the outset, to ass! any parent thought to speak a language other than English who might not understand the questionnaire. Special emphasis will be placed on families who speak a language other than those five most common.
E. Each child for whom the answer to either question asked in Section I:B is "yes," each child referred bv a teacher as coming from a home in which" a* language other than English is spoken, and each student for whom a Questionnaire is not returned shall be r^grj^edfor assessment as per section II of this chapter. Said assessmentshaTio'e'^iaTinpleWd by the end of the school year 1UB3-1984.
_F. Beginning in the 1984-1985 school year, the two questions set forth in section I:B shall be added to the enrollment form known as the "Registration Card." Each new student shall have such a form and shall answer the two additional questions. The form shall be returned to the school within ten school days of enrollment. A letter will accompany the form which shall translate the two questions in the five most common languages. If not returned, the procedures set forth in sections I:D and I:E shall be followed.

\

Each child for whom the answer to either question is "yes", each

student for whom a registration card does not reflect an answer to the

language question, and each child referred by a teacher as coming from

a home in which a language other than English is spoken shall be

r e f e r r e d for assessment per section II of this c h a p t e r . Said

assessment shall be completed by October 1 of the relevant school

year.

H. For all students who enter the Denver Public Schools during an academic year, one _or both parents, at the time of the students' initial enrollment, shajj complete .the enrollment card answering the two questions set forth in section I:F of this chapter. Each said student who answers either question "yes" shall be assessed per section II of this document within 30 days of enrollment. In grades_9-12 the student or parents shall answer the required questions.

I. The cumulative folder of each student shall include the answers to the two questions about language asked under this section.

3. The principal at each school site shall have the responsibility to ensure that the information prescribed in this section is correctly compiled.

II
Assessment
Each student identified through the processes set forth in section I as having either a first language other than English or having come from a home in which a language other than English is utilized shall be assessed in order to make a final determination if the student is Limited English Proficient.
A. Each student so identified through the processes set forth in section I shall immediately have his name referred to the Denver Public Schools Bilingual/English as g_Jje^gjid_j_anojjageQTKce^ which will haive~ the primary responsibility for ensuring that the assessments are conducted within the time frames required by this plan. Where appropriate, the Bilingual/English as a Second Language Office staff may utilize the services of appropriate school site personnel, but such a delegation shall not remove their responsibility.
3. Each such student shall be given an oral proficiency test as set forth in section V. Each such test shall bli^clfmJuctedTTrn^fvf-Qrmity with the instructions of the test publisher. conducting the test shall have proficiency in English and wherever possibTe^iFaTrTTave proficiency in the~stude7uTsTT67h~e~ianguage. " ~~

C. Any student who is determined by the terms of the test to be Limited

English Proficient or whose English skills are so limited that testing

would be ,LrrappFo"prT-a<e shall be c l a s s i f i e d as L i m i t e d English Proficient {l_au A and B)3&nd thus entitled to a program as set forth in

this docume hTV

~~~~~

D . Each student identified through the processes set forth in section I at grades_2_a_nd__afea>ie—shall be given the lanjguage and reading sections of thsT Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills {CTBSX.— Each student whose academic performance falls at or below ^Efte--\5Qt;h per cent ile at the elementary level and at or below the'40ttvpercentire at the middle and high school levels on either the total language or total reading section shall be determined to be Limited English Proficient (Lau C ) . For those students._ .beiwjeen—-the-—50t+i—arrd—4Qt+v —per-e-antUs3CIE~
elementary l e v e l , a committee composed of three persons with training in second Tanguage acquisition (at least one of whom shall be a certificated staff member of the Bilingual/English as a Second Language Office) shall conduct further assessments to determine if a student should be considered Limited English Proficient. Subject to the provision Ln Section I I I , each such student shall be entitled to a program as set forth in Chapters 3 and 4.

E. No child shall be_jdejij^d_j^er^ic^_j3^^ seTH^rTh~Trntr7Ts~ section.

of assessment as ~~~

F. An accurate C?JQSJJS__ setting forth the number of Limited English Proficient students by grade, language group, and school shall be published by the District no later than October 15 of each year.

Ill
Reclassification
Each student initially identified as Limited English Proficient shall remain s o_cjjssi_fj_e d__and__en \itJij^i^o^ja -pr^^r-am-~uad^p-^hls.--plaa .until i t is determin&cLthat he or_s±te is English proficient,
A. A student shall be determined to be English proficient if the student has
1. been determined tp—be English proficient on an a£pro_ve_d__orjl proficiency test, ^nd .}
2. scored above_ the 30tj^ P5£J=^.tile^^t__^e^^l^jTTejrt^r_y_Jevel and above the 40th pexcejTtjle_..at__the__m^ddlje_ and high JJ:hool_ leVeFs7, Tt a committee as constituted in II:D has approved reclassification, subject to the provision of section 111:3.
A js_tydejlt__whq_jA_deier_m_iiie_d txu-be—Limited Enqlish^Proficient only beca use~~oT~his or her_score on the__CTBS,_ag._aat_.fortJT_ hexe]_n, TncTuHTTTg"~"

-3-

jcpjTT^rm^jee__x£id_ejv___pr_ojvis.[on at ^_ths_elementary l e v e l , may be reclassifjgd__as English proficient afte^rTwg^cTTO-o^^e-ar^r;
C . The student's parents shall be informed through their primary,, language w h\ene v e r b a l de; t i r m J i i a t l Q a - Jia&--^©fl^made--that --the—student- .should ...b e recjassified as English p r o f i c i e n t . The parents and the s t u d e n t , I f the student is in grades 9-12, shall be given a reasoiiabl^e opportunity to present evidenceL_tEkt—I£e_.-.studeni:—siioiiLd_JlQ.L_be^_r_ecLasiiIfredr. If the District decides to reclassify the student over the parents' objections, the parents shall be i n f o r m e d in t h e i r primary language of the right to appeal the_ decision t o t h e Superintendent. In that e v e n t , the sTucfefit sfiaTI remain c l a s s i f i e d . . . . a s L u m p e d English P r o f i c i e n t pending the Superintendent's review.

IV

Post-Reclassification Reassessment

A . The progress of each student who f o r m e r l y was determined to be L i m i t e d English P r o f i c i e n t and who has been reclassified as English p r o f i c i e n t and consequently t r a n s f e r r e d out of the bilingual or English as a Second Language p r o g r a m , shall be monitored.__f^r__orie__yaar._tQiiQwjxig_. r e c i a s s i f i c a t i o n to ensure that r e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n was c o r r e c t . The D i s t r i c t w i l l designate by September 15, 1984, a specific o f f i c e which w i l l be responsible f o r implementing this p r o v i s i o n .

B. Eacj^xe_c]J!s[^ed__.£ludent--sk«d4-43^^

—al_lhe_end__of _the

f i r s t year of the stujdemt's. rern_oya_L fiiQjp-===a^prai5ram_,_ Should the

student's scored either (1) f a l l below the ..?5t)v'percentile on either of

the language subparts or (2) dejcline—by-4iva- or more percentile points

f r o m the s t u d e n t ' s r e c l a s s i f i e d p o s i t i o n , the s t u d e n t s h o u l d be

referred to a committee before the beginning of the following school

year to _.d.et_e_rmjne_Jf the jstudsnt shauld_^.Jbe__xeclassiifjecL_as_J-lmj.ted

English Proficijent. The c o m m i t t e e shall be composed of the student's

classroom t e a c h e r j a professional from the Bilingual/English as a

Second Language O f f i c e , and at 1 figs'f one other person w i t h t r a i n i n g i n

second language acquisition and methodologies. This committee~~will

have the aulTfoTiiy",^subJec"t~tb'Tr)e' "paFeTrts*~approval, to reclassify the

student as L i m i t e d English P r o f i c i e n t ; such r e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n w i l l

entitle the student to all the rights that such a classification

entails.

C . Each classroom teacher of any student reclassified w i t h i n a year shall be informed of that f a c t . Upon presentation of evidence from the teacher that such a student is unable to m a i n t a i n TFie level _oTj~his classmates, a principal may reques.t^haJ:__tJie__cgjiijTiittee, as_£et f o r t h in sectu3ni_iyj£j__jcanvene to determine if this reclassificatToTT "was premature.

V Approved Oral Proficiency Tests There are a number of oral proficiency tests on the market. Many of these are considered unreliable, invalid, or both. Only tests which are demonstrably valid and reliable as appropriately reflecting the language skills of Denver students should be utilized in meeting the terms of this plan. A. For the 1983-1984 andI 198A-JL985 school years, only the following tests should be used for<i3iral languajge^-assessment: 1. The Bilingual Syntax Measure (BSM) I - grades K-2 2. The BSM II - grades 3-12 3. The Language Assessment Scale (LAS) I - grades 1-5 4. The LAS II - grades 6-12. B. Should the District subsequently decide to utilize another test or tests, i t shall so infjjrjm_^he_pJjmnMifls_inte^^ before implementation and shall provide them with all supporting" ' material.
-5-

Chapter 2
Personnel
I
Policy
A. The Board of Education shall seek to staff bjlingual _ classrooms with teachers who have demonstrated an acceptable ability £jL5pe^ak^and-W-tIte in^the^students1 native language arudj_n__Engli_sh_and who otherwise are skilled, as" estabTrshe"a""5y~the Board of Education, in addressing the special needs of students with limited proficiency in English.
B. The Board of Education shalJL=se_ek_jtp__s_taff_English as a Second Language classrooms with teachers—M/ha_lia^a_tJ^^pie_ci^l_tra^njj!ig_jn^Mssa^ry to address the special needs of students with limited English proficiency.
II
Matching Students with Teachers
A. By the end of the 1983-1984 school year, the Denver Public Schools will conduct a survey which w i l l identify
1. the nu.m_b er qf t_ea_ch ers nee d ed to __ f i 11 design ate d b i l i n gua 1 classrooms
2. the teachers in the District who are fully competent to f i l l the position of a bilingual teacher as described in section IV below ("Qualified Bilingual Teachej^)
3. the teachers in the District who m_eet_tjie Ianguage requirement£ to be a Qualified Bilingual Teacher but who do not meet one or nnore of the other requirements
4. the teachers who have applied to the District for a teaching position and who meet the requirements of a qualified Bilingual teacher but who__jd^jno^.i?.urrentLy__.hol_d.__a_Denver Public Schools teaching position
5. the number and location of each ^esj^nat^d jDilinguaL.^ is not served By "a"Q~uaTrfTea"BTlingual teacher.
B. Based on the results obtained—f-HiiiL_the survey, the Department of Personnel Services will (post vacancies^Tpr each designated Bilingual classroom that does not have—a—qxraTTfTed Bilingual teacher. The posting shall reflect the special qualifications required. Current assignments will remain in force until replacements, in accordance with the rules stated in C below, are identified.
-6-

Q. The Department of Personnel Services will designate one pers_an_ who shall have among his or her responsibilities the qbU_gajtKMl_Lfl_-Xfi£r.uit_ to f i l l positions in which a Qualified Bilingual Teachers is required. 'preferenc^TdT~consideration for these positions shall be given in the following order (Preference System):

1. Qualified Bilingual Teachers jwho presently work within the District

2. a te_aib^r___v»dTC^Jhas_J-aught in a Denver Public Schools designated biljngual classroom for tw.o_j^g_ars_gjp__rnore as of June 1984, who has met the oral proficiency requirement, and who has enrolled in a program to obtain all other requirements to be a Qualified" Bilingual Teacher

3. QualilfiedBilingual_Teachers from out of the JDistrict who apply for a position

4. .a__Leajcher, either within or without the D i s t r i c t , who has met the ox^jyr.ofieisocX-Xeg.uiremfint and who has je_nrjollei=Ln a program to obtain all the other requirements to be a Qualified Bilingual Teacher

5. a teacher within

J^

teacher shall be assigned

to a designated bilingual classroom, except on a short-term

emergency bas|s^who has not minimally completed one of the sjjmmer

g pr_pog_gram§ leading toward qualifications as a Qualilfied Bilingual Teacher.))

All other employment criteria of the Denver Public Schools will apply to such applicants.

D. No teacher shall be assigned to a designated bilingual classroom if a teacher with~a~TirgTier preferenceis avaTTable"7~Any"TeacheF~who TiTIs a pdstttoTT tn a a^^tgTral:^a'^lDlTrngu^al"~^asTroom and who is not a fully Qualified Bilingual Teacher must engage in a course of study leading to the designation of Qualified Bilingual Teacher. That cgjyjrse_of__sjtudy must be desijgnejd_to be_completed within two yejarsj. The Department of Personnel Services shaTrreTaTrl on flTe^ documentation that each underqualified teacher is making progress toward becoming a Qualified Bilingual Teacher within the appointed time frame. Ng__undf»rqualified te_£chex_sjialLpe .retauned in _such a biHngua 1_ j)oisj_ti_O_TL._f^HJimre__t.han two years^. No Preference 5 teacher shall be continued beyond the end of the semester in which a teacher with a higher preference becomes available.

E. These designated bilingual positions are not to be filled from i n school transfers within an individual building or otherwise unless the qualifications herein listed on a Districtwide basis are used. The Department of Personnel Services shall be responsible to ensure such conformity.

-7-

C£n trjact _te_aic he rj__j^o__jrj^iojjsly t aug h t _ J£L__des L9ll§t_2d bilingual c 1 assroqms^ ^and a r e replaj^sd___be^c^a_use of i n s u f f i c i e n t biling u a! qualifj^cati,qris__nnust be offered another J^achinTg_ position within fFTe~ District in accordance with District procedures Tor Administrative transfers.
In J_anua_ry. of each school year beginning in 1985, the Denver Public Schools will uedate_the_data collected in the survey which is described in II:A and will proceed to fill positions in designated bilingual classrooms as set forth in this section.

Ill

Toward Skills Improvement

A. Continued upgjrjidirLg. of the skills of all personnel who must meet the heeUT of students with limited proficiency in English but who are not yet fuHy qualified is desirable.

B. A trainjsd jpei^oji^n^jjT^

have

the responsibility to counsel teachers regarding programs leading to

designation as qualified Bilingual teacher or English as a Second

Language Teacher and to otherwise counsel teachers regarding programs

designed to improve their skills in working with students with limited

proficiency in English.

C. A systematic, summer inservice training program will be developed and offered in the sTimTners~~~oT~ ~I9W, 1985', I9~B5, and thereafter as necessary. It shall be in response to an annual assessment of needs conducted by the Bilingual Office. The prograjn shal_L_be open to all school personnel ^njd_r_eguired for two years of all those teachers who teach in bilingual and English~as a~SeT5oTi^~1raTTgTFage programs LfhTess they"tnarve obtained state endorsement. It should have the following
/minimal components:

1. improvement of teachers' language skills in the appropriate languages other~Tf7an~E~ngUsR

2. kripjwl_e^g^_a^ojjt_ the ^cultural b^ck^i^ojunds of" those students with limited proficiency in English

3. iQstructional methods for meeting the needs of those students with limited proficiency in English

4. adapJjUon and utilization o_L^curricjjlum Jto meet the needs of those students with limited proficiency~i7TEiTgTish

5. a_s£essment of students wHh limited proficiency in English for purposes of TdeTTtificatr61n"~a7Tar"Toruc¥tTon"aTdiagnosis

-8-

6. met hodj_j^_wj3ridiiJ^-~-w.ith—-th#—-pacanta. -_oJL_s.tudjerit s with limited proficiency in English and methods of impjoving scKool-communi ty rej_at;i_ons_

7. advancement of knowledge about legal requirements concerning

BiTFnguaT/Erig!IshellsTarSecond Language education.

~

D. The summer inservice training program shallbe offered for the purpose of qualifying teachers to become Qualified Bilingual and English as Second Language Teachers. It shall include the components listed in III:C and shall be required of all designated bilingual or._Ejiglisii_as__a Second Langgugage teachers who do not have a | ^ such"~a[teacher has filed w i t h t h e DeparTment of Personnel .Services.,, at least 20 days~ before the beginning of the programi, a pIan_tp_.Pjbt^ijT_an endorsement, through arxd has subm i tted e vi denee that a mini.mum of ,_six_ homia^oi ins-tnictiiin will be pursued during relevant summers. f a i l u r e to make progress to~ward~cdmprefion of the program shall result in removal from a position authorized under this agreement, absent a showing of good cause.
The summer inservicey training program shall have the following characteristics: _ -^^"^

1. It shall be for a m mi mumi__of_Jthree _w_eeJkSj si^x Jijours pe^r_ day,

for five days per week during the ffTfaTt"summer that a teacher

participates.

'.'---

2. It shall be for a minimum of two^jAtegks, six hours j5er_day+ for five days per week during the s^cond^ummer that a teacher participates.

3. A c e r t i f i c a t e o f satisfactory completion shall be offered at the end~~aF~each Tession if the participant has so completed the work as measured by a reliable instrument.

4. During the school year following each session, the instructors^ or
some other teacher previously designated as a Qualified Bilingual
Teacher shall spei]Ld__aj[nu^mujTiji^^ p a r t i c i p a n t for the purpose^ ^ j
implement the kno\vTe"arge~gaTTned in the summer session.

This inservice training program will be contracted for with an

institution of higher education. If CQlie_qe

3

i

if'The teTaetrer wishes—rt hrr~ recertif ication or advancement on the

salary schedule, the tultiqn_win_be_,pajjJLby_liie_J_ea^her. The teachers

in the Bilingual/English as a Second Language program, whose aJUejidajlce

is_re5u_ixecL at the inservice training program, w i l l be r_eimbAir.s-e-d at

the current inservice training rate for teachers.

-9-

E". An inservic^e_ txajjiiiig_pr-£igrarri__indi vidually tailored for each designated school identified through the process set forth in Chapter 3, Section I, shall be developed no-later .than.. November lj__1984^___This program shall use District and out-of-District personnel and shall at a minimum

1. provide five_ hours of inservice training for all school personnel

2. provide fWe_j!Ojjj^LJ3i-ai±erilAtL^^

of students who will

be in attendance at the school during the 1985-1986 school year.

F. Each teacher designated by the process set forth in Chapter 3, Section I:F shall be accorded the following training and privileges:

1. Such teachers shall have the rkjht to participate; _i_n__a program designated _to_ irnjDart thos_fi.__Spanisb ~ian-gua^£__sjciils__tes_te^_by_j:he bilingual teachers' examination. Such program shall be offered through the Staff Academy beginning in the 1984-1985 school year.

2. If the--J^eacher_jdoes jnot have a bilingual endorsement, the District shall offer and the teacher shall attend a three^e^k_traj_nlnq program in the summer of 1985 and a tjA/o-week program in the summer of 1986 which will meet the standards set forth in the section.

3. During the 1984-1985 school year, the teacher so designated shall

be released from classroom duty for at 1 east__f_iye schoxtL-days to

obs e r ve tea ch^el^PTi^TclTol^

ua 1

p r o g r a m . ^ThTs release~Ti"me w i l l be approved in accordance w i t h

D"i¥trTct~po 1 icies .

G . An inservice training program shall be ccmducted to introduce the currTcuTurru-. the_,J¥s¥esgMgnT^gfQ'celJures, accountabjlU^y_jdejyices , and other.._ relevant material. lke___pjrojgram__shaLl b e — i n i t i T school year and shall be required of all English as a Second Language teachers and teachers with designated bilingual classrooms. The program shall be repeated annually within the same time frame for all new English as a Second Language/bilingual teachers and shall be of six hours duration^

IV
Qualified Bilingual Teachers - Standards and Assessment
A. A Qualified Bilingual Teacher^hall be one who has met all of the followtrfg criteria:'
1. a passing score on the oral language component of the New Mexico TesT^f Sp^ariTsTTT^anguYge Skills.
2. a passing score on reading and writing components of The New Mexico Test of Spanish Language Skills.

-10-

3. a state bilingual endorsement or successful completion of the required inseF^ce~TTaTrnii^s^t^oFtFPin III:D of this chapter.
B. Any teacher who is assigned to a designated bilingual classroom who fails to meet either of the language requirements to be a Qualified Bilingual Teacher shall immediately enroll in a language course of study designed to aid theteacher in meeting those c r i t e r i a . Such teachers must enroll in a District approved program. Those teachers who fail to complete the program within two years shall be reassigned from the bilingual program. The District shall maintain a list of each such teacher, which list shall state when the teacher entered the program.
C. All assessments. sh_aLLJoe—conducted—i«--Gonf-ar-mity.._w_ilb Lhe-_p.u Wisher's instructions.
D. In the event that designated bilingual Gla&sree>ms~+n—languages other than Spanish should be established, the District will propose oral and written language assessment devices to measure those languages. The procedures set forth in IV:A and IV:B shall be operable.
E. Every teacher presently teachirig in a designated bilingual classroom will beT"'"asseTs¥9 £o determine if he or she • is a Qualified Bilingual Teacher as set forth herein. This assessment shall be completed by the end of the' 1983-1984 school year.
F. A jnotice shall be_ sent tq_ _every teacher in the Denver Public Schools and to each school of education at an institution of higher education in Colorado and other states in which Denver Public Schools usually recruits. Such notice shall be sent by May 1, 1984, and shall inform them Jthat the _District_ is_..seeking—to_-idenij.ly___Qualilied Bilingual TesLSh^.s.^ajL-M.^ex^-^wha_.vuwl^A\k§-^SL--^-JS^^^§LQnjstLsd. The notice shall further provide the name of the person in the Department of Personnel Services who is responsible for counseling teachers regarding these positions.
G. The notice set forth above in I V f shall be posted annually no later than May 15 of the relevant school year.

V

Qualified English as a Second Language Teacher - Standards and Assessment

A Qualified English as a Second Language Teacher is one who has an

endorsement J*jigjTL_th£__s_t_ate of Colorado as a teacher of the linguis-

ticaTTy~~different or who has successfully completed the twjD_yj3_a£s_of

Denver Public Schools inservice training as described in III:D of this

c h a pTefT

'

-11-

8 . Preferences foryfilling positions which require a Qualified English as a JTelcajncLLaflguage Teacher shall be as follows:
1. a Qualified English as a Second Language Teacher who speaks a language other than English which is in common usage in the Denver
Public Schools
2. a Qualified English as a Second Language Teacher
3. a teacher who has successfully completed one session which meets the crTTeTTa~seT forth in III:D of this chapter.
C. The Department of Personnel Services shall post all positions for which an English as a Second Language teacher is required and designate the position as English as a Second Language.
D. The Department of Personnel Services shall be responsible to ensure that the preference system is utilized in placing English as a Second Language teachers. In the event that a Qualified English as a Second Language Teacher cannot be found to f i l l that position, the person filling that position must satisfactorily complete the requirements within two years.
E. No teacher shall be retained in an English as a Second Lanugage position without achieving the necessary qualifications for more than two years if a more qualified teacher is available.
VI
Unique Personnel Matters
A. The Denver Public Schools has. a significant population of students with limited proficiency in English who speak many languages, i_ncjjjc[ing various Asian languages.
B. These students with limited proficiency in English from various language backgrounds have speciajMajnguaje and cultural nej3ds_.
C. Thej^e__^r^^e_w_.Leac.he_rs_ who can meet the designation of Qualified Bilingual and English as a Second Lasnguage Teachers in these various languages.
D. Where there are identified qualified Bilingual and English as a Second Language Teachers available, these teachers will be utilized to provide the greatest contribution to the needs of these children.
-12-

E. The District will seek to...hixe_ a sufficient number of persons to meet the present description and qualifications of _P^r^Br^l§_ssiojiaL_JII to assist teachers to meet the linguistic/cultural needs presented by these students with limited proficiency in English.

F. Personnel applying for Paraprof essional III positions or currently holding such Par apr of essi onal III positions w i l l meet m.mj_m_um performance standards on (1) a^n English oral lai2g_usLQj;_proficiency test and/t^T^an English reading or writing test adopted or developed by the District's Biliri'gljaTTETrgTrsiT^a^r^^^^^rT^Oirrguage Office.

G. A ratio of Paraprof essional Ill's to students will be 1

H. Though i m p o r t a n t , paraprof essionals shaU_jTOjt be a substitute for exposure of these students to Qualified Bilingual and English as a Second Language Teachers as set f o r t h in the following sections.

I. No later than the beginning of the 1984-1985 school year there shall be

established an Advisory Committee for Asian lanqujage^ s_tudents whjgh

committee shall serve in the^^7nj^ca_pJ^U^IasIIHeJHisp_arig_Education Lay

Advj|ory__Committee (hELAC) and the Blacj<_jdjjcjitrojT_Ad^sory Committee.

TT^T

be designated to assist

with and"coordinate the activities of such c o m m i t t e e .

-13-

Chapter 3

Elementary Program

I

School Designation: The 1984-1985 School Year

A. During the 1984-1985 school year, the eleven schools presently designated as__bilingual schools shall retain ^h_aj]^esiqnation. All requirements set forth in the personnel section of this agreement shall be honored.

3. Children of limited English proficiency npjL_i.n a designated bilingual schcLgJL or otherwise in a bilingual program shall receive instruction frqnT_a_QuaIifif?d English as,_ a Second Language Xparhftr as defi7)¥d~in this agreement. This specific provision shall go into effect at the beginning of the second semester of the 1984-1985 school year. With respect to this provision:

1. English as a Second Language shall be provided for a minimum of__30_ percerit-Qf.J:JTfi-^criaQl-da^.J._g_r two hours, whichever is greater^ for any child identified as Limited English Proficient on the~grcTunds that the child has not met the oral language standards established herein (Latr A~ orT3T>>

2. English as a Second Language shall be provided for a minimum of 10^_p_er_c.ej}t_ of the school day or ojie hjMJr, whichever is greater, for "any ^cnTTd T3e"ntif ied as Limited English Proficient solely because that child has not met the reading or language arts (CTBS) standards for identification (CalTcT

3. The student-teacher ratio in the English as a Second Language program shall be no greater than 15 to one.

4« I n a design at ed__bJIingual cLa&sxajom _the__bi lingual teacher will

provide the English as a Second Language iTvstructiorT provided in

t his~part.

"

C. Based on the results of the student language assessment being conducted pursuant to this agreement, the District shall make by October 1, 1984, a. determination of the number of English as a Second Language teachers
~Y^TTT~~~

1. The District shall determine within ten days thereafter the shortfall, if any, that exists between~available~Qualified English asTsTSecond Language Teachers and the number needed to implement this agreement.

-14-

2. The District shaH recruit sufficient numbers of teachers either from wijthin_or_outside the District to meet this shortfall- To the extent that any of these teachers are not qualified English as a Second Language teachers, they will be required to participate in a three-week inservice program to be given in January 1985. This inservice program shall meet the standards set forth in the Chapter 2 of the agreement for qualifying a teacher to become a qualified English as a Second Language teacher. The remainder of the required training shall be given in the summer of 1985-

3. During the fall of 1984, the District shall make affirmative efforts to find places for those tutors cyrrentl_y__serving^ in the English as a Second Language program. Those tutors will be replaced by the above described English as a Second Language Teachers at the beginning of the second semester of the 1984-1985 school year.

D. All schools which meet the following criteria shall be designated as bilingual schools by September 15, 1984, on the basis of the~s~tuclent identification process being undertaken pursuant to this agreement:

1. K-6 schools which have 70, ^ r more students identified as Limited English Proficient

2. K-3 schools which havev,40;or more students identified as Limited

English Proficient

~~»

3. K , 4-6 schools which have\3Q pr m o r e students i d e n t i f i e d as L i m i t e d

English Proficient.

""

E. In addition ^o those schools identified in I:D above, at least aniL school shall bg designated as "bilingual" no later than September 15, 1984, in_^ajcji_zgj3e_that_ serves as a feeder zone f o r a given middle school whenever

1. A t least three grade levels in the zorje lhave ten or more L i m i t e d English ProfTcTent students of the same l a n g u a g e " "
2. In_the_event _that_a_zone_ does not have this number of students due to _a__JTlLddle schojal f e e d e r ' p l a n adopted solely" 'Tq"^"7ne_elll!the desegregation order, students In any s c h o o l " w i t n ten or more children of nTm!te?~^!irTgn^h pToTTcTency shaH"5e~" assigned t o the nearest designaYed~BmrvguaT"~SChoul w i t h spaxB""§vailaBle~.

3. In designating a bilingual school in these zones, preference should be accorded to the school w i t h the largest number of L i m i t e d English Proficient students already in attendance.

4. In choosing a school or schools, due regard w i l l be given t o the consequences of the choice on ethnic balance . " I f it Is projected

-15-

that a decision will result in a change in such balance of greater than 5 percent in any school, the DfstricE"Witt tn^TTTr"e^rch'of the parties to this case of that fact at least 6JL_Jiay_sprior to the implementation and w i l l further provide them with all data supporting their choice of school ( s ) .
5. Should_a Limited EnglJLsit-J^jjfJiii-eQt-s&jd is"~~not designated bilingual but which is wrthjjT gjTe_iniLe__£Lf- a bilinguaL—sck&oi-,—the—student naay_traxiaf5r__Lo__th_e__bJlingu^_L_scho ol if space is available.
F. At each school designated by Section I:D and I:E above, the following steps shall be taken:
1. By October 1, 1984, tea.chg,rs_shal 1 be 4-atormed that the school will be a designated bilingual school during the 1985-1986 school year.
2. At legst one teacher at ._each_.gr_ade_LeveJL_shal] b&—desiffvafceilJiy October 15, 1984, to secjjre^tr-ai-ning necessary to meet the needs of the Limited English Proficient children. Irrespective of this designation, no teacher w i l l actually serve in a designated classroom whenever a teacher with a higher preference, as set forth in this agreement, is available. For every grade level at whicj^no teach_er_,_agr.ees__JLQ the designation, the District shall identifjy_ja person else_w_hetfi Ln thp District: who Ls—willing—Lo undergo__tfie necessary training set forth in "G" below. The principal of each designated b i l i n g u a l school shall i n f o r m the Department of Elementary Education by October 25, 1984, of each such designated teacher. If no teacher is designated for a grade l e v e l , that fact shall be conveyed to that department.
II
School Designation: 1985-1986 and Thereafter
A . All schools designated to be bilingual schools by reason of the standards set f o r t h in I:D and I:E shall offer a bilingual program in the 1985-1986 school year. That program shall include at a minimum one__cj^sjxo^m__at__ej^h__^^d^_^le_ye]_ which is designated a _bilingual classroom taught by a Qjjajjjf U3d_ BillrTgijaT~ZTj3jTchgr, or if none is available, by ¥ teacher who has the highest preference available.
B. No later than A'jDril ,3[P~)of each year beginning in 1985, the District shall make a written- assessment gJL._those -schoqis_jij<ery__t^_jineet the standards for designation as bilingual schools in the subsequent school year utilizing the standards set forth in sections I:D and I:E above, and the schools so identified shall be designated bilingual schools for the subsequent year.
-16-

C. Any school, once designated as b i l i n g u a l , may be denied that designation if it falls below the standards set forth_m_JiD in three consecutive years. Should that occur, the students in the school would be accorded a bilingual program if the standards of I:E are met.
D. An EnglisJi_a5_._a_.Sej=ojid_J<^n^a_gjB__px_P5iLam.. as set forth in I:B shall be offered to each Limited English Proficient child whs-Ls_oot-s-er-ved—in^a designaled _bLlicLgjj.al _£La_s_sroorn .

Ill

Curriculum Development and Implementation

A. The present bilingual curriculum should be evaluatad and.jjpgraded to ensure th'at it is comprehensive. The bilingual curriculum will include £u... Each curriculum will contain a scope and sequence.

B. The bilingual curriculum >hall require the saqne skill jJej/elopjTi.ent and content a? the., •••curriculum required of non-bilingujrl sjtu.d_en_ts. Additionally, i t shall include development of English as a Second Language, including skills in speaking, understanding, reading and w r i t i n g , and the use of Spanish (or any other language used in the bilingual program) as a medium of instruction.

C. Implementation Schedule

1. The oral language curriculum shall be developed by the opening of the 1984-1985 school year.

2. The remainder of the curriculum development shall be completed no later than the beginning of the 1985-1986 school year.

D. No later than July 1, 1984, a c.aninTittee___shal.l_be established to develop theL bilingual4^ucri^uLum. The curriculum cammTtIee~sh~aTf include

1. elejTij|nJLairj^njrjMjMj^^

specialists who have participated

in the development of the District's non-bilingual curriculum

2. cu£ricjjhjm_ji£yej^pji^^

previously contributed to

the development of the bUJngj^l_jiurrj_cjjl_ujTi

3. teachers wfag ha.ye t a j j g h t i n designated bilingual classrooms for a minimum of

4. appropriate language development specialists

5. at least two specialists^who instruct relevant subject matter at an insjjtution for hiqhjr_^djjcjaU_on.

Subcommittees may be established to address particular issues.

-17-

E. Each bilingual and English as a Second Language teacher shall be provided a copy of the curriculum or the relevant portions thereof.

F. At a minimum, one person from the Bilingual/English as a Second Language Office shall be designated to implement..._and.._caQr_djnate the English as a Second Language curriculum. One person will be designated to coordinate and implement the -bilingual cupriculum. The duties will include

1. ensuring that adequate materials exist for implementing the language curriculum

2. establishing and impleme_nting_a_juoiijarm ^standard for the introduction and development of English

3. providing the necessary instxygtiisnaLsufipoJt to teachers of Limited English Proficient children.

The curriculum committee, in conjunction with the development of the

curriculum, shall prepare an analysis of existing materials^

develop recommendations for a common

plan will be adopted By September 1985 which will assure that a common

reading textbook shall be in use no later than September 1989 and that

progress will be regularly made toward common textbooks in other

areas.

j

IV

Measurement of Progress

A. A set of examinations designed to .measure student progress in mastering the curriculum shall be developed in conjunctTonv/ith and"Trrthe same time frame as the development of the curriculum. These examinations shall be given in ntji£-^egk:_interya^s^and shall measure whether a student has achieved mastery of a set of objectives established for such an interval.

At a minimum, grade-appropriate examinations shall be established

for mathematics. In addition, such examinations shall be developed to

assess EngJX^^_PJLal_Jafigjja^e development and English reading and

writing development.

"

3. Within two weeks of the beginning of school or within two weeks of the entry of a Limited English Proficient student into a program, the teacher shall determine the appropriate level in the curriculum in which the child's instruction should begin. The teacher shall maintain the instruments used for this determination.

This placement shall thus determine the point at which the interval testing should begin.

-18-

C. Results of_ the assessment system dev.eloped herein shall at a minimum be" made available to the parents or guardians of the child, to the principal of ^tfie "scTio^ol EffaE tRer"cTuTd attends, and to the Bilingual O f f i c e . The District shall prepare a q u a r t e r l y Anal ysi_s__of Progress of the children in each designated classroom and of children served by each English as a Second Language teacher.

1. The Analysis of Progress shall include a__lisiirig__of___ bilingual

cJLas.sr_oom___programs in which...2^...pe^cervt__or__m_ore__of the__si.ud¥rTts

fajjed to achieve mastery of 80 percent of the objectives examined

i n s e c t i on""W^~'cfgrtn^T^w^s£]^"ZQfIIn£firvaiIIexarrTtnati ons .

~*

2. A professional from the Department of Elementary Education, the principal, a language development specialist from the Bilingual/ English as a Second Language O f f i c e , and the teacher of the class identified through the Analysis of Progress set forth in Section IV:C:1 sh_alL_me<3t. tjo discuss__that__designated classroom . This meeting shall occur within 30 days of the release of The~ Analysis of Progress. A w r i t t e n plan of_r.ejcnmmendation shall be developed as a result of this meeting.

V
Parental Oversight
A. A Districtwide advisory committee shall be established within 30 days of the beginning of the 1984-1985 school year and shall be reconstituted each subsequent year. The committee shall include pne parent__rep_res_en^at_i_ve_ fromt each _ designated bilingual school and one representative fri3ni-eae4^a4d44i^nat-sciiQaL_ which has 20 or more l i m i t erf English proficient students. The representatives will be chosen by Ir7e~~ parents who shall choo¥e~a chairperson.
B. The Districtwide advisory committee w i l l include the following among its responsibilities:
1. review and comment on staff-prepared reports on
(a) the annual summary of the results of the interval _testj/ig? including evaluation of weaknesses reflected by the testing, and recommendations to correct the weaknesses
(b) the anruial summary of results of the id_e_rLti_f^^c_atJ_p_nrecl assif i c¥tTo7TT~sysTenT~
(c) p-TJH}T-ess__gn implementation j r f Jthe personnel provisions of this
agreement

-19

2. design and implement an annual plan to increase parent involvement in bilingual program activities

3. develop a training program for new members of the local school bijingual committee t5ee~V:C below.)

4. review procedures used at designated bilingual schools to select bilingual committee members to ensure their compliance with V:C below

5. serve as a heaxuig bpdyjfor^j3_n_ce_£ri£_-involving parents and school officials regarding structure or operation of bilingual committees at the designated schools

6. r e p o r t at lfjis_£ xixuce annually on t h e i r a c t i v i t i e s to the District wide School Improvement and Accountability Council and the Board of Education.

C . Each designajj?d__bilingual schaaL___shall have an jdyisory committee chosen 5y the p a r e n t s of s t u d e n t s in t h e designated^ bTTTnguaT~ classrooms. Alternatively, a subcommittee of an existing school site committee can be established to serve this purpose. The committee will include among its responsibilities those allocated to the Districtwide committee but on a school basis.

D. The committees set forth herein will meet at leasj: once every month

during the school year.

-

Translators shall be made available to facilitate committee meetings and To asiTst with, the development of the required r e p o r t s . It is expressly understood that the Djsjrict_discharge its obligation under this provision if it makes a jjgjxj faith effort~To~Tm1pTenrrent3Tt".

E. The District shall designate a staff member to f a c i l i t a t e and coorjdijTate_ _acti vi t^es of the DtetrT^^ cp^irnittees^in their efforts to increase involvement of parents rrTTrTe bilingual program.

VI
Early Childhood Education
A. An Ear^y Childhood Education program shall continue to be offered in every desTgnaTe^ bilingual school in which it is currently available. The teachers in those ElirTy~Uruldhood Education programs shall be QuanfjejTBningual Teachers, or, if none is available, shall be placed in accoFdarTce with the preference system set forth in this agreement.

-20-

3 . An Early Childhood Education program shall be additionally e^JLerudejd^to a minimum of qne_designated bilingual elementary school each year beginning in the 1984-1985 school year untU_al_l such schools ha_y_g__such a^jDrogram. This provision shall apply only to schools in which 50 percent or more of the previous year's kindergarten was composed of Limited English Proficient students.
VII
Meeting the Needs of Noj*-Spanish Limited English Proficient Children
A. In recognition of the fact that at present there are few qualified teachers who speak a language other than Spanish which is the home language of a significant portion of the District student pupulation, those provisions in Sections I and II which call for the establishment of bilingual programs need not__be immediately implementejL_J.However, the District shall take the following steps:
1. The District shall develop no later than October 1, 1984, a written recruitment plan to recruit teachers of any language in whicrfTfieTBn§~a sTiortTall between the needs of students and the available teachers. This plan shall be updated each October 1 and shall be implemented.
2. Whenever the District is able to hire teachers for these language groups pursuant to this plan, it shall utilize them to provide direct service to children in need.
B. An English as a Second Language jjrogram shall be provided to all nbn^paTrnsrrspe~al<l!ng^ Limited English Proficient students in accordance with I:B.
C. A Vietnamese bnjngual^jrj)gram shall be established which shall utilize the services of the two Vi_etnamese-speaking jeajchers^ in^ tJTg_D|strict. This program shall be expanded when additional qualified Vietnamesespeaking teachers become available, in accordance with the guidelines herein established.
D. Whenever there are ._j3_jUL-JTLQre__.g(nir_Seanish speaking Limited English Proficient students of one language group in a school, one par^pxDi-Bssional—who speaks that language shall be employed. _One ajjdjjjjjnal qua 1 ified _p-ar-a-pr-oJesAional sf^aJJ be added for each additi_ojnal fifteen students up to _a_rejguir_ed__m]ixFmurn~~bT"~Four such paFapFofessignals per school.
1. These paraprof essionals shall meet the standards of a paraprofessional III and shall exhibit sufficient English oral language skills in accordance with VI:F of Chapter 2 of this agreement.
-21-

If persons meeting these standards are not available, the District shall initiate, by February 1985, a program to
_ sufficient numbers of persons to meet the need. It is expressly recognized that the District discharges its obligation under this provision by a good faith recruitment and training effort. 3. This provision shall be i
vin
Miscellaneous Provisions A. Any school which has a sufficient number of students and qualified
bilingual teachers and which otherwise is not designated a bilingual school may offer a program during the 1984-1985 school year using bilingual methodol£gxgs_ if, in the judgment of the principal, this is desirable. B. The District shall implement, no later than September 1, 1984, a policy and procedure to identify giftec[ ^n^d_^Lal£nLed__^MIdteJl__wJig__s^p_eak languaiggs otheg tharHEjTgllshJ An appropriate curriculum and program shall be developed in conjunction with the development of the bilingual curriculum.
-22-

Chapter 4

#

Secondary Program

I

Middle Schools

A. At present, alL-L'au A and ET) students are clus:kej^d_J_n__thjree middle schools. The^ -Districts will continue this practice although £n~e specific school and configuration may be changed.

3 . In any cluster school in which _3.0_or more of the Limited English

Proficient students are Spanish speaking, those students shall be

instr (the

u

fc^tberec_M_cjjyJx. r_LacjLQituujnrUrrf"4>)-:e4--BmUa4t4±^egjruiaat_--tlX£^ccSbj£_j^i_c]_einnce,t,hej

following subjects social studies+__and

EosiUtu^ It is expressly understood that one teacher may provide

instruction in more than one area if the teacher has the content

knowledge in the a r e a .

All Limited English Proficient students who are and all Spanish speaking students who are in the cluster schools and not in a program established purTusfnt tfo I:B shall be instructed.in.....the core curriculum by a
QuaJ2fj^ed_Engiish as a^ S^ecgrid. Language Teacher.

During the spring staffing, the prinjjipaL^shall project his teacher needs at a s t u d e n t - t e a c h e r ratio ofv-15_J^Q l y Duxing__t]Te first two

weeks _of__school, the principal sjnjjj_n2cjuelft additional stifT^Tf the

actual ratio~exc~e~eBs~~IB~ro 1.

~~

II

High Schools

A. At any high school in which 40, or more L'au A j n d ^B)Spanish-speaking

Limited English Proficient "students are Tn a t t e n d a n c e , qualified

hjjjrvgiial rparhprs . will be designated in each of the core area

departments (ma^jh«m_aj^s_^_En£LJ^lL^__s^

In

the event that ajiy__of these positions is filled by a person with a /'designation of /fi5" a)> set forth in Chapter 2, Section II:C, one

^ S p a n i s h speaking qaf^professi^na|_ill_who meets the standards of VI:F

of Chapter 2 shall be assigned f.QJ...__&as.hi_j'}fteen s t u d e n t s . These

paraprof essionais shall be primarily utilized to assist the students to

understand those courses.

Any teacher who may be designated because there is not a qualified biling'ual te~acher, as per this agreement, shall be transferred^ to another position in accordance with District policy whenever a person with a higher preference becomes available.

-23-

B. Any Limited English Proficient student who is identified as Lau^A arid and who is not sgrved pursuant to III:A shall receive a minimum of two perinjrj^jTer_jlgiY_nTjFngjjgh_as.._a. Second Language instrucjygn_j?j:md.d_e_d by a Qualified English as a Second Language Teacher. Instruction shall be provided so that no jriore^ thani___fif_teen students are with an instructor at one t i m e .
C. For each fifteen Lau A and B students of a given language group in one middle school cluster or high school who_ar^ np_t___s_ejLvexi_4iur_suaR4 II:ALI on^_p^r_aprj3les_s]jjiaL_lIL_w_ho meets the language standards of VI:F of Chapter 2 shall be assigned to the school. In the event that such paraprofessional persons are not available, the District will establish a program pursuant to Chapter 3, Section VII, D:2.
Ill
Generally Applicable Provisions—Instruction
A. No teacher who is designated to be either a bilingual or English as a 3ITcbnd Language teacher under this agreement wUl_lose any seniorUy rights as a result of such a designation.
B. The District will conduct a survey of the number and percentage of Limited English Proficient students of each of the five major language groups in each discrete vocational education program-and gi_fted_and talented program available"at Win^secondary l e v e l . If_the percentage 0 f -LijTjjjted Engli sh _Pr ofici_en£_.stud ent s _..fr am_any__.ane__ iajigu a geTIgfo u£2" i n any such program is less than the percentage that this language group represjenjts of the_. general ~secFn3ary'~'scTio'dI ^p^pljTatr^XriSgZ^lgJiL^01 will establish a program to ensure that any linguistic or cultural barfTef¥To^"pairtlcTpartToTT~~a"fe" overcome. TnTs~sufVey""wTn""5e~co'mpietBxJ by FebrUaTy~t,—i585y ~snd aTttrrfratryie~programs to overcome these barriers to participation shall be in place by May 1985. The survey and any written plans shall be made available to the parties to this agreement.
C. Each student who is Limited English Proficient solely byrjiasxin—af a score on the reading and/or language arts subparts of th£ CTBS ( L a u C j ) and who otherwise is not served under this agreement wiTFtre~gTverra minimum of Qne__p_eri_od_43e_r__day or five periods per week of Englisti_as__a_ ^^^AJTJ^D-S-1-13?6 instruction taught by a Qualified English as a Second Language TeacheTTrTa^student-teacher ratio not to exceedC15 to \y)
This provision may_be nnet_Jhrough e^tj.ng_sjjff_anc|/o_r_j3rogr_ams so long as the conditions set forth herein are met.
-24-

O. At least one Spanish speaking guidance counselor who has met the lan"gu?g~e "^farraaTas to BIT a Quail fTecT Bilingual Teacher and who otherwise in the opinion of the p r i n c i p a l has e x h i b i t e d an understanding of the needs of Limited English Proficient children shall be assigned to each high school and m|djy^scjhojo_l chjsl^_jw_hi_c!h_js requirtfti'''fji^Msi^a^hiniagiiALrfjeiar.hers pursuant to this agreement.

1. A mijnJj]njirn_.J3i__OAe—Spantah-sgeaking jjuidaiice_cjaunjLelor will be

designated to serve ^raiCTA and B students who are not in a school

which has such a counselor.—Arr additional counselor who has met

the requirements in III:O shall be hired for every 150 such

students.

~

~

2. Asian language paraprofessionals hired pursuant to this agreement sfiall~be gTveTftraininq ~rp~ttiat they—may advise Asian language students on guidance matters.

The District shall develop by September 1, 1984, a

qualified Asian language guidance counselors who shall be hired

urvETI ErTerirTs'^oTi^J^Trr^ansBiTJr^TST each 70 stud.ents__gf a given

language group. Tt is" expTessTy unBerstbo'd that the District

discharges its obligation under this provision by a good faith

recruitmenjt__ar[d hiring program.

'" ~"''

IV
Generally Applicable Provisions-Curriculum and Accountability
A. An improved curriculum for biljr]gjjal^^Ujd_ervts shall be developed in the core 1jre"a5T~~~in addition, an l^^Fo^fi^^urxtcuhjm shall be developed for Englishi as a Second Language instruction. These curricula shall build upon the elementary bilingual curTtCUttHn. Each component of the curriculum shall contain a scope and sequence.
No later than September 15, 1984, a committee shall be established to develop this curriculum. The committee shall include the following persons:
1. curriculum development specialists who have previously developed

2. _te_a__che£sLJ^9_JTajyje_u^J:rj^cj^d^u

Proficient students at

the secondary level for a minimum of two~y¥ars

3. persons with .expertise__and credentials in each area of the core curriculum

-25-

' 4. at least two_5p£_ciaUsts-^from outside the system with appropriate expertise and credentials to be used as consultants as needed
Subcommittees may be established to address particular issues.
B. A set of exa mi natjj3ns__des|_gned[___tg__m,e_asiire,_ a si.\irienUs—progress in mastering the curriculum shall be developed in conjunction with and in the same time frames as the development of the curriculum. These examinations shall be given jji_six-week intervals and shall measure if a student has achieved mastery of a set ^)f~o6Tectives established for such an interval.
The results of the assessment system developed herein shall be made minimally available to the parents or guardians of the students, to the principal oT~!~rTe~sc~ht>ol thaf the student attends, and to the Bilingual EducatioTPOffice. The District shall prepare a quarterly Analysis of Progress of the student in each core area course wfil^1T^haTITJe~~fn'acle available to the parents of each student therein, the principal, and the teacher of such course.
C. Within two^weeks of the beginning of school or within two weeks of the entry of a student into a program, each teacher shall make a determination of the point at which the student is in the curriculum for that subject. The teacher shall maintain the instruments used for this determination. The point so determined shall serve as the point on the curriculum where the student will begin and shall thus determine the point at which the interval testing should begin.
V
Post-Reel as si f ication Reassessment
A. The progress of each student who formerly was determined to be Limited English Proficient and who has been reclassified as fully English
• proficient shall be monitored for one year following reclassification to assure that recTassTRcation was coffee t . The District will designate by September 15, 1984, a specific office which will be responsible to implement this provision.
B. Each reclassified student shall be given the CTBS at the end of the first year that the^tudent has been removed from a program. Should the student either (1))SC©F« below the 25tii pejrcentile on either of the language sub-parts, or ((2) xlecline J?y f ive or more percentile points from the student's reclassified position, the student shall be referred to a committee... to_ determine if the student should be reclassified as "Limited English Proficient. The committee shall be composed of the student's counselor, a professional person from the Bilingual/English as a Second Language Office and at least one other person with training
-26-

in second language acquisition and methodologies. This committee will have the authority, subject to parental approval, to reclassify the student as Limited English Proficient, such reclassification entitling the student to all the rights that this classification entails.
VI Implementation Schedule Unless otherwise stated herein, this chapter shall be implemented according to the following schedule: 1. The curriculum shall be completed by September 1985. 2. The middle school provision (section I) shall be implemented no later than the beginning of the second semester of the 1984-1985 school year. 3. The—hrgh—school provisipo«'^C^ectioTr~ttX shall be implemented at /-Kiorth High School and W/fest High School nth later than the beginning *vof__tiie--secojTO semester af.ihgL.l984-1985^*chool year. 4. All other provisions shall be implemented no later than the beginning of the second semester of the 1985-1986 school year.
-27-

EXHIBIT 2
-IMPORTANT NOTICE-
Several years ago a lawsuit was brought against the Denver Public Schools alleging that they did not have adequate programs for students whose language was other than English. Our records indicate that you have a child who is Limited English Proficient and thus are a member of the Plaintiff class.
Recently a settlement of the lawsuit was negotiated between the named Plaintiffs and the Denver Public Schools. The settlement (a) provides a procedure for identifying and assessing needy students, (b) establishes standards for teachers and aides and (c) establishes programmatic standards.
Before the settlement goes into effect, you have a right to review it; if you do not like all or part of the settlement, you have a right to file an objection and to appear in court to state your objection.
The Settlement Agreement can be seen at the locations listed on the attached page between 9 A.M. and 4 P.M., Monday through Friday. You can bring your own translator or translation help can be arranged.
If you wish to file an objection, you must do so in writing by mailing your objection to the following locations before August 13^ 1984;-
1. cf^rk, U.S. District Court, 1929 Stout Street, Denver, /) Colorado 80294.

2. Michael Jackson, Esq., 1120 Lincoln Street, #1300, Denver, Colorado 80203.
3. Peter D. Roos, Esq., 2111 Madison Street, #401, San Francisco, California 94110.
Your objection should indicate that it relates to the case, Keyes v. School District #1, C- #1499 (Bilingual). If you file a written objection, you have a right to appear in court at 9:30 A.M. on August 17, 1984 to further state your concerns. The court is located at: Courtroom "A", Second Floor, Post Office Building, 18th and Stout Streets (use 19th Street entrance), Denver, Colorado 80294.
-2-

EXHIBIT 3
NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF Keyes v. School District #1, Denver C- #1499-(Bilingual)
U.S. District Court of Colorado
Several years ago a lawsuit was brought against the Denver Public Schools alleging that they did not have adequate programs for students who were limited in their English proficiency. In December, 1983 the United States District Court found that there were certain deficiencies in the program and ordered that they be remedied.
During the past six (6) months, representatives of the Plaintiffs and the School District have held negotiations to develop a remedy for the deficiencies found by the court. They have negotiated a settlement which (a) provides a procedure for identifying and assessing needy students, (b) establishes standards for teachers and aides and (c) establishes programmatic standards.
Before the settlement goes into effect, parents of students who attend the Denver Public Schools and who are Limited English Proficient may review it and file any objection they may have to its contents. They further have a right to appear in court.
The Settlement Agreement can be seen at the locations listed on the attached page between 9 A.M. and 4 P.M., Monday through Friday. Interested persons can bring translators, or, alternatively, translation assistance can be arranged.

Any parent or guardian of a student who attends the Denver Public Schools and who is Limited English Proficient or who believes his child does or will qualify for special language help, may file an objection by mailing one to the following locations before August 13, 1984:
1. Cleirk, U.S. District Court, 1929 Stout Street, Denver, n Colorado 80294.
2. Michael Jackson, Esq., 1120 Lincoln Street #1300, Denver, Colorado 80 203.
3. Peter D. Roos, Esq., 2111 Madison Street #401, San Francisco, California 94110.
Any objections should indicate at the top of the page that it relates to this case, Keyes v. School District #1, Denver, C- #1499 (Bilingual). Anyone who files a written objection has a right to appear in court at 9:30 A.M. on August 17, 1984 to further state their concerns. The court is located at: Courtroom "A", Second Floor, Post Office Building, 18th and Stout Streets (use 19th Street entrance), Denver, 80294.
-2-

 
 Case: 1:95-cv-2313 As of: 05/10/2020 11:23 AM MDT 1 of 11
U.S. District Court − District of Colorado District of Colorado (Denver)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:95−cv−02313−RBJ

TERMED

Congress Hispanic Ed v. Denver Sch Dist No 1 Assigned to: Judge R. Brooke Jackson Demand: $0 Case in other court: USDC Colorado, C149969M1499 Cause: 20:1681 Title IX Educational Amendments 1992
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 09/12/1995 Date Terminated: 08/18/1999 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 890 Other Statutory Actions Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Congress of Hispanic Educators

represented by Al Kauffman Mexican American Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. 140 East Houston Street #300 San Antonio, TX 78205 210−224−5476 Fax: LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Antonia Hernandez Mexican American Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. 140 East Houston Street #300 San Antonio, TX 78205 210−224−5476 Fax: LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carmen Rumbaut Mexican American Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. 140 East Houston Street #300 San Antonio, TX 78205 210−224−5476 Fax: LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jane E. Lopez META, Inc.−Massachusetts 240A Elm Street #22 Somerville, MA 02144 617−628−2226 Fax: 628−0322 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Luis Wilmot Mexican American Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. 140 East Houston Street #300 San Antonio, TX 78205 210−224−5476

Case: 1:95-cv-2313 As of: 05/10/2020 11:23 AM MDT 2 of 11
Fax: LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter Roos META, Inc.−California 785 Market Street #420 San Francisco, CA 94103 415−546−6382 Fax: 546−6363 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Miguel A. Perez−Vargas Multicultural Education, Training & Advocacy, Inc. 240 A Elm Street Suite 22 Somerville, MA 02144 617−628−2226 Fax: 617−628−0322 Email: perezvargasmiguel@gmail.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Roger L. Rice Multicultural Education, Training & Advocacy, Inc. P.O. Box 560131 Medford, MA 02156 617−623−6309 Email: rlr@shore.net ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
Denver Public Schools actually named as Denver School District No. 1

represented by Julie Ann Riege King & Greisen, LLP 1670 York Street Denver, CO 80206 303−298−9878 Fax: 298−9879 TERMINATED: 06/03/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Hodges Jackson Denver Public Schools General Counsel 900 Grant Street Denver, CO 80203 303−764−3390 Fax: LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter Lawrence Vana , III Denver Public Schools General Counsel 900 Grant Street Denver, CO 80203 303−764−3390 Fax:

Case: 1:95-cv-2313 As of: 05/10/2020 11:23 AM MDT 3 of 11

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Phil C. Neal Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg Two North LaSalle Street #2200 Chicago, IL 60602 312−269−8000 Fax: LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrew Harold Marks Andrew Marks PLLC, Law Offices of 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 730 Washington, DC 20004 202−818−8240 Email: amarks@markslawoffices.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jerome A. DeHerrera Achieve Law Group, LLC 146 West 11th Avenue Denver, CO 80204 303−725−2769 Fax: 833−340−7351 Email: jdh@achievelawgroup.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Laurel Pyke Malson Crowell & Moring LLP−DC 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20004 202−624−2500 Fax: 202−628−5116 Email: lmalson@crowell.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus Rita Montero

represented by Watson W. Galleher Don Galleher & Saliman, P.C. 1737 Gaylord Street Denver, CO 80206 303−572−1668 Fax: 303−572−0900 Email: dgs@dgslegal.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Intervenor
USA United States of America

represented by Linda A. McMahan U.S. Attorney's Office−Denver 1801 California Street Suite 1600 Denver, CO 80202 303−454−0100 Fax: 454−0406 Email: linda.mcmahan@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 05/18/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 1:95-cv-2313 As of: 05/10/2020 11:23 AM MDT 4 of 11
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen D. Taylor U.S. Attorney's Office−Denver 1801 California Street Suite 1600 Denver, CO 80202 303−454−0100 Fax: 303−454−0408 Email: stephen.taylor@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amanda Adams Rocque U.S. Attorney's Office−Denver 1801 California Street Suite 1600 Denver, CO 80202 303−454−0100 Fax: 303−454−0404 Email: amanda.rocque@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Whitney Marin Pellegrino U.S. Department of Justice−DC−950 Pennsylvania Avenue Robert F. Kennedy Building 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Civil Rights Division, Educational Opportunities Section Washington, DC 20530 202−616−9939 Email: whitney.pellegrino@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 09/12/1995 11/02/1995
12/11/1995 12/11/1995 01/16/1996 03/04/1996 06/18/1996 07/10/1996

# Docket Text
1 ORDER FOR RULE 16 CONFERENCE by Chief Judge Richard P. Matsch ; Rule 16 conference set for 4:00 11/2/95 (cc: all counsel) (former empl) (Entered: 09/13/1995)
2 COURTROOM MINUTES by Chief Judge Richard P. Matsch ; rule 16 conf held on 11/2/95 ; pla's mtn to modify decree & dft's response; csl will work together under Rule 26 for informal disclosure statements; csl to contact the court when they desire to have a formal meeting ; entry date : 11/3/95 Court Reporter: Terasaki (lam) (Entered: 11/03/1995)
3 NOTICE by plaintiff Congress Hispanic Ed of attorney Roos change of address (lam) (Entered: 12/12/1995)
3 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for plaintiff Congress Hispanic Ed by Jane E. Lopez (lam) (Entered: 12/12/1995)
4 MOTION by plaintiff Congress Hispanic Ed for attorney fees & costs (lam) (Entered: 01/17/1996)
5 STATUS REPORT by plaintiff Congress Hispanic Ed, defendant Denver Sch Dist No 1 (lam) (Entered: 03/07/1996)
6 MINUTE ORDER : by Chief Judge Richard P. Matsch ; status conf set for 10:00 7/10/96 (cc: all counsel) ; entry date : 6/21/96 (lam) (Entered: 06/21/1996)
7 COURTROOM MINUTES by Chief Judge Richard P. Matsch ; status conf held 7/10/96 ; status report ddl set for 9/30/96 ; mtn for atty fees and costs may be resolved between parties ; entry date : 7/10/96 Court Reporter: Terasaki−ECR (lam) (Entered: 07/10/1996)

Case: 1:95-cv-2313 As of: 05/10/2020 11:23 AM MDT 5 of 11

07/16/1996 10/01/1996 01/13/1997 08/26/1997 09/05/1997 09/08/1997 09/10/1997 09/12/1997
05/04/1998 02/03/1999 02/25/1999 03/02/1999 03/26/1999
04/20/1999 04/21/1999 04/21/1999 04/21/1999 04/21/1999 04/21/1999 05/17/1999 05/28/1999 05/28/1999 06/01/1999

8 SCHEDULING ORDER by Chief Judge Richard P. Matsch: parties status report ddl 9/30/96 (cc: all counsel) (lam) (Entered: 07/17/1996)
9 STATUS REPORT by defendant Denver Sch Dist No 1 (lam) (Entered: 10/04/1996)
10 NOTICE of withdrawal from Law Firm by defendant Denver Sch Dist No 1 of attorney Jackson & his change of address & phone (lam) (Entered: 01/15/1997)
11 ORDER by Chief Judge Richard P. Matsch ; status conf set for 9:00 9/9/97 (cc: all counsel) ; entry date : 8/27/97 (former empl) (Entered: 08/27/1997)
12 MINUTE ORDER : by Chief Judge Richard P. Matsch ; status conf reset for 2:00 9/12/97 (cc: all counsel) ; entry date 9/8/97 (gms) (Entered: 09/08/1997)
13 Agreed MOTION by plaintiff, defendant for continuance of status conf on 9/9/97 (gms) (Entered: 09/08/1997)
14 Entry of ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendant by Julie Ann Riege (former empl) (Entered: 09/10/1997)
15 COURTROOM MINUTES by Chief Judge Richard P. Matsch ; status conf held 9/12/97 ; csl to work on schedule for filing mtns for contempt & to modify consent decree & report at a later time ; entry date : 9/17/97 Court Reporter: Terasaki−ECR (lam) (Entered: 09/17/1997)
16 NOTICE by plaintiff Congress Hispanic Ed of attorney change of address (lam) (Entered: 05/05/1998)
17 ORDER by Chief Judge Richard P. Matsch ; status report ddl set for 2/25/99 (cc: all counsel) ; entry date : 2/4/99 (former empl) (Entered: 02/04/1999)
18 STATUS REPORT by defendant Denver Sch Dist No 1 (former empl) (Entered: 02/26/1999)
19 MINUTE ORDER : by Chief Judge Richard P. Matsch ; status conf set for 3:30 3/26/99 (cc: all counsel) ; entry date : 3/3/99 (former empl) (Entered: 03/03/1999)
20 COURTROOM MINUTES by Chief Judge Richard P. Matsch ; status conf held 3/26/99 ; entry date : 3/30/99 Court Reporter: K. Terasaki (former empl) (Entered: 03/30/1999)
22 NOTICE of submission of proposal to settle class action by plaintiff Congress Hispanic Ed, defendant Denver Sch Dist No 1 (former empl) (Entered: 04/23/1999)
21 MOTION by plaintiff USA to intervene (former empl) (Entered: 04/23/1999)
Tendered complaint in intervention submitted by plaintiff USA motion to intervene [21−1] (former empl) (Entered: 04/23/1999)
23 ORDER by Chief Judge Richard P. Matsch setting hearing on notice [22−1] 1:30 6/3/99 (cc: all counsel) ; entry date : 4/27/99 (former empl) (Entered: 04/27/1999)
24 ORDER by Chief Judge Richard P. Matsch granting motion to intervene [21−1] (cc: all counsel) ; entry date : 4/30/99 (former empl) (Entered: 04/30/1999)
25 INTERVENOR'S COMPLAINT by intervenor USA (former empl) (Entered: 04/30/1999)
26 NOTICE of subst of counsel by intervenor USA (former empl) (Entered: 05/18/1999)
27 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for Padres Unidos by Adrienne Helen Benavidez (former empl) (Entered: 06/01/1999)
27 REQUEST by Padres Unidos to submit written objections and testimony re propsoed settlement (former empl) (Entered: 06/01/1999)
28 ORDER by Chief Judge Richard P. Matsch granting request to submit objections re: settlement[27−1], regarding [27−1] entry of attorney (cc: all counsel) ; entry date : 6/2/99 (former empl) (Entered: 06/02/1999)

Case: 1:95-cv-2313 As of: 05/10/2020 11:23 AM MDT 6 of 11

06/03/1999 06/03/1999 06/03/1999 06/03/1999 06/16/1999
07/07/1999 08/18/1999 09/02/1999 12/17/1999 04/26/2000 09/15/2000 12/26/2000 03/23/2001 06/22/2001 12/17/2001 06/13/2002 11/19/2002 01/09/2003 06/23/2003 01/09/2004

29 ATTORNEY SUBSTITUTION: terminating attorney Julie Ann Riege for Denver Sch Dist No 1 and substituting attorney Peter Lawrence Vana III (former empl) (Entered: 06/04/1999)
30 SERVICE by publication of notice in LaVoz from 4/28/99 to 5/19/99 (former empl) (Entered: 06/04/1999)
31 SERVICE by publication of notice in El Semanario from 4/29/99 to 5/20/99 (former empl) (Entered: 06/04/1999)
32 COURTROOM MINUTES by Chief Judge Richard P. Matsch fairness hearing held; counsel to prepare consent decree for court to sign ; entry date : 6/4/99 Court Reporter: Kathy Terasaki, ECR (former empl) (Entered: 06/04/1999)
33 ORDER by Chief Judge Richard P. Matsch document denominated Denver Public Schools: English Language Acquisition Program shall be implemented as set forth in order; this order supersedes order of 8/l7/84 approving program for English proficient students (cc: all counsel) entry date : 6/18/99 (former empl) (Entered: 06/18/1999)
34 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings of 6/3/99 ( 128 pages) Prepared By: Federal Reporting Svc (former empl) (Entered: 07/07/1999)
35 ORDER by Chief Judge Richard P. Matsch terminating case by administrative closure (cc: all counsel) ; entry date : 8/19/99 (former empl) (Entered: 08/19/1999)
36 REPORT by Monitor on DPS English Acquisition Program Rept l (former empl) (Entered: 09/02/1999)
37 Monitor's REPORT on DPS ELA (Report 2) (former empl) (Entered: 12/20/1999)
38 REPORT on the Denver Public Schools' English Language Acquisition Program (ELA): Report 3 by Ernest R. House, Court Monitor 4/24/00 (lam) (Entered: 04/27/2000)
39 Monitor's REPORT on the Denver Public Schools' English Language Acquisition Program (ELA): Report 4 by Ernest R. House, Court Monitor 9/2000 (lam) (Entered: 09/18/2000)
40 Monitor's REPORT on Denver Public Schools' English Language Acquisition Program (ELA): Report 5 by Ernest R. House, Court Monitor 12/2000 (lam) (Entered: 12/27/2000)
41 LETTER from Clerk of Court to the file: please be advised that 3 letters rec'd 3/22/01 have been placed in misc. action file 01−X−12 (lam) (Entered: 03/26/2001)
42 Monitor's REPORT by Ernest R. House re: Denver Public Schools' english language acquisition program (ELA): Report 6 (pap) (Entered: 06/25/2001)
43 Monitor's REPORT on the Denver Public Schools' English Language Acquisition Program (ELA): Report 7 by Court Monitor, Ernest R. House (lam) (Entered: 12/18/2001)
44 Monitor's REPORT on Denver Public Schools' English Language Acquisition Program (ELA): Report 8 by Court Monitor, Ernest R. House (lam) (Entered: 06/14/2002)
45 Monitor's REPORT on the Denver Public Schools' English Language Acquisition Program (ELA): Report 9 by Court Monitor, Ernest R. House (lam) (Entered: 11/20/2002)
46 Monitor's REPORT on the Denver Public Schools' English Language Acquisition Program (ELA): Report 10 by Court Monitor, Ernest R. House (lam) (Entered: 01/10/2003)
47 Monitor's REPORT on the Denver Public Schools' English Language Acquistion Program (ELA): Report 11 by Court Monitor, Ernest R. House (pap) (Entered: 06/24/2003)
48 Monitor's REPORT on the Denver Public Schools' by intervenor (dlb) (Entered: 01/12/2004)

Case: 1:95-cv-2313 As of: 05/10/2020 11:23 AM MDT 7 of 11

01/10/2005 09/17/2012 09/18/2012 09/19/2012 09/19/2012 09/27/2012 09/27/2012 09/28/2012 09/28/2012
10/22/2012 10/29/2012 11/13/2012 11/15/2012 11/15/2012 11/15/2012

49 MONITOR'S REPORT on the Denver Public Schools' English Language Acquisition Program (ELA): Report 13 by Court Monitor Ernest R. House(pap, ) (Entered: 01/12/2005)
50 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Amanda Adams Rocque on behalf of USA (Rocque, Amanda) (Entered: 09/17/2012)
51 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Whitney Marin Pellegrino on behalf of USA (Pellegrino, Whitney) (Entered: 09/18/2012)
52 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Andrew Harold Marks on behalf of Denver Public Schools (Marks, Andrew) (Entered: 09/19/2012)
53 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Laurel Pyke Malson on behalf of Denver Public Schools (Malson, Laurel) (Entered: 09/19/2012)
54 Entry of Appearance Miguel A. Perez−Vargas as counsel for Plaintiff Congress of Hispanic Educators. (Perez−Vargas, Miguel) Modified on 9/27/2012 (rpmcd). (Entered: 09/27/2012)
55 Entry of Appearance Roger L. Rice as counsel for Plaintiff Congress of Hispanic Educators. (Rice, Roger) Modified on 9/27/2012 (rpmcd). (Entered: 09/27/2012)
56 Joint MOTION for Order to Approve Consent Decree (2012) by Intervenor USA. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only) Consent Decree (2012))(Pellegrino, Whitney) (Entered: 09/28/2012)
57 BRIEF in Support of 56 Joint MOTION for Order to Approve Consent Decree (2012) filed by Intervenor USA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5 (part 1 of 40), # 6 Exhibit 5 (part 2 of 40), # 7 Exhibit 5 (part 3 of 40), # 8 Exhibit 5 (part 4 of 40), # 9 Exhibit 5 (part 5 of 40), # 10 Exhibit 5 (part 6 of 40), # 11 Exhibit 5 (part 7 of 40), # 12 Exhibit 5 (part 8 of 40), # 13 Exhibit 5 (part 9 of 40), # 14 Exhibit 5 (part 10 of 40), # 15 Exhibit 5 (part 11 of 40), # 16 Exhibit 5 (part 12 of 40), # 17 Exhibit 5 (part 13 of 40), # 18 Exhibit 5 (part 14 of 40), # 19 Exhibit 5 (part 15 of 40), # 20 Exhibit 5 (part 16 of 40), # 21 Exhibit 5 (part 17 of 40), # 22 Exhibit 5 (part 18 of 40), # 23 Exhibit 5 (part 19 of 40), # 24 Exhibit 5 (part 20 of 40), # 25 Exhibit 5 (part 21 of 40), # 26 Exhibit 5 (part 22 of 40), # 27 Exhibit 5 (part 23 of 40), # 28 Exhibit 5 (part 24 of 40), # 29 Exhibit 5 (part 25 of 40), # 30 Exhibit 5 (part 26 of 40), # 31 Exhibit 5 (part 27 of 40), # 32 Exhibit 5 (part 28 of 40), # 33 Exhibit 5 (part 29 of 40), # 34 Exhibit 5 (part 30 of 40), # 35 Exhibit 5 (part 31 of 40), # 36 Exhibit 5 (part 32 of 40), # 37 Exhibit 5 (part 33 of 40), # 38 Exhibit 5 (part 34 of 40), # 39 Exhibit 5 (part 35 of 40), # 40 Exhibit 5 (part 36 of 40), # 41 Exhibit 5 (part 37 of 40), # 42 Exhibit 5 (part 38 of 40), # 43 Exhibit 5 (part 39 of 40), # 44 Exhibit 5 (part 40 of 40), # 45 Exhibit 6, # 46 Exhibit 7, # 47 Exhibit 8)(Pellegrino, Whitney) (Entered: 09/28/2012)
58 Minute ORDER Setting Hearing on 56 Joint MOTION for Order to Approve Consent Decree (2012) for 11/16/2012 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom A, by Judge Richard P. Matsch on 10/22/2012. (rpmcd) (Entered: 10/22/2012)
59 Letter from Rita Montero re 56 Joint MOTION for Order to Approve Consent Decree (2012) and 58 Order Setting Hearing on Motion. (rpmcd) (Entered: 10/29/2012)
60 (LETTER) Motion for Continuance filed by Rita Montero. (jjhsl, ) (Entered: 11/14/2012)
61 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Watson Wheelwright Galleher on behalf of Rita Montero (Galleher, Watson) (Entered: 11/15/2012)
62 Supplemental MOTION to Continue by Amicus Rita Montero. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Galleher, Watson) Modified on 11/15/2012 as counsel has refiled at 63 . (sgrim) (Entered: 11/15/2012)
63 Supplemental MOTION to Continue by Amicus Rita Montero. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Galleher, Watson) (Entered: 11/15/2012)

Case: 1:95-cv-2313 As of: 05/10/2020 11:23 AM MDT 8 of 11

11/16/2012 11/16/2012 11/19/2012 11/20/2012
11/26/2012 11/26/2012 11/28/2012

64 Courtroom Minutes for Motion Hearing held 11/16/2012 before Judge Richard P. Matsch. ORDERED: Fairness Hearing scheduled January 25, 2013 at 10:00 a.m. Counsel to submit directly to chambers proposed notice and written resolution by Board of Education on November 19, 2012. FTR: K. Terasaki. (sgrim) (Entered: 11/16/2012)
65 ORDER Setting Fairness Hearing. A Fairness hearing on approval of proposed consent decree is scheduled for January 25, 2013 at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom A, Second Floor, the Byron White United States Courthouse, 1823 Stout Street, Denver, Colorado before Judge Richard P. Matsch, by Judge Richard P. Matsch on 11/16/12. (sgrim) (Entered: 11/16/2012)
66 CERTIFICATION of DPS Board of Education pursuant to 64 re: 56 , by Intervenor USA. (rpmcd) (Entered: 11/20/2012)
67 ORDER For Preliminary Approval of Proposed Consent Decree and for Notice of Fairness Hearing re 56 : Joint Motion to Approve Consent Decree is preliminarily approved, subject to final approval following a Fairness Hearing to be held before this Court on January 25,2013, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom A, Second Floor, the Byron White United States Courthouse, 1823 Stout Street, Denver, Colorado. The Denver School District No.1 (Denver Public Schools)shall provide written notice of the purpose and location of the Fairness Hearing, as described in the Notices attached hereto, by November 29, 2012. All written objections specify the part(s) of the proposed Consent Decree to which the person objects, the basis for each objection, and whether the person intends to make objections in person at the Fairness Hearing on January 25, 2013. All timely written objections received by counsel for the Parties shall be filed with the Court by the Parties on or before January 18, 2013, by Judge Richard P. Matsch on 11/20/2012.(rpmcd) (Entered: 11/20/2012)
68 Joint MOTION for Leave to Amend Notices 67 Order on Motion for Order,,,, by Plaintiff Congress of Hispanic Educators, Defendant Denver Public Schools, Intervenor USA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Proposed Order (PDF Only) Order)(Rocque, Amanda) (Entered: 11/26/2012)
69 ORDER Granting 68 Joint Motion for Approval to Issue Amended Notice re 67 : Defendant Denver School District No. 1 shall provide written notice of the purpose and location of the Fairness Hearing, as described in the Notices attached to this Court's November 20, 2012 Order (Doc. 67), on or before November 30, 2012 and the attached amended Parent Notice shall be issued by Defendant Denver School District No. 1 to parents, by Judge Richard P. Matsch on 11/26/2012.(rpmcd) (Entered: 11/26/2012)
70 TRANSCRIPT of Motions Hearing held on November 16, 2012 before Judge Matsch. Pages: 1−24. Prepared by: Federal Reporting Service, Inc.

NOTICE − REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: Within seven calendar days of this filing, each party shall inform the Court, by filing a Notice of Intent to Redact, of the party's intent to redact personal identifiers from the electronic transcript of the court proceeding. If a Notice of Intent to Redact is not filed within the allotted time, this transcript will be made electronically available after 90 days. Please see the Notice of Electronic Availability of Transcripts document at www.cod.uscourts.gov.

11/29/2012 12/06/2012 12/06/2012

Transcript may only be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber prior to the 90 day deadline for electronic posting on PACER. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 3/1/2013. (Federal Reporting Service, Inc., ) (Entered: 11/28/2012)
71 Mail Returned as Undeliverable re: 64 Motion Hearing, Addressed to Peter Roos. (jjhsl, ) (Entered: 11/29/2012)
72 Mail Returned as Undeliverable re: 64 Motion Hearing, Addressed to Luis Wilmot. (jjhsl, ) (Entered: 12/06/2012)
73 Mail Returned as Undeliverable re: 64 Motion Hearing, Addressed to Carmen Rumbaut. (jjhsl, ) (Entered: 12/06/2012)

Case: 1:95-cv-2313 As of: 05/10/2020 11:23 AM MDT 9 of 11

12/06/2012 12/06/2012 01/09/2013 01/16/2013
01/18/2013 01/23/2013 01/24/2013
01/25/2013 02/11/2013

74 Mail Returned as Undeliverable re: 64 Motion Hearing, Addressed to Al Kauffman. (jjhsl, ) (Entered: 12/06/2012)
75 Mail Returned as Undeliverable re: 64 Motion Hearing, Addressed to Antonia Hernandez. (jjhsl, ) (Entered: 12/06/2012)
76 Joint STATUS REPORT by Plaintiff Congress of Hispanic Educators, Defendant Denver Public Schools, Intervenor USA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Attachment 1)(Rocque, Amanda) (Entered: 01/09/2013)
77 MOTION to File Amicus Brief In Objection to Proposed Changes to 1999 Consent Decree by Amicus Rita Montero. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment 1, # 2 Attachment 2, # 3 Attachment 3, # 4 Order Re: Motion For Leave to File Amici Curiae Brief in Opposition to Proposed Changes to 1999 Consent Decree)(Galleher, Watson) (Entered: 01/16/2013)
78 ORDER CONCERNING 77 Motion to File Amicus Brief: It is expected that the concerns raised by these members will be discussed with the Court at the hearing to be held on Friday, January 25, 2013, at 10:00 a.m. by Judge Richard P. Matsch on 1/18/2013.(rpmcd) (Entered: 01/18/2013)
79 RESPONSE to 77 MOTION to File Amicus Brief In Objection to Proposed Changes to 1999 Consent Decree filed by Plaintiff Congress of Hispanic Educators, Defendant Denver Public Schools, Intervenor USA. (Rocque, Amanda) (Entered: 01/23/2013)
80 MOTION for Leave to File Amici Curiae Response to Court's Order Concerning Motion For Leave to File Amici Curiae Brief by Amicus Rita Montero. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only), # 2 Attachment 1 to Motion− Amici Curiae, # 3 Attachment 1 to Amici Curiae, # 4 Attachment 2 to Amici Curiae)(Galleher, Watson) (Entered: 01/24/2013)
81 Courtroom Minutes for Fairness Hearing held on 1/25/2013 before Judge Richard P. Matsch. Hearing continued to 4/15/2013 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom A and Status Report due by 3/29/2013. FTR: K. Terasaki. (rpmcd ) (Entered: 01/25/2013)
82 TRANSCRIPT of Fairness Hearing held on January 25, 2013 before Judge Matsch. Pages: 1−54. Prepared by: Federal Reporting Service, Inc.

NOTICE − REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: Within seven calendar days of this filing, each party shall inform the Court, by filing a Notice of Intent to Redact, of the party's intent to redact personal identifiers from the electronic transcript of the court proceeding. If a Notice of Intent to Redact is not filed within the allotted time, this transcript will be made electronically available after 90 days. Please see the Notice of Electronic Availability of Transcripts document at www.cod.uscourts.gov.

02/12/2013 02/19/2013

Transcript may only be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber prior to the 90 day deadline for electronic posting on PACER. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/16/2013. (Federal Reporting Service, Inc., ) (Entered: 02/11/2013)
83 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Intervenor USA. (McMahan, Linda) Modified on 2/12/2013 to advise Motion 83 terminated as Moot Re 26 5/17/99 and 5/18/99 (rpmcd). (Entered: 02/12/2013)
84 Corrected TRANSCRIPT of Fairness Hearing held on January 25, 2013 before Judge Matsch. Pages: 1−54. Prepared by: Federal Reporting Service, Inc.

NOTICE − REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: Within seven calendar days of this filing, each party shall inform the Court, by filing a Notice of Intent to Redact, of the party's intent to redact personal identifiers from the electronic transcript of the court proceeding. If a Notice of Intent to Redact is not filed within the allotted time, this transcript will be made electronically available after 90 days. Please see the Notice of Electronic Availability of Transcripts document at www.cod.uscourts.gov.

Transcript may only be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber prior to the 90 day deadline for electronic posting on

Case: 1:95-cv-2313 As of: 05/10/2020 11:23 AM MDT 10 of 11

03/29/2013 03/29/2013 04/03/2013 04/11/2013 04/15/2013
04/16/2013 05/01/2013
05/22/2013 05/23/2013 06/13/2013 06/14/2013 06/18/2013 02/25/2014

PACER. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/23/2013. (Federal Reporting Service, Inc., ) (Entered: 02/19/2013)
85 Joint STATUS REPORT by Defendant Denver Public Schools. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Malson, Laurel) (Entered: 03/29/2013)
86 ORDER FOR CLARIFICATION re 85 : the parties will clarify this statement that the Board unanimously approved the resolution attached as Exhibit 1 to the Joint Status Report prior to the hearing scheduled for April 15, 2013, by Judge Richard P. Matsch on 3/29/2013. (rpmcd ) (Entered: 03/29/2013)
87 RESPONSE to 86 Order, by Defendant Denver Public Schools. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Malson, Laurel) (Entered: 04/03/2013)
88 SUPPLEMENT/AMENDMENT Amici Curiae Request For Leave to File Supplemental Submission by Amicus Rita Montero. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1)(Galleher, Watson) (Entered: 04/11/2013)
89 Courtroom Minutes for Continued Fairness Hearing held before Judge Richard P. Matsch on 4/15/2013. ORDERED: Proposed names of prospective monitors due by May 30, 2013. Proposed order to include as stated: pursuant to the hearing held on April 15, 2013, and according to the Court's findings, the proposed consent decree with conditions is fair and reasonable and in accordance with the law, submitted in paper to chambers. FTR: K. Terasaki. (sgrim) (Entered: 04/15/2013)
90 ORDER Approving Consent Decree (2012) with Conditions re 56 , by Judge Richard P. Matsch on 4/16/2013. (rpmcd ) (Entered: 04/16/2013)
91 TRANSCRIPT of Continued Fairness Hearing held on April 15, 2013 before Judge Matsch. Pages: 1−30. Prepared by: Federal Reporting Service, Inc.
NOTICE − REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: Within seven calendar days of this filing, each party shall inform the Court, by filing a Notice of Intent to Redact, of the party's intent to redact personal identifiers from the electronic transcript of the court proceeding. If a Notice of Intent to Redact is not filed within the allotted time, this transcript will be made electronically available after 90 days. Please see the Notice of Electronic Availability of Transcripts document at www.cod.uscourts.gov.
Transcript may only be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber prior to the 90 day deadline for electronic posting on PACER. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 8/2/2013. (Federal Reporting Service, Inc., ) (Entered: 05/01/2013)
92 Joint STATUS REPORT AND REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO SUBMIT NAMES OF PROPOSED COURT MONITOR by Defendant Denver Public Schools. (Malson, Laurel) (Entered: 05/22/2013)
93 ORDER re 92 : the May 30, 2013 deadline for submission of names of potential candidates for Court−Appointed Monitor is extended to June 14, 2013, by Judge Richard P. Matsch on 5/23/2013. (rpmcd ) (Entered: 05/23/2013)
94 STATEMENT Entry of Appearance for J. DeHerrera by Defendant Denver Public Schools. (DeHerrera, Jerome) (Entered: 06/13/2013)
95 Joint MOTION for Appointment of Dr. Paul Martinez as the Court's Monitor of the 2012 Modified Consent Decree by Plaintiff Congress of Hispanic Educators, Defendant Denver Public Schools, Intervenor USA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Proposed Order (PDF Only) Order)(Rocque, Amanda) (Entered: 06/14/2013)
96 ORDER Re 95 Motion to Appoint: Dr. Martinez to monitor, on behalfof the Court, the Defendants' implementation and compliance with the Consent Decree (2012), by Judge Richard P. Matsch on 6/18/2013.(rpmcd) (Entered: 06/18/2013)
97 STATUS REPORT (Independent Monitor Report by Dr. Paul E. Martinez) by Intervenor USA. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix B)(Rocque, Amanda) (Entered: 02/25/2014)

Case: 1:95-cv-2313 As of: 05/10/2020 11:23 AM MDT 11 of 11

10/24/2014 06/08/2015 02/28/2016 06/05/2017 05/11/2018 09/12/2018
09/12/2018
09/21/2018 09/21/2018 09/21/2018 09/21/2018 09/21/2018 09/21/2018 09/25/2018 07/17/2019 07/18/2019
07/18/2019

98 STATUS REPORT (Independent Monitor Report) by Intervenor USA. (Rocque, Amanda) (Entered: 10/24/2014)
99 STATUS REPORT of the Independent Monitor by Intervenor USA. (Rocque, Amanda) (Entered: 06/08/2015)
100 NOTICE of Independent Monitor Report by Intervenor USA (Rocque, Amanda) (Entered: 02/28/2016)
101 NOTICE of Independent Monitor Report by Intervenor USA (Rocque, Amanda) (Entered: 06/05/2017)
102 NOTICE of Independent Monitor Report by Intervenor USA (Rocque, Amanda) (Entered: 05/11/2018)
103 Joint MOTION to Withdraw and Substitute Dr. Paul Martinez and to Appoint Dr. Chris Nelson as the Court's Monitor of the 2012 Modified Consent Decree by Intervenor USA. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Rocque, Amanda) (Entered: 09/12/2018)
104 ORDER APPOINTING MONITOR For the reasons set forth in the Parties' Unopposed Joint Motion to Appoint Dr. Christopher Nelson, Ph.D. as the Court's Monitor of the Consent Decree (2012), and following a review of the materials submitted in Attachment 1 thereto, the Court hereby appoints Dr. Nelson to monitor, on behalf of the Court, the Defendants' implementation and compliance with the Consent Decree in this case, by Judge Richard P. Matsch on 9/12/2018. (evana, ) (Entered: 09/12/2018)
105 Mail Returned as Undeliverable re: 104 Order on Motion to Withdraw, Addressed to Carmen Rumbaut. (evana, ) (Entered: 09/24/2018)
106 Mail Returned as Undeliverable re: 104 Order on Motion to Withdraw, Addressed to Michael Hodges Jackson. (evana, ) (Entered: 09/24/2018)
107 Mail Returned as Undeliverable re: 104 Order on Motion to Withdraw, Addressed to Antonia Hernandez. (evana, ) (Entered: 09/24/2018)
108 Mail Returned as Undeliverable re: 104 Order on Motion to Withdraw, Addressed to Luis Wilmot. (evana, ) (Entered: 09/24/2018)
109 Mail Returned as Undeliverable re: 104 Order on Motion to Withdraw, Addressed to Peter Lawrence Vana, III 9/21/2018. (evana, ) (Entered: 09/24/2018)
110 Mail Returned as Undeliverable re: 104 Order on Motion to Withdraw, Addressed to Al Kauffman. (evana, ) (Entered: 09/24/2018)
111 Mail Returned as Undeliverable re: 104 Order on Motion to Withdraw, Addressed to Peter Roos. (evana, ) (Entered: 09/26/2018)
112 STATUS REPORT (Independent Monitor Report) by Intervenor USA. (Rocque, Amanda) (Entered: 07/17/2019)
113 Upon the passing of Judge Richard P. Matsch, and pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 40.1(a), this case has been reassigned to Judge John L. Kane effective this date. All future pleadings should be designated as 95−cv−2313−JLK. Text only entry. (cthom, ) (Entered: 07/18/2019)
114 MEMORANDUM Case returned by Judge John L. Kane and randomly reassigned to Judge R. Brooke Jackson for all further proceedings. (cthom, ) (Entered: 07/18/2019)

 
 Congress of Hispanic Educators v. School District No. 1..., 423 U.S. 1066 (1976)

96 S.Ct. 806 Supreme Court of the United States
CONGRESS OF HISPANIC EDUCATORS et al., petitioners, v.
SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, DENVER, COLORADO, et al.
No. 75-702. | January 12, 1976
Former decision, 413 U.S. 189, 93 S.Ct. 2686.
Facts and opinion, Keyes v. School District No. 1, Denver, Colorado, D. C., 368 F.Supp. 207; D.C., 380 F.Supp. 673; 521 F.2d 465.

Opinion
Motion of Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc., for leave to file a brief, as amicus curiae, in No. 75-702, granted. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
Mr. Justice WHITE took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion and petitions.
Parallel Citations 96 S.Ct. 806 (Mem), 46 L.Ed.2d 657
	  

1