UNITED STATES OF 
. -- - - 
on own. Riot SHOWN
\t l-va' F). let)
IZ-t-?t SPEER BLVD. 310 L?l AH
DENVER, CO smut-3552 \vn 

 

April 25. 2014

Patrick sanchez

Superintendent. and

Adams County 14 School Disn'ict Board of Education
Adams County School District [4 (Commerce City)
5291 East 60'h Avenue

Commerce City. Colorado 80022

Re: Adams Countv School District 14
Case Number 08?10-1 1 12-1)

Dear Superintendent sanchez and Members ol?the Adams 14 School District Board 01'
Education:

On March 25, 2010. we received a complaint against the Adams County 14 School District
(District). The Complainant alleged that the Distriet discriminated against students. parents and
staff 1on the basis of national origin (Hispanic). Specifically. the Complainant alleged that the
District is a hostile environment for Hispanic staff and students. The Complainant further
alleged that the District fails to communicate effectively with parents who are limited in their
English pro?ciency' (LEP) in a language and manner that they understand.

The t'ollor-ving District actions were specifically identi?ed as the conduct that resulted in the
alleged hostile environment:

a District Administration identifying and targeting I Iispanic smfl??ncluding teachers on
visas, bilingual staff and teachers with accents) for increased performance scrutiny
resulting in negative evaluations. negative changes in assignments. and forced
resignations;

a District administration taking actions to eliminate the use of Spanish from the District
(including communicating its intent to eliminate the use ol?Spanish in social and non-
academic settings with students, to include the removal ol?Spanish lauiguage materials
from classrooms and buildings when students were present);

 

Originally. in our noti?cation letter to the District dated July we identi?ed the allegation its being
towards teachers. However. through our investigation we learned that there were other staff members who brought
parallel Facts to our attention.

l'he Departnn-nt litluraliun?s mission is to promote student ncluvvenwnl and preparation tor global t'ullitlelilit'eness
by festering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.

tt'ww.ed .gov

 

Page 2 of24 OCR Complaint No. (ls-lO-l l2-D. Adams County l4 School District

Preventing English language learner (ELL) parents from participating in the District?s

ELL design committee:

a District Administration making national origin-based derogatory statements toward
Hispanic staff. students. and parents:

a District Administration failing to address allegations of national origin (l?lispanic)
harassment that were brought to the former Superintendent's attention": and

The District not communicating cffecnvely with ELL parents during parent teacher
conferences, report card meetings, and in all school conununications sent to parents.

Additionally: while the allegations were Districtwide in scope. OCR focused its investigation
primarily on the following schools:

Alsup Elementary School Rose li ll Elementary School
Central [Elementary School Kearny Middle School
Dupont Elementary School Adams City High School
llanson Elementary School Lester Arnold High School

Monaco Elementary School

We initiated an investigation ofthese allegations under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of l964
{Title Vi), 42 U.S.C. ?2000d, and its implementing regulation. at 34 Part 100. which
prohibit discrimination on the bases of race. color. or national origin in activities or programs
that receive federal financial assistance.- The District receives federal financial assistance from
the Department and therefore is subject to the provisions of Title VI. Under Title Vi. the
District is responsible for providing nondiscriminatory environments that are conducive to
learning and afford students equal educational opportunities in accordance with 34 .F .R. 
100.3 and 

Based on the allegations of this complaint. we investigated the following legal issues:

1. Whether the District is a hostile environment for Hispanic students and staff in
violation of34 C.F.R. ?100.3(a) and 

2. Whether the District fails to communicate effectively with parents who are in a
manner and way that they understand in violation 01?34 CTR. 100.3(a) and 

Through our investigation. we determined that the District created a hostile 
toward lispanic students and staft'and. failed to comm unieatc effectively with Ll'il? parents
in a language and manner that they understand. This letter explains the bases for our
conclusion.

 

3 The former Superintendent instituted the ELL Design Committee to study the District?s alternative language
pregram and to make recommendations for changing the District?s alternative language pregram.

3 At all times in this letter. the Superintendent and/or former Superintendent identi?ed is Susan Chandler. Where
the current Superintendent, Patrick is identi?ed. he is identi?ed specifically by name and title.

Page 3 ol'34 OCR Complaint N0. I Adams County I4 School District

Back? round

The District is located just north of downtown Denver in Colorado. The District serves the
community of Commerce City. Colorado. The District has over 7.000 students. Greater than 19
percent ot?the population of the community lives below the poverty line and greater than 80
percent ofthe students in the District qualify for free and reduced lunch. More than 80 percent
ofstudents in the District are Hispanic and greater than hall?of the students in the District are
limited in their English pro?ciency with greater than 90 percent of students speaking
Spanish. we note that historically, Central Elementary and llanson Elementary Schools had the
greatest numbers of bilingual and Hispanic staffand students in the District. During the course
of our investigation. the District removed the former Superintendent in June 2012 and
subsequently hired the current Superintendent. Patrick Srinchez.

The District is comprised of 1 I schools: seven elementary schools, two middle schools. two high
schools. We collected evidence from the Complainant. the District and other individuals and
sources not provided by the Complainant or the District. We interviewed and/or gathered
information from more than 60 individuals.

During the course of tlte investigation. we encountered individuals who had information for us.
but expressed a [car of retaliation from the District. Some provided information to us even
though they felt that they were risking retaliation. Based on evidence that is discussed later in
this letter. we became concerned that District administrators might retaliate against staff
members who participated in investigation. We investigated allegations from the end of
the 2008-09 school year through the end ol'the 2011-12 school year. During that time. the
District refused to provide us direm access to students or their parents. The District identified
three witnesses to support their position regarding the allegations: the former Superintendent.
the former Chief Communications and Strategy Of?cer. and the former Chief Academic Of?cer?
We interviewed all three individuals offered by the District and requested that the District make
other administrators available for interviews. We also interviewed District teachers and staff
who contacted OCR directly.

issue 1: Hostile Environment

Legal Authority

To establish a violation of Title VI under a hostile environment analysis. we must find that: a
racially hostile environment existed; the District had actual or constructive notice of the
racially hostile environment: and the DiSIrict failed to respond adequately to redress the
racially hostile environment. Whether conduct constitutes a hostile environment must be
determined from the totality ol?the circumstances."

 

In this document. and ELL are used interchangeably to identify students who are English language learners or
parents who are limited in their English proficiency.

In this document. the ChiefCommunications and Strategy Officer is John Albright, and the Chief Academic
Of?cer is lIeintzman.

 The applicable legal standards described herein are more fully discussed in "Racial Incidents and
Harassment Against Students at Educational Institutions: Investigative Gtiidanee??which is available 1'1;
(March l0. I994): See also. "Education and Title VI
oi'the Civil Rights Act of I964: Title VI and Race. Color and National Origin Discrimination?. which is available at:


 

 

Page 4 of?d OCR Complaint No. 03-l0-l IZ-D. Adams County l4 School District

in determining whether a hostile environment based on national origin (llispanic) has been
created. we evaluate whether the conduct was suf?ciently serious to deny or limit an individual's
ability to participate in or bene?t from the. services. activities or privileges provided by a
District? We examine all the circumstances. including: the type of harassment (cg. whether it
was verbal or physical): the frequency anti severity ofthe conduct; the age, race. and relationship
of the parties (student on student harassment v. adult to student harassment or supervisor to
subordinate harassment, etc); the setting and context in which the harassment occurred; whether
other incidents have occurred at the school; and other relevant factors.

When we evaluate the severity of racial harassment, the unique setting and mission of an
educational institution must be taken into account. An educational institution has a (itin to
provide a nondiscriminatory environment that is conducive to learning. This is especially true
for yOunger, less mature children, who are generally more impressionable than older students or
adults. 'I'hus. an incident that might not be considered extremely hannful to an older student
might nevertheless be found severe and harmful to a younger student. For young children in
their formative years the severe. pervasive or persistent standard musr be
understood in light ofthe age and impressionability ofthe students involved and with the special
nature and purposes of the educational setting in mind.

In determining whether a hostile environment exists. we also are alert to the possible existence at
the District of racial incidents other than those alleged in the complaint and will obtain evidence
about them to determine whether they contributed to a racially hostile environment or
corroborate the allegations.

If we find that a hostile environment existed we will proceed to determine whether the District
received notice ofthe hostile environment- anti whether the District toolt reasonable steps to
respond to it.

A District can receive notice in many different ways. For example. a student may complain to a
favorite teacher or counselor about a speci?c teacher?s harassing statements. Students or staff
may complain to members of the Board of Education. A paraprofessional may tell a central
of?ce administrator of harassing conduct toward students by a building administrator. A
principal or other administrator may witness a Ilispanie staffmember being mistreated by
another administrator or teacher. The District may receive notice in an indirect manner. from
sources such as a member ofa school staff. a member of the educational community. or local
advocates.

In cases where the District did not have actual notice. the District may have constructive notice.
A District is charged with constructive notice ofa hostile environment if, upon reasonably
diligent inquiry in the exercise of reasonable care. it should have known of the discrimination. In
other words. if the District could have found out about the harassment had it made a preper
inquiry. and ifthe District should have made such an inquiry. knowledge of the harassment will
be imputed to the District. A District also may be charged with constructive notice ifit has
notice of some. but not all. of the incidents involved in a particular complaint.

In some cases. the pervasiveness. persistence. or severity of the racial harassment may be enough
to infer that the District had notice ofthe hostile environment (cg. a racially motivated assault
on a group ofstudents). A ?nding that a District had constructive notice of a hostile

 

 In this document, race, color and national origin are used interchangcahly.

Page 5 of24 OCR Complaint No. ll-D. Adams County l4 School District

environment meets the notice requirement of the analysis. lf the alleged harasser is an agent.
employee or administrator ofa District. acting within the scope of his or her official duties 
such that the individual has actual or apparent authority over the students and staffinvolved like
a principal. Chichflicer. or Superintendent of the District), then the individual will be
considered to be acting in an agency capacity and the District will be deemed to have
constructive notice of the harassment.

Once a District has notice ol?a racially hostile environment, the District has a legal duty to take
reasonable steps to eliminate it. Thus, if we find that the District took responsive action. we will
evaluate the apprOpriateness of the. reSponsive action by examining reasonableness. timeliness.
and effectiveness. The appropriate response to a racially hostile environment must be tailored to
redress fully the specific problems experienced at the institution as a result of the harassment. In
addition. the responsive action must be reasonably calculated to prevent recurrence and ensure
that participants are not restricted in their participation or benefits as a result of a racially hostile
environment created by students or non-employees.

Analysis and Findings

The District?s overall defense to the hostile environment allegation is that the District is not a
racially hostile environment. The District claimed that the allegations were from a small group
of teachers that were disgruntled because ofthc District's move to an "all English" alternative
language program and were also teachers under District review for performance issues. We did
not find this to be the case.

The Complainant is not a District employee and our sources ol?information were more expansive
than a few disgruntled teachers as the District characterized. We looked at instances of
harassment asserted to be against Hispanic students and staff. The former District administration
had full and ongoing opportunities to address all issues raised. The former Superintendent.
through her legal counsel. also provided OCR additional information after her departure from the
District that we fully considered.

Students

First. we looked at alleged actions taken toward Hispanic students particular] in relation to the
use ofSpanish in the District. The Complainant alleged that the District was ordering students to
speak linglish in all settings including non-academic and social settings; and children were
instructed to remove Spanish language instructional materials from classrooms and buildings.
There was a specific allegation that an elementary age student was denied medical assistance
until he was able to access a Spanish-speaking teacher, more than an hour after he was injured
and in need ol'medieal attention.

The District maintained that a small group of teachers. who were discontent with changes to "all
English? for direct instruction of 131.1,. students. raised these allegations. The District denied
these allegations. The Superintendent also stated that the District?s decision to change to an "all
linglish" model was based on a recommendation by the Colorado Association of School Board
Executives. and her understanding of recommendations made by the omprehensivc Appraisal
for District improvement Report). 3

 

The former Superintendent explained that the changes to the District?s alternative language program were in
response to a recommendation that the District change its policy conceming [English language learners from the
Colorado Association ofSehool Board Executives (CASBE). We note that the District adopted a more neutral

Page 6 of24 OCR Complaint No. Adams County 14 School District

During their interviews. building principals and District central administrators pointed us to the
District?s written rubric entitled. "Appropriate Use ofStudents' Native Language in an ESOL
Program". The rubric provides guidance for appropriate opportunities for the use of native
language in an LSSOL model of instruction. We lind that the District?s written policy
demonstrates provisions for students to use native language. and notes that the ?rst language is
foundational to the learning of English. All administrators stated that the District values
students? native languages and pointed to the District encouraging the use ol?the native language
in social settings such as the lunchroom or'playground and at home as stated in the written
rubric.

'l?wo administrators reported to OCR that they had discussed language usage with stall?. One
administrator reported sending an email message to a staff member clarifying the conditions in
which Spanish may be used with a student and a parent for communication. One other
administrator identi?ed a situation where that administrator coached a teacher after Lie teacher
removed students from a classroom for speaking Spanish.

While the administrators descriptions of their actions and the District?s rubric regarding
students? use of their native language appear apprOpriate on their face. our investigation revealed
other practices and actions that differ signi?cantly. As detailed here. this information indicated
that District administration targeted the use of Spanish by students and stall ['or criticism.
discipline, unl?air treatment. and "eradication" regardless of the circumstances. situations or
venue in contradiction to its written and stated policy. We reviewed specific examples from
seven schools: llanson. Central, Monaco- Alsop. Kearny Middle School. Adams City lligh
School. and Coirtmunity Leadership Academy.

A building administrator at Adams City High School admitted that in 2010. a teacher removed
Hispanic students from the classroom and almost caused a riot in the class. According to the
building administrator, the students were speaking Spanish and the teacher did not knox-t what
the students were saying so the teacher removed the students from the class. In that case- the
building administrator was able to work with the students and the teacher to resolve the situation.
There was no evidence that the District further investigated this situation.

We learned from four teachers, one paraprolESSional and a community member that the principal
at Hanson Elementary School demanded that stal'l? speak English in all circumstances regardless
of the situation. including communication with kindergarten and early childhood students in a
social setting. the lunchroom. 'l?hese demands were made to teachers and paraprofessionals
during staff meetings. and to students during the course of everyday activities. The expectation
was communicated consistently and regularly from the time that the principal started at llanson
in the fall 01'2009. Speci?cally. we learned from a teacher and a paraprofessional that at Hamson
Elementary School early in the fall ol'2009. the principal yelled at students. including
kindergarten students in the lunchroom telling them to speak in English in order to ask for
assistance and food even though the kindergarten students were reported to OCR to be
monolingual Spanish speaking students. who had no formal school experience. It was reporter]
to us that when Spanish-speaking staff tried to intervene and assist these young students in
Spanish the principal stopped them.

 

District policy on the instruction for second language learners. The policy does not address the model ol'instruetion
that is to be used by the Disrrict and is broad enough to encompass any alternative language program. The (HUI
report is discussed further later in this letter.

Page 7 of24 OCR Complaint No. 08?10?l I l2-D. Adams County 14 School District

The principal at Hanson Elementary School", denied preventing students from speaking Spanish.
Yet. he speci?ed during his interview. in response to other questions. that. with the change in the
alternative language program from a bilingual education model to an ESOL model. one 01? the
goals was to ?eradicate? the native language.

We learned from four teachers, one community member. a District administrator. and a member
of the Board of Education about an incident in the Spring 012009. at Central Elementary School
regarding a Hispanic student who was injured on the playground. It was reported to OCR that a
male. Spanish Speaking; kindergarten student. who Spoke very little English. went to an Englislv
speaking teacher on the playground to tell the teacher that he lb? and hurt his head. It was
described to OCR that the teacher on the playground did not speak Spanish and dismissed the
student?s complaint when he did not explain his injury to the teacher in English. We interviewed
the playground teacher who had no recollection of the incident. OCR learned from a
neighboring classroom teacher that over an hour later when the student returned to a Spanish-
spcaking teacherH he told the teacher that his head was hurt. in Spanish. The Spanish-speaking
teacher asked him why he did not tell the teacher on the playground and the student told the
teacher that he did. but the teacher told him to speak in English, which he was unable to do. The
teacher-,looked at the student?s head and found a gash that had dried blood around it. The
Spanish-speaking teacher asked the neighboring classroom teacher to watch her children while
she took the child to the of?ce for help. The teacher called the parent and the child was taken to
the 1105pital by the parent where he received stitches to close the wound. When the student
returned to school the parent complained because it had been several hours before the child
received help.

In response to our request for incident/injury reports from Central Elementary School. the
District did not provide OCR with the incident report of this injury. However. upon further
review by OCR. the Spanish speaking teacher?s attendance records demonstrated that the
Hispanic male student was released from the classroom and sent to the hospital. A member of
the Board of Education testified under oath in a deposition for a different tribunal in September
2010. that he knew ol? this incident at Central Elementary School. We note also that the parent of
this child brought his concerns to the current Superintendent, Patrick Sanchez shortly after he
arrived in the District in 2012.

The principal at Central Elementary said during her interview in May 20] . that she did not hear
ol?a Hispanic student that did net receive timely medical attention in her building. Yet. there is
written evidence, front the District. that the District was given notice 01? this incident in a

complaint ?led with the Colorado Department ol'Education in April 2010. that was provided to
the District. We found that this incident was consistently described in detail by a variety ol'
credible witnesses who were in the building during the time. one of whom actually participated
in taking care of the child when he was able to communicate in Spanish.?

At Monaco Elementary School. we had two independent reports of the former principal telling
the Spanish?speaking teachers in the spring of 2009 that they were not to speak in Spanish with

 

I) The principal at Hanson Elementary School identi?ed in this letter, unless otherwise noted. was NV.

The principal at Central Elementary School identi?ed in this letter. unless otherwise noted was HD.

OCR attempted to contact the Spanish-speaking teacher to interview her about this incident, but she is no longer
employed by the District and did not respond to our requests.

'3 We note that this witness lead us to the information from the District that demonstrated that the Spanish speaking
classroom teacher made a written record of the child being sent to the in the computerized attendance record
maintained and kept by the District.

Page 8 ol?24 OCR Complaint No. OS-IO-I I Adams County l4 School District

students or parents under any circumstances.? While the former principal refused to speak with
us, the District maintained that there were no complaints ofdiserimination at Monaco
Elementary School or against this former principal. The former principal's only statement to
OCR was to tell us that there was no discrimination at Monaco. She stated that she "did all 1
could to take care ofthose people." It was reported to OCR that the l'ormer principal told these
Hispanic teachers that they were to direct all questions by Spanish Speaking parents to the
principal. We did not ?nd any evidence that a similar demand and restriction was put into effect
regarding English speaking parents and staff.

In our interviews with two teachers- two former administrators, and. two support staff. we were
told that:
in the spring ol?ZOl l- the most recent former principal at Monaco Elementary School?:
a in the spring of 2010. the principal before him at Monaco.? and
in the fall of2009, the principal at Hanson Elementary School

directed staff to remove and destroy Spanish language instructional materials from their
buildings. Interviewees described that rather than wait until after students left school for the day.
the principals, in two of the situations, ordered Spanish language materials to be taken down
from walls and rcmoy?ed from classrooms while primary age students were present. Some
materials were placed in the trash for disposal. other materials were released to parents and other
materials were donated to a local charity for resale.

When the principal at llanson Elementary School was asked whether he ordered stai'l'to remove
Spanish language materials at his school in a speci?c classroom. he stated that it was an
interesting question and complicated because there was a shil't from Spanish language instruction
to all l-anlish instruction. He then told OCR that in the [all 012009. a Hispanic Spanish speaking
teacher resigned and was replaced by an Anglo monolingual English speaking teacher. The
principal admitted that while he did not order the removal of Spanish language materials. he was
aware that the new teacher did remove Spanish language materials from the room and most
likely from the walls as well. He stated that the removal was consistent with an [3801. approach
to instruction. lie also stated in his explanation that with the shift in programs. he had the task of
"eradicating the native language.? He went on to state that he was not in the classroom during
that time. but il'it happened when children were present. he knew who had told us that.

At Alsup Elementary School. a former central of?ce administrator described for us that this
administrator personally observed students in the spring 01?2009 removing Spanish language
materials at Alsup Elementary School. When the administrator asked students what they were
doing. a student stated that they were taking down the Spanish materials because they didn't
need Spanish anymore.

We lind further credible evidence that:

a A building administrator at Adams City High School admitted that in the 2009?2010
school year. secondary students came to the building administrator two separate times to
complain that a teacher, during a class con?ict. told students that they c0tild go back to
Mexico. This building administrator brought students? concerns to the attention ot'the

 

'3 In this incident. the former principal at Monaco Elementary School at the time was ll.
This most recent former principal at Monaco Elementary School identi?ed here is Kt}.
'l?ltis former principal identi?ed here is Jl.

Page 9 of24 OCR Complainth. 08~l0-l 1 Adams County 14 School District

principal (the administrator's supervisor). who later left the District.lh The building
administrator shared that the principal took no corrective action. On the contrary. the
building administrator explained that it became necessary to personally remove students
from class one particular day during the 2009-10 school year. to keep students from
becoming violent toward the teacher. OCR did not ask the former principal about these
speci?c incidents directly because the building administrator and the principal were still
working at the District in their roles and we were concerned for the building
administrator?s professional well-being. Despite this admission by the building
administrator- the former principal stated clearly to OCR in his interview in May 201 i-
that there were no complaints ofdiscrimination by students at Adams City High School.
The former principal resigned under community pressure within days of his interview
with our office.

a Ten teachers. administrators- and support staff reported to that the principal at
Central Elementary was rude, unprofessional. and cruel to Hispanic students. parents and
staff. People reported the principal making derogatory comments about l-lispanic
students and parents regarding their cultural differences and poverty. One explicit
example was that the principal. in the fall of2009_ stated to a Hispanic staff member to
not worry about Hispanic students making messes in the bathrooms because Mexicans
are poor. that Mexicans didn?t use toilet paper. there were few restrooms in Mexico and
Mexican children did not know how to use a restroom. It was reported by the staff
member that this incident happened in front of another administrator in the building.

Srq?'tlrlembers

The Complainant alleged that staff members throughout the District were reprimanded and
disciplined for using Spanish or for challenging the directive to speak only in English in all
situations. Further. the Complainant claimed that Hispanic staff were targeted for criticism.
forced reassignments to unfamiliar grade levels and pushed to leave the District. including
principals telling Spanish-speaking staff to seek teaching jobs outside ofthc District. The
Complainant alleged that at several scltools. staff members with Spanish accents were restricted
in the type ofteaching assignment and instruction they were allowed to provide regardless of
their certification by the State of Colorado: whereas monolingual English teachers were not
restricted in their teaching assignments or in their instruction. and that the District gave staff with
Spanish accents negative evaluations.

Generally. the District administration denied that any staff members were restricted in their
teaching assignments or in the instruction that they were allowed to provide. given negative
evaluations because they had Spanish accents. pushed to seek teachingjobs outside of the
District. reprimanded. disciplined. forced to resign or non?renewed because of being llispanic.
The District?s overall defense again was that the allegations were from a small group of teachers
that were under review for poor teaching.

We received evidence from ncar1y40 individuals regarding incidents at llanson Elementary
School. Rose llill Elementary School. Central Elementary School. Monaco Elementary School.
Dupont Elementary School. Alsop Elementary School. Kearny Middle School, and Adams City
High Schooi.

 

The principal at Adams City High School at this time was WP.

Page I0 ot'24 OCR Complaint No. 08-[04 12?0. Adams County 14 School District

The District denied allegations concerning whether Hispanic staff members were involuntarily
moved to unfamiliar positions, pushed to seek teaching jobs outside 0 the District. reprimanded.
disciplined. forced to resign or non?renewed because of being HiSpanic.

In contrast. we discovered that at least six Hispanic teachers brought to the District under visa
contracts were noti?ed by the District in the spring 2009 and again in 2010 and 201 1. that it
terminated the visa contract program and that visa teachers would have to return to their
countries oforigin. This included highly quali?ed. licensed and non?probationary teachers who
-were fully licensod by the State ofColorado. in most cases, these were teachers who had been in
the District for more than five years and had master?s degrees in education obtained in the state
ofColorado. We were given an email from the former director of Human Resources that was
sent to one of the visa teachers in February 2009. telling the teacher that her visa would no
longer be supported by the District, and she was to return to her ?country oforigin." The
documentation shows that in 2009. one teacher was released with no explanation even before her
visa expired. Some ofthe teachers returned to their home countries while others were. hired by
other school districts.

When we questioned the former Superintendent. the fonncr Chief Academic Officer. and the
former and Strategy Officer about the termination ofthe visa contract
program and the removal of the six Hispanic teachers in May 201 l. they offered no explanation
for the decision. The former Director of Human Resources stated in his May 201 interview.
that there were plenty ofbilingual teachers in the United States and there was no need to seek
teachers from other countries through the visa program. However, in contradiction. an internal
email message sent between two District administrators in February 2009 stated the position ot?a
bilingual. middle school science teacher at Kearney Middle school was a position for
which a teacher is difficult to find." Additionally, when discussing the District's
Hispanicfbilingual staff. and staf?ng needs. the former Superintendent and her cabinet published
a written statement released on its web-site in May 2010 stating that it is difficult and cost
prohibitive to ?nd highly quali?ed Hispanic/bilingual teachers.

in discussing Spanish speaking teachers in the District. during formal ?ndings for a teacher
dismissal hearing released in January 20] 1. an independent Hearing Of?cer found that despite
the large number of l-lispanic. Spanish speaking students in the District. it is almost  "liability"
to be a bilingual teacher in the District. and bilingual teachers had become an "expendable
commodity" for the District. The independent Hearing Office also stated that ?lulltimatcly. the
district would seek dismissal of those deemed to be incompatible with the new strategy of
education?"

A staff member at Monaco reported that from the 2007-08 school year and continuing into the
fall 01'2010 when the former principal separated from the District. the former principal at
Monaco Elementary School removed or threatened removal of 11 Hispanic teachers and
paraprolessionals for various reasons.? The staffmember reported that by the fall of2010. there
was only one Hispanic teacher remaining at Monaco. This was corroborated by employment
lists provided by the District.

 

'7 These quotes were from page 18 of the Findings of Fuel and of Hearing Q?icer'. in a District
dismissal hearing that contained allegations of race discrimination involving the proposed dismissal ofa Hispanic
classroom teacher. The Findings are signed by the independent Hearing Of?cer on January l8. 20  The l?lcaring
Officer recommended at the conclusion that the teacher be returned to the classroom.

See. footnote l3.

Page ll of24 OCR Complaint N0. ll-D, Adams County 14 School District

The District claimed that there were no allegations ofdiscrimination against this former principal
on the basis of national origin. However. we discovered that the former principal received an
employment appeal from a Hispanic teacher that the former principal had attempted to dismiss in
the fall of2010. The Hispanic teacher raised discrimination on the basis of national origin in the
appeal. The former principal refused to be interviewed by OCR.

During this investigation, we requested District-wide employment records from the District to
analyze trends. statements and allegations with regard to the District?s retention and removal of
Hispanic employees at several school sites including Monaco Elementary. Hanson Elementary.
Central Elementary. Kcarny Middle School and Adams City High School. However. the data
provided by the District concerning staff separations from the District was incomplete and
inaccurate and therefore. prevented OCR from fully reviewing and analyzing each staff
member's departure from the District. found a number of lispanic individuals we knew to
have separated from the District were missing from the list.

A former District administrator told OCR in the spring of 201 I. that it was a \Avcll-known and
utilized pattern and practice for the District to move staffinvoluntarily to unfamiliar grades and
subject areas in an effort to increase teachers" personal prep time. workloads to set teachers up
for failure, and ultimately intimidate teachers to leave. The former administrator admitted that
Hispanic staff were being targeted in this manner by the District?s administration.

Another former administrator disclosed that the principal at Central Elementary asked this
administrator to come to Central Elementary School in the early spring of 2009. to tell her
Hispanic teachers that the District did not need them any longer and that they should go
somewhere else to work. The administrator refused to do this.

The former principal at Central Elementary denied taking any negative actions toward llispanic/
bilingual staff. However. she did concede that she had live recent discrimination complaints
from Hispanic staff. While the principal did not discuss these complaints further. OCR learned
independently that five Hispanic teachers had ?led complaints against the principal with the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) alleging discrimimrtion on the basis of
national origin (Hispanic). 17 urther, we learned that a sixth teacher had ?led a District grievance
against this principal in 201 1 also alleging disorimination on the basis ofnational origin

l_l lispanic)-

We received information from seventeen District teachers. former teachers. former District
administrators. and other staff members at Central Elementary School regarding the former
principal. in addition to establishing that there were six race discrimination complaints against
the former principal at Central. we also established that at leasr fourteen Hispanic staff were
removed or left during her tenure (2007- 2012) at the school. Witnesses told us that during her
tenure. the former principal forced the reassignment of a long time Hispanic 3?1 grade teacher to
grade. 'l'helonner principal also involuntarily moved four Hispanic teachers to
Kindergarten.W At least eight teachers and former teachers from Central shared that the
principal at Central told Hispanic staff that they were no longer needed and that they should go
somewhere else to work.

The former principal denied taking this action. However. later in our investigation. we
discovered in District records. a signed af?davit from the principal from 2010 in which she

The Hispanic teachers joked that once they were moved to Kindergarten it'was ?out the door?.

Page l2 of 24 OCR Complaint No. (ls-i 0-1 1 Adams County 14 School District

stated that she encouraged bilingual teachers to find teaching positions in other school diStricts
where they may be more comfortable and may better use their skills. found corroboration to
this evidence as noted previously in this letter- that this same former principal asked a central
office administrator in the Spring 012009 to relay the message to Hispanic/bilingual staffthat
they were no longer wanted and that they should look elsewhere to teach??

Dtrring the course of otrr investigation. the Complainant. four teachers. three former teachers.
and two former administrators raised concerns that the District was also targeting teachers with
accents by restricting teaching assignments; increasing scrutiny in evaluations and pressuring
them to leave the District.

The District was given the opportunity to address specifrcally its policy and practice concerning
teachers with Spanish accents. The District maintained that it does not have a policy concerning
teachers with accents. The former Superintendent stated that there was no mechanism for
looking at accents in the evaluation process. Other central administrators claimed that no one in
the District had taken negative action towards staff with Spanish accents. Several principals
stated that no consideration has been given to whether an individual has an accent. One even
mentioned an administrator with a southern accent and how it would be unreasonable to target an
individual based on his/her southern accent.

Dttring an interview in the spring of201 i, an elementary administrator disclosed reluctantly to
OCR that she was pressured by District administration to ?nd reasons to remove Spanish-
speaking staff from the classroom and to also modify and limit teaching opportunities for staff
with Spanish accents. This administrator claimed that although she was pressured. she did not
take accents into account during evaluations. We did not ?nd any evidence to refute this claim.

During their 201 1 interviews, the principals at Central Elementary School and Hanson

Elementary School?I to accents as an indicator the teacher evaluation process
for Spanish Speaking staff.

The principal at Hanson explained that the removal of staff and the use of accents in the
evaluation process was because there was a shift in the ?skill sets" required for staffin a strictly
ESOL program model. insinuating that bilingual stafflacked the abilities and training (skills) of
monolingual English teachers. When questioned about the statetnent that bilingual staffhad the
wrong "skill sets" the principal could not de?ne or quantify the different skill sets that are
needed in an ESOL model that are not possessed by a teacher with bilingual certification by the
State ofColorado. We note in contradiction. before a different tribunal. the former
Superintendent testified under oath that the certi?cation requirements for a regular classroom
teacher and a bilingual classroom teacher were the same for content area instruction}:

The principal at Central explained that she wanted Spanish-speaking students to have equal
access and the best English role models while learning English. She described how starting in
2009. she restricted the instruction that she would allow from the four I lispanic teachers with
accents in her school. She went into greatdctail as to how she restricted the instruction that she
allowed these Hispanic teachers to give. such as describing that she would not allow teachers

 

 

 

"m This included staff members who were long-time successful employees. many with master?s degrees. and
identi?ed as highly quali?ed by Colorado State Department of Education standards.

Identi?ed as NV and HD.

3: This sworn testimony by the former Superintendent was during a formal teacher dismissal hearing in December
20 (t

Page [3 ot?24 OCR Complaint No. 1 Adams County 14 School District

with Spanish accents to teach reading and language arts. All Spanish speaking and native
English-speaking teachers were teaching in English. However. when asked if slte similarly
restricted the instruction of English speaking teachers to ensure that students receive the best
English role models. she stated that she did not. The principal acknowledged that she used
accents in her evaluations. but then stated that she did not mark teachers down because ot'their
accents but used it as a point of discussion.

At least ihree former administrators. ?ve former teachers. and four District stal?l' members
demonstrated that prior to 2009. iIiSpanic Spanish speaking teachers. all who had been teaching
in the District for three to eight years were not restricted from teaching English reading or
language. The HiSpanic Spanish speaking teachers were also the visa teachers whom the District
was trying to remove from the District and send back to their countries ol? origin. Three tbrmer
administrators confirmed in 2010 and 201 1 that the teachers brought from other countries were
fully certi?ed and qualified by the State of Colorado to teach in Colorado. Each teacher was
required to pass English pro?ciency exams before even being interviewed for a teaching position
in the District.

We were informed by the omplainant, three former administrators. and six current and former
staff members at Hanson that the District?s central administration targeted llispanic stall" for
removal at llanson Elementary School in order to intimidate other staff. Again. the District
denied any discrimination toward Hispanics. Yet. we found con?rmation from the District 
demonstrating that during the spring 012009, the Hispanic lead secretary at llanson lilcmentary
School. who had consistent positive evaluations and had been at the school for at least 15 years
was moved to anew school against her will. demoted. and placed as a paraprofessional at the
former Chief Academic Of?cer and former Human Resource Director?s direction. .L?tl'terwards.
she was not considered for any secretarial positions that she applied for in the District. OCR was
provided a letter given to the lead secretary by the former Chiet'Academic Of?cer and the
former Human Resource Director?"1 The letter stated that the lead secretary was not a good lit
for the new principal. Yet. this action by the District took place before the new principal had
even been hired for the school.

We were informed by the Complainant, a former teacher and another stal'l'membcr at llanson
that the principal at Hanson forced the resignation ot?a highly quali?ed Hispanic/bilingual
teacher in August The District denied this. The principal at llanson stated that the
teacher voluntarily resigned because she felt that she could not work in the new District
framework. The Hispanic. bilingual teacher (with a Spanish accent) stated that she was forced to
resign after she questioned the demand that staff use English exclusively in classrooms.
specilically in primary classrooms with monolingual Spanish speaking children. The Hispanic
teacher also provided evidence that demonstrated that the District posted her position days before
her resignation. Another witness at Hanson corroborated her statement that the principal
hounded the Hispanic teacher daily until she resigned. The teacher and the eyewitness separately
recounted that the principal came into the teacher?s primary grade classroom three times in one
day to ask for her resignation. called her on the phone and came in twice when students were
present. stood at the front of the room. and in their words "harassed" the teacher to resign. The
teacher told the principal. in the presence ol?the other staff member that she did not want to
resign. The teacher ultimately resigned.

 

The former Director of Human Resource was Phil Bedi'ord.

Page 14 of24 OCR Complaint No. 08-I0-l l2-D. Adams County l4 School District

Throughout this investigation. OCR received ongoing from the Complainant,
teachers. and community members concerning the removal ol'HiSpanic staff at llanson
Elementary. The Complainant gave us a list of 10 Hispanic staff members who reportedly were
removed or left under pressure from the principal from the fall 01'2009 forward. We confirmed
the departure of the staff members through data provided by the District and through individual
interviews.

District evidence demonstrated that another llispanic teacher at Hanson. in the teacher visa
program, complained to the Superintendent and Board of Education onMay 25. 2010. that she
was harassed by the principal at Hanson for being a ?strong Hispanic" and that she was
subsequently non-renewed when she refused to acquiesce to the principal's demands that she
resrgn.

We ?rst interviewed the principal at Hanson Elementary School in May 201 1. Within a few
days of his interview. we teamed that the principal oII-lanson took employment related action
against three llispanic teachers in his school. Speci?cally. it was reported to us that subsequent
to our initial interview with the principal about the allegations of this complaint. he attempted to
change the renewal status of three Hispanic teachers from non-probationary to probationary
Status. We rc?interviewed the principal and questioned him when this came to our aztention. The
principal at Hanson acknowledged that he changed the renewal status Hispanic teachers
from non-probationary back to probationary. The principal admitted to taking this action within
days of his initial interview with us. He claimed that the reason he took this action was that he
wanted to help the Hispanic teachers be the best teachers that they could be. He admitted that he
talked to the Director of Human Resources before taking this action?. and that the Board of
Education had not approved his proposed changes as required by District policy- After further
inquiry into this situation. we learned that the principal at llanson Elementary attempted to
change these teachers status even after the Board of Education had approved them to be in a non-
probationary status. In his defense= he stated that he was unaware that he could continue
probationary teachers for a fourth year of probation until after his initial recommendation (and
subsequent Board of Education appr0val) for non-probationary status for these three teachers.
After our second interview with the principal at Hanson. the District accepted the non?
probationary contracts of the three Hispanic teachers.

We learned from a former staff member at Kearney Middle School ta Hispanic bilingual science
teacher), that while still employed by the District she felt harassed by the former Superintendent
during a "Rock Stars" teacher appreciation in the spring of2010. 'l'ltis Hispanic
bilingual science teacher was attending the event because she had been identified as a successful
science teacher at her school. She recounted that the former Superintendent was visibly shocked
to see her at the luncheon. The former Superintendent reportedly approached the l-liSpanic
science teacher and asked. "Who are you?" and ?Where do you teach?" During the same
luncheon, the Former Director of Human Resourcesl1 reportedly asked the teacher. hat do
you teach?" The llispanic bilingual science teacher explained that she answered all questions
that she was asked. Within a week or two of the luncheon. :hc principal of Kearney Middle
School reportedly began pursuing options to eliminate the ESL science program at Kearney
Middle School.? After that incident and others. the Hispanic bilingual science teacher felt
compelled to separate front the District even though her visa was not set to expire for another
year. While the principal left the District and we were unable to speak with her. we were able to

 

 

3" The Director of Human Resources identified in this incident was Leon Cerna.
Identified by the former staff member as Phil BedfordKearney Middle School was SR.

 

Page 15 ot'24 OCR Complaint No. 0340?] I l2-D, Adams County 14 School District

identify through District records that there were internal email messages between the principal
and the Director of Human Resources and other messages with the Hispanic bilingual science
teacher demonstrating that the District was expecting and encouraging her to resign in the
summer of2010. The Director of Human Resources wrote in one internal email message that he
intended to penalize the teacher monetarily for every day slze did not resign.

The Complainant. and others during the course ofour investigation. stated that the former
Superintendent intimidated Hispanic/Bilingual staff from participating in the ELL Design
Committee? by terminating the employment of the District?s only Hispanic principai. at Hanson
Elementary School on or about February ll. 2009. It was reported to us that this former
principal was terminated from her job because of her unwillingness to provide the names of
individuals who had called and reminded Hispanic staff at one school of an ELL Design
Committee planning meeting (that was reported to be open to everyone to attend and participate)
in late January 2009.28

When we interviewed the former Superintendent and asked her about the termination of the
Hispanic principal at Hanson Elementary School. she did not deny that she requested the. names
ofindividuals who informed Hispanic staffabout the meeting. When we asked her speci?cally
why she needed to know who told the Hispanic principal about the open meeting she stated that
it was her job to have her "hand on the pulse" of the District. She did not elaborate what she was
going to do with the information or why she terminated the Hispanic principal's employment for
not providing the information. The principal who was terminated. told us that the former
Superintendent was angry during this confrontation and that she concluded the former
Superintendent had negative intentions toward the individuals who noti?ed the principal ol'the
meeting. The principal refused to identify these individuals to the former Superintendent
because she feared they would be retaliated againsr

From 2008 through 2012. eight Hispanic administrators (principals. central administration staff
and central administrators) left the District. The District replaced them with Anglo individuals
with the exception of one Hispanic who was hired to replace an Anglo administrator.

We noted that contemporaneous with our investigation of this complaint- the District entered into
settlement agreements that required Hispanic individuals and others involved with the linglish
learner pregrams to remain silent as to their allegations regarding the District. As a result. these
individuals were unable to speak with us because of agreements to "not disparage the District".

Overall. in 18 interviews with current and former District teachers. staff members and
administrators. in 2010. 201 1. and 2012. Hispanic individuals communicated consistently to
OCR that they and others feared for their jobs and feared retaliation from District administration
for their participation in this investigation.

Based on the evidence, we determined that a hostile environment against Hispanic students.
teachers, and administrators existed at the District. Speci?cally. we conclude that the
preponderance of the evidence establishes that Hispanic students. teachers. and administrators
experienced national origin harassment that was suf?ciently serious to deny or limit an

 

 

37 In 2009, the District created an ELL Design Committee to study the and weaknesses ofthe District's
alternative language models for instruction in response to the 2008 ('xlDI Report. The evidence from the District
also demonstrated that all current District alternative language administration and support statTtat the time oftlie
ELI. Design Committee) were excluded from participation on the Design Committee.

35 The principal at Hanson Elementary School who was terminated was identi?ed as JJ

Page l6 ol'24 OCR Cotnplaint No. Adams County 14 School District

individual's ability to participate in or bene?t from the services. activities or privileges provided
by the District.

Notice Environment and Responsive Action

next address whether the District received notice and took reasonable steps to respond to the
hostile environment. The District?s Board of Education Policies include several non?
discriminationfequal Opportunity policies. These policies state that the District is committed to
"providing a safe learning and working environment where all members of the school
community are treated with dignity and respect. The Board policies prohibit harassment based
on race, color- national origin, ancestry. creed. religion. sex, marital status. sexual orientation.
age. disability or a need for Special education services. The Board policies set forth steps an
individual may take when reporting harassment. The Board policies do not offer guidance for
individuals to complain about the actions of an executive administrator such as the
Superintendent or other chief of?cers.?

When the former Superintendent and other central administrators were asked whether the District
had notice of harassment and a hostile environment against l-lispanics. they offered the names of
several teachers who ?led complaints 0 i' discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission. One teacher was at Monaco Elementary. the others identi?ed were all at Central
Elementary. The former Superintendent and Human Resource Director also mentioned that in
2011 a District complaint surfaced concerning the principal at Central l-Llemcntary School.
During our investigation. the District reported that it had initiated an investigation of an
individual allegation of race discrimination by this principal. The Director of Human Resources
indicated in his interview that an independent investigator had been retained to investigate
allegations ol?raee discrimination that had been raised by an employee at cntral Elementary
School in the spring of2011. We learned from further investigation that the former
Superintendent directed the investigator to look only at whether the individual who complained
was discriminated against on the basis of race by the principal at Central Elementary School. not
any other allegations of discrimination that may be raised during the investigation.

While the private investigator hired by the District for this investigation had interviet-t' statements
that consistently stated that the principal at Central Elementary School discriminated against
Hispanics. the investigator found that the person who ?led the discrimination complaint and
others were most likely discriminated against for disagreeing with the principal. and not on the
basis of race. The investigator left the ?nal determination as to discrimination ?ndings to the
District to make. The Distric1 did not respond to the multitude ol?raee allegations? that were
raised during that investigation.

We found that the District did not make a ?nal determination in the matter, and took no further
action regarding the principal and did not address any of the other concerns raised in the
investigazion. The former Superintendent, her chiel'of?cers and other building administrators

 



See. Adams County School District til-l Board Policies AC, JB. AC-R l. and AC-RZ

Allegations included: the principal telling Hispanic stal'fthat they were no longer wanted and they should look for
work elsewhere; visa teachers were let go: during the last school year the principal hired no Hispanic teachers
although the student makeup was 85% Hispanic; three Hispanic teachers were moved to new. unfamiliar
assignments ai'ter speaking at the board meeting on May 25, EUIO: Hispanics and those who advocated for them
were being mistreated. and the District was pushing Hispanics out.

Page of2=l OCR Complaint No. I l2-D. Adams County 14 School District

denied receiving any other complaints by Hispanics or on behalfol?l lispanics in the District
including l-liSpanie students or Hispanic parents.

Contrary to the District?s assertions. and as detailed below. we found multiple examples that the
educational community brought complaints 01? discrimination regarding the treatment 01?
Hispanics to District administrators or the Board of Education on more than one occasion and in
more than one forum. With regard to District administrators being noti?ed. we found:

Inthc fall of 2009 a building administrator witnessed the principal at Central make
derogatory statements about Mexican children in the school. No further action was
taken.

The District reported that in April 2010. the Colorado Department 01? Education (C DE)
made the District aware ol?a complaint that was ?led with the DE. The allegations
included:

(3 teachers not being allowed to speak to parents in Spanish:

bilingual teachers being forced to leave or being retaliated against:

(3 the (former) Superintendent telling a child at Kemp Elementary School to speak in

English at home;

A Spanish speaking child who was injured on the playground and no one could

communicate with him to ?nd out the extent of his injuries due to the direction by the

(former) Superintendent not to use Spanish in the schools;

0 Stal?t'being instructed that any daily communication is to be done in English. leaving
non?English Speaking parents at a disadvantage. and

0 Administration giving principals the directive to dispose ol?all bilingual materials.

0



The CDE had no mechanism to investigate the complaint, so forwarded the
complaint to the District. The District noti?ed OCR of the complaint?. and stated that
the allegations were unfounded. When we reviewed the handling ol?this complaint. in the
context of this investigation. we discovered that the District conducted no investigation
into the concerns raised with DE.

More signi?cantly. we learned that the following complaints were brought to the District's Board
of Education on May 25. 2010.



A Hispanic teacher at Hanson. in the teacher visa program. complained to the former
Superintendent and Board of Education that she was harassed by the principal at llanson
for being a "strong Hispanic" and non-renewed when she refused to acquiesce to the
principal?s demands that she resign.

A llispanic community member complained that Spanish-speaking parents were left out
of the English language learner study groups. He complained that the entire application
process was conducted in English and was electronic. lle further complained that the
District had systematically removed all its Hispanic administration.

 

5? The Disu'ict told OCR of the complaint as a courtesy. It Was not considered as a part ol?thc monitoring 

case number 08?09-030. It was not an OCR complaint. so OCR took no action on the notice at that time.

Page 18 01'24 OCR Complaint No. 12-D. Adams County ?chool District

0 A lormer principal raised issues that Hispanic stal?l'were being systematically targeted lor
removal. She complained that Hispanic stafl' were being told that they were no longer
needed. She complained that Spanish-speaking students were being told to Speak only in
English: staff were being targeted because of their accents; parents were being told that
they should bring their own children to parent teacher conferences to translate if they did
not understand; and stated that there was intimidation. retaliation and disrespect of
parents. students and teachers.

0 A Hispanic parent and employee at Central complained about the use oi"l?each4Success
and how it was being used to target and remove teachers unfairly.

A former employee and representative for a local parent advocacy group. complained at,
the meeting ol?the following:

 That the Principal at Hanson Elementary School created a hostile environment
toward Hispanic stall?:

That the Hanson Principal stated. no longer need Hispanics."

0 That the Ilanson Principal told Spanish?speaking teachers that. "Your accent is
keeping students back and they are not progressing."

That District teachers were being retaliated against for speaking out concerning
the alternative language program; and

The removal of the last Hispanic principal who was at Ilanson.





A Hispanic parent complained that teachers from llanson were being removed by the
principal.

A Ilispanic parent complained that the District was taking away good teachers who
understood the ettlture of the parents and students.

The former Superintendent acknowledged that complaints were raised in this forum and then
claimed that these complaints were not valid. One reason she stated they were not valid was
because individuals raising the allegations did not work with the District. She said that
complaints brought by employees (even complaining as a parent) should have gone to the
Director of Human Resources. When looking at all the complaints identi?ed in the District
minutes ol?the meeting, the former Superintendent then stated that she would only investigate the
complaints it'directed by the President of the Board of Education to do so.? When asked
speci?cally if the President ofthe Board of Education had directed her to investigate any ot?the
complaints. she responded We find that there were clear allegations of racial
discrimination levied at the District on May 25. 2m 0. and that many ot'the allegations concerned
incidents that we investigated and found to be evidence ofa hostile environment.

The complaints ol? May 25. 2010 alone, were summarily dismissed by the former Superintendent
as being made by individuals who ?were not in the District". or by employees who should follow
the District's union process [or employment concerns. The former Superintendent
acknowledged that in all but one a concern raised by a Hispanic parent ol'a student with a
disability) ofthc issues brought to the Board of Education on May 25, 2010. no action was taken
to investigate the issues or to take corrective action. We also ?nd credible evidence that
complaints of harassment and discrimination against Hispanic students and stati? members were

v3

 

The president ofthe Board of Education during the identi?ed meeting was Jeanette Lewis.

Page l9 oi'24 OCR Complaint No. Adams County I4 School District

brought to administrators. union representatives. members ofthc Board of Education. and to the
state board of education. some even during the investigation of this complaint. While we noted
previously that the District attempted to investigate allegations of national origin harassment by
the former principal at Central Elementary, the District provided no evidence to demonstrate that
any complaints were ever fully addressed by the District or that the hostile environment toward
Hispanics in the District was stopped or remedied.

Conclusion

Given the consistency between witness statements and other evidence provided by the District.
we find by a preponderance of the evidence that the District had knowledge of and actually
created and maintained a hostile environment toward I-lispanic individuals in the District. We
?nd that because the actions taken againSI Hispanic students and staff were in large part directed
and carried out by members of District administration acting within the scope of their duties. it is
impossible for the District to maintain that it was unaware of the hostile environment. While the
former Superintendent and her cabinet maintained that the concerns were brought forth by a few
llispanic staff members with poor evaluations, and a few individuals upset with the changes to
the alternative language program. the evidence demonstrated that the District. including building
administrators, the former Superintendent and her cabinet. and the Board of Education knew of
ongoing complaints ofdiscrimination against llispanics and failed to properly investigate or to
take corrective action from the 2008-09 through the 201 1-12 school years. As a result. we
conclude that there is sufficient evidence to support a conclusion of noncompliance.

During the course of this investigation. the Board ofliducation took action to remove the former
Superintendent from her position in June 2012. Most of her administrative cabinet left shortly
after site did and most of the principals present during the investigation are no longer employed
in the District.

The current Superintendent. Patrick S?tnchez, and the current Board of Education agreed to take
steps to remedy the hostile environment as detailed in the enclosed Settlement Agreement and to
prevent its recurrence. Superintendent Sanchez and the current Board of [Education have
committed to fostering an environment where individuals within the District are not restricted in
their participation or bene?ts as a re5ult ofa racially hostile environment.

issue 2: Parent Communication

 

Legal Authoritv

To establish that a District failed to communicate with LBP parents in a language and manner
that parents understand we detemtinc whether the District furnishes parental notices and
communications to all parents and if those noticesand communications are provided effectively
to LEP parents as with English speaking parents.

May 1970 memorandum requires districts to provide the parents oflanguagc minority
students with notices containing the same information that is provided to the parents of other
students. To be adequate. such notices must be furnished in a language appropriate to the
parents. The intent ofthc May [970 memorandum is to clarify each district's responsibility to
as effectively with language?minority parents as it would with other parents,

 

l" While ev.dcnce provided by the District addressed Spanish speaking LEP parents. our ?ndings include all
language minorities in the District.

Page 20 of24 OCR Complaint No. 08-!0-1 l2-D, Adams County 14 School District

despite any language barrier. The burden of ensuring effective communication is the District's:
the District may not transfer the burden to language-minority families.?

We reviewed evidence provided by the District. We interviewed witnesses provided by the
Complainant and the District. We also reviewed evidence and interviewed witnesses developed

from sources independent of the Complainant or District.

Analvsis and Findings

 

The Complainant alleged that District communications including District notices. school notices.
parent teacher conferences. discipline issues and day-to?day building communications are not
provided in a language or manner that parents understand.

The District provided many examples of school newsletters that are provided to parents in
English and Spanish. District administration indicated that the District now has in place a
District translator who translates all District communication for parents into Spanish. The
District also indicated that ttpon request. ahead of time. Board of Education meetings are new
translated into Spanish. Our review ot?District materials demonstrated that in large part. school
sites were providing school newsletters in English and Spanish. District administration shared
and we tind that beginning in the 2010?1 school year the District placed parent liaisons in every
building to increase parent communication. Some ol?the liaisons have Spanish language abilities
to varying degrees. The District also has a District level Spanish translator available at the
District administration building for translations.

In spite of these efforts. principals con?rmed that while they attempt to provide all parent
newsletters in English and Spanish. it was not happening consistently. District administration
indicated that translators and parent liaisons were generally available to assist parents during the
day-to-day events at the school. However. principals acknowledged during interviews that there
was no consistency at school sites. District stall said that at some schools. parents were not
offered assistance in Spanish when they enter the school and there were times that parents had to
seek out someone to translate for them.

Most administrators acknowledged that they do not have enough translators to conduct parent
teacher conferences. Some administrators admitted in order to provide translation resources to
parents. parents have. had to wait longer times for conferences until a translator is available. The
former Superintendent stated. during her interview. that students were good resources to translate
for parents and staff when needed during parent teacher conferences. In addition to these
admissions. we [ind that discipline forms and report card information are not consistently
previded to ELI- parents in a language or manner that parents understand.

We also learned from a staff member at Monaco. that in the 2008?09 school year and in the
beginning of the 2009 ?10 school year. the former principal at Monaco refused to handle
discipline issues with Spanish speaking students and parents and would communicate and work
only with English speaking families. Spanish Speaking parents were treated differently and made
to interact with non-administrative staft?to handle discipline issues. most often the Spanish-
speaking teachers."5

1" See. Ma) l970 Lau Memorandum; which can be Found at:

970.html

We note that this ?nding contradicts the earlier ?nding that the principal at Monaco directed bilingual Hispanic
teachers to send Spanish speaking parents to the principal ifthey had any concerns. rather than talk directly with the

 

Page 2  of24 OCR Complaint No. 1 DD. Adams County 14 School District

'l'hrough our investigation. we learned that in the spring of2008, while the former
Superintendent was Chief Academic Officer, the District participated in a 
Appraisal for District Improvement Report). The appraisal was completed from April 7 
15. 2008. The District received the District Report on May 30. 2008. The report raised items for
improvement related to the treatment and inclusion of Hispanic parents. staff. and the
community. The report speci?cally identified for the District that:

9 [It is recommended that the District bjroaden the level ofstaff and stakeholder participation
in school accreditation plans to promote best thinking, improve buy in and increase
[Page 20]

a Research shows that people want to be valued. respected. and recognized for what they
contribute to the organization. They need to know that they are included in the overall
process of the work and have an understanding of what role they play in the operation. Thus.
throughout the district. it will be important to continuously grow a culture oftrust and respect
that permits openness, ability to share ideas. and be accepting ofdifferent approaches and
beliefs. Establishing and following agreed upon norms of conduct and behaviors for all
stakeholders is one way to build [Pages 25?26]

0 Look at equity throughout the district. with an towards hiring personnel with whom the
ELL parent/community population can identify and feel comfortable. Parents become
involved in schools where they feel welcomed and valued. Staff cultural competence can
foster these positive feelings. Strong parent involvement leads to increased student
motivation. participation and [Page 46]

We note that had the District implemented the speci?c equity related recommendations of the
CA Report. the District could have had more effective communication and involvement of
parents and staff.

Further. it was that before changing to a strictly ESOI. model for instruction. the
District created an ELL Design Committee to study the and weaknesses of the
District?s alternative language models for instruction. The Complainant alleged that the District
used Design Committee meetings as a means to ensure llispanic. bilingual parents and Hispanic-
bilingual Staff and community did not participate in the conversations or decisions concerning
the District's lil.l. programs.

The former Superintendent and her cabinet acknowledged that there were no 131.1. parents on the
ELL Design Committee. The lbrmer Superintendent and other central administrators suggested
that parents had equal opportunities to apply online for the Committee and those materials were
available in Spanish. However. the ChiefCommunications and Strategy Officer conceded that
less than halfofthe families in the District have access to computers. However, despite these
claims. the District did not provide examples of application materials that were accessible to
national origin. language minority parents in a language and manner that they understand. The
ChiefCommunications and Strategy Of?cer stated that there were ELL parents that applied to be
on the Committee. The District was unable to provide the names of any liLL parents who

parents. ?e learned that the principal the not speak Spanish and concluded that although the two pieces ofevidence
contradict one another they both are indicative ofan environment where the District was not effectively
communicating with parents who Speak a language other than English and also could be viewed as hostile towards
Hispanics.

Page 22 of24 OCR Complaint No. Adams County 14 School District

applied or their applications. The former Superintendent offered no explanation for why ELL
parents were not included. Administration was able to demonstrate that after the Design
Committee made its decision to end the District?s bilingual education program and to move to an
exclusive ESOL program. bilingual meetings were held throughout the District. anti that the
District sent an invitation in English and Spanish speaking families via a phone blast to all
parents.

Based on several District administrators admitting that there are insufficient translation services
available and additional evideneetliat the District did not eftectively communicate with LEIJ
parents similarly to its communications with English speaking parents- we find that the District
fails to communicate effectively with LISP parents in a language and manner that parents
understand.

Conclusion

OCR finds by a preponderance of evidence that the District is a hostile environment toward
Hispanic students and staff and that the District failed to communicate effectively with LEP
parents in a language and manner that they understand.

The District agreed to voluntarily resolve the violations found in this investigation and entered
into a Settlement Agreement. a signed copy of which is enclosed and briefly described hereafter.

Settlement Agreement
In the Settlement Agreement. the District agrees to:

investigate all incidents of harassment on the basis of race. color. or
national origin:

'r Adequater notify national origin?minority group parents of school programs and
activities that are called to the attention of other parents.

'r Draft and a letter to the staff and community explaining the allegations and
findings in the complaint; identify the steps it wi ll take to ensure compliance with Federal
civil rights laws: an explanation that the District does not tolerate acts of harassment.
including harassment based on race. color or national origin. including harassment based
on being Hispanic. The letter will be in English and Spanish:

'r Develop and administer student, parent, and to gauge the District?s climate
and needs as related to race. color. or national origin harassment/discrimination;

?r Identify an external consultant[s'] to administer and assist in the review of the District's
climate/need surveys= assist the District in determining any corrective actions the District
should take as a result of the surveys. participate in the review and revision of District
anti?discrimination/harassment policies. to review and make recommendations on the use
of teacher mentoring programs and their contribution to harassment/hostile environment
based on race. color or national origin, and to participate in the community focus group.

?r Create a central database or separate electronic ?le system to track all complaints of race-
color or national origin harassmen?discrimination in the District:

Page 23 0:24 OCR Complaint No. 08-]0-1 Adams County l4 School District

"r Review and revise as necessary its antidiscrimination. anti-harassment and grievance
policies and procedures:

Develop training for all District students (age and grade appropriate), and District stal?l?
(teachers, administrators. central of?ce staff and the Superintendent?s cabinet. the District
Board ofliducation. counselors, resource of?cers, coaches. school aides. and any other
District personnel charged with supervising students or stall) on the revised policies and
procedures:

"r Develop a model, design and plan for teacher mentoring in District classrooms:

Establish a student committee with responsibility for providing a forum for students to
discuss matters concerning discrimination or harassment on the basis 01' race. national
origin or color, increase student awareness ol'tlte District?s anti?harassment program. and
suggest measures for improving the effectiveness of the District?s program:

?k Establish a staff working group to provide a forum for staff to discuss matters concerning
discrimination or harassment on the basis of race. national origin or color. increase stall
awareness ol? the District?s anti?harassment program. and suggest measures for improving
the effectiveness of the District?s program:

?r Conduct a community meeting to create a focus group ol?community members and
community organizations to partner with the District to increase community awareness of
the District?s anti-harassment program, and suggest measures [or improving the
effectiveness of the District's program.

'r The Superintendent and Assistant Superintendent For the Districr wi ll complete an audit
of the work. employment history, employment ?les. and removal of identi?ed former
employees: and if the District ?nds national origin harassment/diserimination it will take
steps reasonably designed to effectively address. prevent. and respond to the
harassmenu?discrimination, and

?r Conduct an annual assessment of the of its anti-harassment el'l?orts.

OCR will closely monitor the District's implementation of the Agreement to ensure that the
commitments made are implemented timely and elIectively and that the District's policies and
practices are administered in a nondiscriminatory manner. A failure to implement the
Agreement according to its terms would require us to reopen the case for further proceedings.

This letter addresses only the issues raised in this complaint and should not be interpreted as a
determination ofthe District?s compliance or noncompliance with Title Vi or other Federal civil
rights laws in any other regard. Please note that the Complainant may have the right to ?le a
private suit in federal court regardless of whether OCR ?nds a violation.

OCR routinely advises recipients of Federal funds and public educational entities that Federal
regulations prohibit intimidation, harassment, or retaliation against those ?ling complaints with
OCR and those participating in a complaint investigation. Complainants and participants who
feel that such actions have occurred may ?le a separate complaint with OCR.

Page 24 ol?24 OCR Complaint No. 08-]0-1 l2-D. Adams County 14 School District

Under the Freedom ol?Inibrmation Act. it may be necessary to release this document and related
correspondence and records upon request- If OCR receives such a request. we will protect
personal rnlormation to the extent provided by law.

This letter sets forth determination in an individual OCR case. This letter is not a formal
statement of OCR policy and should not be relied upon. cited, or construed as such. 
Formal policy statements are approved by a duly authorized OCR of?cial and made available to
the public.

it?youhave any questions, you may contact Virginia Wilson-Cobble. Attomey Adviser assigned
to this case, at (303) 844-4538.

Sincerely;

. I 


 

a .
J. Aaron anune
Regional Director

Enclosure

Cc: Honorable Robert Hammond
Commissioner of Education