NAME: (Mr./Ms.) ****************

        ADDRESS: ************

        CITY & STATE ************, CA (ZIP)*****

        PHONE NO. (***) ***-****

        NAME (Mr./Ms.): The Children of Lomitas Elementary School/Victor Elementary School Dist.

        ADDRESS: *******************

        CITY & STATE: Victorville, CA 92692 (ZIP)

        PHONE NO. HOME (***) ***-**** WORK (***) ***-****

        NAME (Mr./Ms.) **********, Principal

        ADDRESS: ********************

        CITY & STATE/ZIP ************, CA

        DEPT OR SCHOOL Lomitas Elementary School/Victor Elementary School District

        X Student Services    X      Race/Color Tracking                                                                

                                National Origin_________________________

                         X      Sex Tracking

                         X      Disability Tracking

                This has been an ongoing problem since September 1994.

                Not applicable.

                September 1994

        The problem with the multi-age program first surfaced in May 1994 (approx.). At that time, the students who were
        "accepted" into the program were sent certificates which congratulated them on their successful application. None of the
        other children, in the regular programs received such congratulations on their passage into the next grade. At that time, I 
        refused to send these notices home because it was clear that only the highest functioning students from my class had been 
        accepted into the multi-age program. I also complained that the other children did not receive any kind of certificate 
        congratulating them on their progress that year. When I stated my objections, I was asked to return the certificates and I 
        believe that these were then mailed to the families selected to participate. That was the first time that I had heard that tracking
        was not part of the selection process because parents were "given a chance to enroll their children in the program." (Only the
        more affluent parents were able to [or chose to] attend the orientation meeting and agreed to contribute time, on a regular
        basis, in the classroom that is required by the program.)

        YES_____ NO    X

                Information has been provided, on a couple of occasions, to the Victor Elementary Teachers' Association.

        I have complained, on numerous occasions, to **********, ************ Elementary School principal and to 
        the ************ Teachers' Association. 

        This problem first began in Spring 1994 when the multi-age program was first mentioned to the staff at Lomitas
        Elementary School. At that time, two teachers, ***** ********** and ***** ********** announced that they wanted
        to try out a "new program" and that would begin with the 1994-1995 school year. This program would allow the creation of 
        two primary grade, multi-age classrooms, each of which would contain children from grades 1, 2, and 3. It was also
        announced that these classes would not contain a select group of students but would be representative of the 'typical" 
        classroom at our school. Contrary to this statement, every indication that these classes were going to be different was 
        obvious from the very beginning (see above). Although I have made numerous complaints to my school principal that these 
        classes are extremely different than others at our school, and that my class, in particular, has been loaded with many students 
        that exhibit significant learning and behavior problems, especially when compared with the other classes (both the multi-age 
        and traditional classes), my comments have been discounted and simply ignored. I have attached copies of materials, on 
        pages 10-13, which I submitted to the Victor Elementary Teachers Association last year concerning some of the gross 
        inequities between the makeup of my class and other classes. The materials from 1994-1995 should provide clear indication
        that classes were not evenly divided and that serious problems exist.

        It is also rather disturbing to point out that there appears to be motivation for placing students in certain classes. Perhaps the 
        most obvious reason is that the multi-age classrooms have been used to segregate the children of school employees from 
        others with special needs. (See page 9) As the chart will indicate, at least six certificated employees have placed their 
        children in these classes since September 1994. Several classified employees also have children in these classes but I do not 
        have complete information on these. It is my understanding that at least one other certificated Lomitas employee has 
        enrolled his child in these multi-age classes for the 1996-1997 school year.

        Information on pages 14-16 highlights some of the differences between the class I received this year and other classes at my
        school. This material should help demonstrate that, once again, significant differences exist. These differences are so extreme 
        that, due to the serious problems that exist in some classrooms, many children are being denied an opportunity to learn to 
        their fullest extent. Not mentioned here (complete figures are not available to me) are differences in student mobility, boy/girl 
        ratio, socio-economic status, and family/home life issues.

        Perhaps the most disturbing of all, is the fact that numerous students have been placed into some classrooms in an effort to
        keep them out of the multi-age classes and then help is denied to these students. In addition, these students' problems are so
        severe that they interrupt the learning environment to such as extent that they prevent other students from learning as well.

        "Student 1" - The worst case involves a seven year old Hispanic boy who was placed in my classroom (He has attended 
        school in our district since Nov. 1, 1993). This child had been retained once in Kindergarten and Student Study Teams have 
        been held for him on Feb. 17, 1994, Mar. 24, 1994, and Dec. 15, 1994. He also visited our district's "assessment center," 
        on Oct 12, 1994, which clearly indicated that this child was having difficulties. Absolutely nothing tangible has been done to 
        assist this child until this year.

        His behavior was so bizarre, from the very beginning of the year, that I had our school psychologist observe him during the
        first week of school. During this observation, the child wandered around the classroom and made animal noises. Another 
        SST was held on Feb. 29, 1996, at which time it was decided to formally assess this student (because his early life 
        experiences were so horrible). This child was evaluated and an IEP meeting was held on April 19, 1996. At this time it was 
        discussed that this child is believed to be severely emotionally disturbed, is mentally retarded (has an IQ of 55), and also 
        appears to have Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). He was to be placed in a special day class (SDC) class 
        beginning Monday, April 22, 1996. I was told, privately, that SDC was probably too restrictive for this child because he had
        so many problems and that he would probably be placed in a severely emotionally disturbed class (SED) in the near future.
        Because this child is supposed to move over the summer, it is assumed that this would not occur until the beginning of next 
        year. (I can't help but wonder if this was the real motivation for finally doing a formal assessment on this child.) It is my 
        understanding that this child only attended the SDC class for three full days of school. (This class has nine students, a full-time 
        teacher, and two full-time instructional aides.) Because his behavior was so disruptive in this class, the child was suspended 
        (see page 17) with several conditions attached. To make matters even worse, the child never returned to school and it is my 
        understanding that he was placed on a "home study" contract. This is particularly disturbing because his home life has been
        described as being one of the "most dysfunctional families" that had ever been observed by our school psychologist. The
        school principal has never discussed this with me.

        There are many, many more children in my classroom who also exhibit significant and severe problems. These children also
        receive little or no assistance from the school. Some of these children include:

        "Student 2" - Student 2 first enrolled in school last November. This child has had no previous school experiences and has 
        exhibited significant academic and behavior problems. Because this child's mother has canceled two SST meetings, at the last 
        minute, nothing has been done for this child. The mother told me, a few days ago, that she is aware that her child has problems 
        and plans to enroll him in a "military school" next year for his behavior and that he will have "psychological testing" done there.

        "Student 3" - This child enrolled in our classroom on April 9, 1996. A memo, dated April 24, 1996 states, "** was receiving 
        speech and counseling services at Lomitas in 94-95. Also receiving speech 60 min/week at last school." This child still 
        has not received any services at our school this year and, with less than three weeks remaining, it is unlikely to occur now.

        "Student 4" - This child enrolled last October. The eldest of four children, this child had been placed in a foster home because all
         of the children in the family had been molested by the biological father and the mother is a drug addict. Nothing has been done 
        for this child.

        "Student 5" - Two SSTs have been scheduled for this child but the mother has failed to show up for them. This child appears to
        performing significantly below grade level. Speech services (obtained last year) are provided but nothing else.

        "Student 6" - This child's previous two teachers (from other school districts) have indicated an ongoing behavior problem. A 
        nurse, from the previous school, stated that she believes this is an ADHD child. Other than an SST, nothing has been done for 
        this  child.

        "Student 7" - An SST on this child, in April, revealed that this child wants to "kill herself", deliberately urinates and defecates 
        on the floor at home , and recently tore the head off of a bird and sprayed the blood everywhere. Her biological mother is a drug
        addict/prostitute who suffers from manic depression and paranoid schizophrenia. An informal observation was supposed to
        have been done on her but no one has yet done this.

        These are just a few samples of the students that have been placed in my classroom. These types of students are essentially
        excluded from the multi-age classrooms. Sadly, the situations discussed here are merely the "tip of the iceberg" - there are  
        numerous additional problems evident.

        Perhaps the most revealing indication that tracking is occurring may be found in two statements recently published in our staff 
        bulletin and school newsletter.

        Our April 17, 1996 staff bulletin states:

        "Please remember that we do not take requests for teachers for the new school year. Information regarding class placement 
        will be also noted in the newsletter. Parents are asked to discuss any concerns that they have with this year's teacher so that 
        such information can be noted on the pinks and blues (forms used to "create" next year's classes). Concerns such as
        combination classes, conflicts/personality problems with another student can be noted on the bottom. I (the principal) 
        approach this individually with parents by saying:

        1. We have a top-notch staff and any placement will be a good one.

        2. We have to load classes using certain criteria (boy/girl ratio, heterogeneous classes, RSP limits, etc.) which limits granting 
                requests. (The information provided in this complaint should demonstrate that this simply is not true.)

        3. Combination classes are part of Calif. public schools and we will have them next year. If a parent has a concern or is in a 
                combo this year, please note this on the pink or blue."

        In contrast to these statements, the following was sent to all school parents in our April 30, 1996 newsletter:

        "Class assignments for September are a team effort done with great care. This initial class lists are drawn up by current 
        Lomitas teachers and are reviewed by the receiving teachers and specialists to ensure that we have not overlooked 
        any aspect of an appropriate placement. We, as professionals, feel that we keep the best interest of children in our minds as 
        we look at appropriate placements. You, as parents, have the best knowledge about your child and may wish to share some 
        of this information with your child's current teacher before we do class placements. This information will be noted on the 
        child's placement sheet and will help us in making placement decisions. Please contact your child's teacher if you are 
        interested in doing so."

        In other words, parents are allowed to pick their child's classroom.

        Both charts indicate the average/mean score for all Kindergarten students at Lomitas who took the exam during the 
        1993-94 school year. Scores listed under "My Class" include all students currently (2/3/95) enrolled in my class who took 
        the MRT last year. Nine students are not listed because they are new to the district. Three additional students were retained 
        in first grade and took the MAT6 instead - these scores are not included in the above charts. When these 3 students are 
        factored in (using NCEs) the scores for my class drop even further.

        Please note that there are many other discrepancies between my current class and the "average" class at Lomitas. I 
        am certain that these would include:

                1) Balance between boy - girl ratios (I have 19 boys and 11 girls).

                2) Number of students enrolled (and/or in need of) special programs.

                3) Number of students who have been retained (I have 4).

                4) Number of students who should have been retained but parents refused. (2 or 3 students)

                5) Socio-economic status of the parents (approximately 20 of the children in my class receive free lunches.)

                6) Number of students with parents belonging to PTA.

                Unfortunately, I don't have exact figures in order to provide you with details.

        The above statistics appeared in our staff bulletin, dated Wed. Feb. 22, 1995.

* On 2/21/95 my class had 16 children receiving free lunches and 2 receiving reduced lunches.

        The chart on the previous page (listed above) provides last year's test scores of all students who enrolled in all first through third grade at 
        the beginning of the 1995-1996 school year. Clearly, there are significant discrepancies between the multi-age classes and 
        the other regular education classes.

        It is even more disturbing when one compares the students assigned to my class, at the beginning of the year, when compared 
        with the results of the other children, in the same grade level, at Lomitas.

        * Exempt students are those who took the test but were not "officially" scored and included with other students because they
        were enrolled in special programs (RSP, SDC, Bilingual, etc.). The scores for these students are not as accurate as others 
        because they were obtained from another graph provided by the school and exact figures were not available. Please note, 
        however, that the mean math score of my students was lower than the exempt students.

        While these figures are certainly less disturbing than last year's, when one examines the makeup of the multi-age classes, 
        which are almost exclusively white, then the concern takes on additional meaning.

        I am not certain what monies the school/district receive from the Federal Government, I just know that funds are received.

        _________________       _____________________________ 
                (Date)                  (Signature)

        NAME: ***********************************************************************

        TELEPHONE NUMBERS: HOME ******************* WORK ****************************

        YES_____ NO   X  

These pages authored and maintained by the ASEE.
© 1999 All rights reserved.
Page established: 11/10/99
Last revised: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 12:42:11 AM