June 10, 1996
Mr. Jim Wood
United States Department of Education
Office for Civil Rights
50 United Nations Plaza, Room 239
San Francisco, CA 94102
(Please refer to Docket Number 09-96-1268-I)
Dear Mr. Wood:
Enclosed you will find copies of each class
photo as they appear in our school "yearbook" which was just
released today. These are presented in the same order as the classes on
page 14 of my original complaint. Please note the following information:
1. Mrs. **********'s multiage
class is essentially all white
(quite a contrast when compared to other classes).
2. Mrs. **********'s multiage
class has two black children
(apparently brother and sister).
3. Unlike all of the other classes, grades 1-3,
the multiage classes do not have any students who moved in during the
middle of the school year. New students may be identified by the labeled
group photos at the bottom of each page. (You will note that my
class has seven new students listed--I have also had one student move
out and two students move in since the year book was prepared in late
April.) Even so, this still does not account for all of the movement in
and out of my classroom this year.
4. Miss ********** (listed on
pg. 14 of the original complaint) married and is now identified in the
photo as Mrs.
**********. I have also attached copies of the
Kindergarten class photos. These are interesting because Mrs.
*************'s class is, like the multiage classes, nearly all white.
The reason for this is most likely due to the fact that Mrs.
************* receives many parent requests to have children placed in
her class. While I am certain that Mrs.
************* does not select her class, I am equally certain that
**********, our principal, places these children
there. An important thing to note is that the "morning
Kindergarten" children generally come from one of the
"wealthiest" neighborhoods in Victorville--Spring Valley Lake.
This is due to the bussing schedule. Interestingly, Mrs.
******* also teaches an AM Kindergarten class and, as you can see, her
class is quite different.
I would also like to provide a brief update
regarding some of the children, that I mentioned in the original
complaint, who are being denied services. These include:
1. "Student 2"- I have just learned,
today, that this student might be absent for the rest of the school
year. His mother told me on the telephone that her child was being
placed into a special unit at Loma Linda Hospital/University to undergo
an overnight psychiatric observation. She stated that there is the
possibility that her child is "emotionally disturbed."
2. "Student
3" - I have been told that
this student will not be back to school this year (he is missing the
last week) because he was having "seizures" over the weekend
and that he is currently being evaluated by a medical doctor.
3. "Student 5" - Please refer to the
attached memo. This should provide some indication that, even though SST
meetings were scheduled, **********, our principal, decided that nothing
further would be done to assist this child because the mother has been a
"no show" for the SSTs. This is a prime example of the
unwritten policy that, if a parent doesn't show up for SSTs then the
child simply "doesn't have a problem" that requires school
intervention. I am currently trying to find other teachers who
might be willing to talk to you (many are afraid). The following
teachers are very willing to speak with you concerning some of the
problems we discussed on the telephone yesterday:
