intersection of title iii and title vi rights act of 1964 the civil rights act of 1964 is the...
TRANSCRIPT
The Intersection of Title III with Title VI
when Communicating with Parents
Case Scenario
• An ELL child from a Vietnamese speaking family was
struggling in school. Her teacher looked forward to
visiting with her parents at parent teacher conferences.
Invitations and reminders were sent out, but only in
English. The parents didn’t understand the letters they
received, and missed the meeting. Another meeting was
arranged, but when the parents arrived, there was no way
for them to speak or communicate with the teacher. The
meeting ended in frustration for both parents and teacher,
and no additional interventions for the student were
discussed.
Case Scenario
• This, unfortunately, is not an uncommon occurrence in our
schools. Nevertheless, it may be in violation of federal
laws.
• What are the federal laws and responsibilities of schools
for communicating with parents?
• Who oversees and enforces them?
Civil Rights Act of 1964
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is the landmark legislation
prohibiting discrimination in several areas including
housing, employment and education. The sections of the
Act relating to education are
◦ Title IV, prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race,
color, sex, religion or national origin by public elementary
and secondary schools and public institutions of higher
learning;
◦ Title VI, prohibiting discrimination by recipients of federal
funds on the basis of race and national origin; and
◦ Title IX, prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex,
and permitting the United States to intervene in pending
suits alleging discrimination.
Title VI
• No person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.
• All programs and activities that receive Federal financial assistance from the United States Department of Education (ED) are covered by Title VI.
• OCR has long taken the position that this includes the parents of students enrolled in a school district, as well as to the students themselves.
May 25, 1970 Memorandum to school
districts from OCR • School districts have the responsibility to
adequately notify national origin – minority group
parents of school activities which are called to the
attention of other parents. Such language, in
order to be adequate, must be provided in a
language other than English.
• Identification of Discrimination and Denial of Services on the Basis
of National Origin” 35 Fed Reg 11595 (July 18, 1970) Statutory and
Regulatory language of Title VI to included both students and
parents
Lau v Nichols, 1974
• …the district must take affirmative steps to rectify the
language deficiency in order to open its instructional
programs to these students
• …there is no equality of treatment merely by providing
students with the same facilities, textbooks, teachers, and
curriculum; for students who do not understand English
are effectively foreclosed from any meaningful education.”
Equal Education Opportunities Act of
1974 • Additionally, the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of
1974 prohibits deliberate segregation on the basis of race, color, and national origin.
• The Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (EEOA). Section 1703(f) of the EEOA requires state educational agencies (SEAs) and school districts to take action to overcome language barriers that impede English Language Learner (ELL) students from participating equally in school districts’ educational programs.
• As part of its efforts to enforce the EEOA, the Department of Justice investigates complaints that SEAs or school districts are not providing adequate services to ELL students.
Examples of conditions that may violate the EEOA include when
a school district or SEA does the following: (From the DOJ
website)
fails to provide a language acquisition program to its ELL students or fails to provide adequate language services to its ELL students;
fails to provide resources to implement its language acquisition program effectively (e.g., an ESL program lacks ESL teachers or ESL materials);
fails to take steps to identify students who are not proficient in English;
does not exit ELL students from a language acquisition program when the ELL students have acquired English proficiency, or exits ELL students without written parental or guardian permission before the students acquire English proficiency;
US Department of Justice:
http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/edu/types.php
Examples of conditions that may violate the EEOA include when
a school district or SEA does the following:
fails to communicate meaningfully with non-English-speaking or limited-English-speaking parents and guardians of ELL students by not providing such parents and guardians with written or oral translations of important notices or documents;
fails to provide language acquisition assistance to ELL students because they receive special education services, or fails to provide special education services to ELL students when they qualify for special education services
excludes ELL students from gifted and talented programs based on their limited English proficiency.
US Department of Justice:
http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/edu/types.php
Cases list found at: http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/edu/documents/classlist.php#origin
The School/District’s Legal Obligation to
Provide Language Assistance
• Both “adequately notify” (OCR) and “ provide meaningful
access”(DOJ) mean that a parent who is LEP- based on
his or her ability to read, speak, write, or understand
spoken English – is not to be excluded from, or denied the
benefits of the school district’s programs.
• Both standards are intended to be applied on a fact
dependent case-by-case-basis.
If we think back to the initial case scenario
• Was the parent adequately notified, or in other words, did
the school provide meaningful access?
• Was the school staff aware of the language needs and
resources available?
• Translation of the documents
• Interpreter for the conference
What needs to be translated/interpreted?
• OCR Guidelines for Eliminating Discrimination and Denial of Services on the
Basis of Race, Color, National Origin, Sex and Handicap in Vocational
Education Programs, 34 C.F.R. Part 100 Appendix B
Schools are required to provide annual public notice of
nondiscrimination to the community
• LEP parents are specifically included to receive:
• Annual public notification of nondiscrimination
• Course offerings
• Notice of nondiscrimination
• Contact information for Title II, Title IX and section 504 Coordinators
• Nondiscriminatory promotional materials
What constitutes a “community” of persons with
limited English language skills ?
The responsibility of the schools/district
• Provide Meaningful
Access (DOJ)
• Adequately Notify
(OCR)
How will we notify? What will we translate or
what will we use interpreters for?
Executive Order 13166: Improving Access for Persons with
Limited English Proficiency (August 11, 2000) • All Recipients Must Take Reasonable Steps To Provide
Meaningful Access for students and parents
• Recipients who fail to provide services to LEP applicants and beneficiaries in their federally assisted programs and activities may be discriminating on the basis of national origin in violation of Title VI and its implementing regulations.
• Title VI and its regulations require recipients to take reasonable steps to ensure ‘‘meaningful access” to the information and services they provide. What constitutes reasonable steps to ensure meaningful access will be contingent on a number of factors.
• http://www.lep.gov/13166/eolep.pdf
Among the factors to be considered for reasonable
steps to provide access (but not limited to) are:
• the number or proportion of LEP persons in the eligible service
population,
• the frequency with which LEP individuals come in contact with the program,
• the importance of the service provided by the program,
• and the resources available to the recipient.
• This is to be a “flexible and fact dependent standard with the understanding that this flexibility does not diminish, and should not be used to minimize, the obligation that the needs be addressed.”
• Department of Justice http://www.lep.gov/13166/eolep.pdf
1. The number or proportion of LEP persons in the
eligible service population
• Programs that serve a few or even one LEP person are still subject to the Title VI obligation to take reasonable steps to provide meaningful opportunities for access.
• The steps that are reasonable for a recipient who serves one LEP person a year may be different than those expected from a recipient that serves several LEP persons each day. But even those who serve very few LEP persons on an infrequent basis should utilize this balancing analysis to determine whether reasonable steps are possible and if so, have a plan of what to do if an LEP individual seeks service under the program in question.
• http://www.lep.gov/13166/eolep.pdf
1. The number or proportion of LEP persons in the eligible
service population
• The plan may be as simple as being prepared to use one
of the commercially available language lines to obtain
immediate interpreter services for smaller numbers or
proportions, or it might be determined that all important
documents are translated when there are larger numbers.
• Once determined, parents need to be aware of the
services available and how to access them.
• Staff should be trained on what resources are available
and how to access.
2. Frequency of Contact with the
Program Frequency of contacts between the program or activity and LEP individuals is another factor to be weighed. For example, if LEP individuals must access the recipient’s program or activity on a daily basis, e.g., as they must in attending elementary or secondary school, a recipient has greater duties than if such contact is unpredictable or infrequent.
• Recipients should take into account local or regional conditions when determining frequency of contact with the program, and should have the flexibility to tailor their services to those needs.
• http://www.lep.gov/13166/eolep.pdf
3. Nature and importance of the program The importance of the recipient’s program to beneficiaries
will affect the determination of what reasonable steps are
required. More affirmative steps must be taken in programs
where the denial or delay of access may have life or death
implications than in programs that are not as crucial to
one’s day-today existence.
• For example, the obligations of a federally assisted school or hospital
differ from those of a federally assisted zoo or theater. In assessing
the effect on individuals of failure to provide language services,
recipients must consider the importance of the benefit to individuals
both immediately and in the long-term.
• A decision by a federal, state, or local entity to make an activity
compulsory, such as elementary and secondary school attendance or
medical inoculations, serves as strong evidence of the program’s
importance.
4. Resources Available
The resources available to a recipient of federal assistance
may have an impact on the nature of the steps that
recipients must take.
• For example, a small recipient with limited resources may
not have to take the same steps as a larger recipient to
provide LEP assistance in programs that have a limited
number of eligible LEP individuals, where contact is
infrequent, where the total cost of providing language
services is relatively high, and/ or where the program is
not crucial to an individual’s day-to-day existence.
• “Claims of limited resources from large entities will need
to be well-substantiated”
Important activity documents for meaningful access
may include: (a) documents regarding special education issues arising under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act or Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (e.g., IEP meetings);
(b) report cards and other academic progress reports;
(c) documents provided to parents/guardians during a disciplinary process;
(d) requests for parent permission for student participation in District/school sponsored programs and activities;
(e) announcements distributed to students that contain information about school and District activities for which notice is needed to participate in such activities (e.g., testing, school performances, co-curricular activities, or activities requiring an application); and
(f) any other written information describing the rights and responsibilities of parents or students and the benefits available (handbooks, school policies, complaint procedures) • Title VI Standards for Communication with Limited English Proficient
Parents, November 5, 2010
The following documents were also deemed
“essential information”
• documents concerning enrollment or registration;
• documents concerning academic options and planning;
• documents concerning ELL identification procedures to request a student’s language background, to request a parent’s preferred language of communication, and how to opt out of ELL services;
• information related to public health and safety; and
• any other written information describing the rights and responsibilities of parents or students and the benefits and services available to parents and students
Title VI Standards for Communication with Limited English Proficient Parents, November 5, 2010
• In some cases, ‘‘meaningful opportunity’’ to benefit from
the program requires the recipient to take steps to assure
that translation services are promptly available.
• In some circumstances, instead of translating all of its
written materials, a recipient may meet its obligation by
making available oral assistance, or by commissioning
written translations on reasonable request.
LEP Parents
• Reading
• Writing
• Speaking
• Understanding
Each is significant for schools to understand the need for services and assistance, and to determine what type of assistance is appropriate.
• A school may be in violation if they do not provide an interpreter for parent teacher conferences for a parent who reads but does not understand spoken English.
• Parents can require language services even if their students do not require language services.
The context of the situation
• Thus, even a parent who can communicate effectively
with school staff regarding everyday matters may require
different services when he or she is seeking interpretation
for an IEP, parent – teacher conferences, or other
meetings where complex and technical issues about
student’s education or placement are discussed.
Interpreters
• Have knowledge in both languages of any specialized
terms or concepts peculiar to the entity’s program or
activity and of any particularized vocabulary or
phraseology used by the LEP person.
• Training on ethics of confidentiality
Use of family members or friends may raise issues of confidentiality,
privacy, or conflict of interest, and should not be relied on to provide
meaningful access.
Title VI Standards for Communication with Limited English Proficient
Parents, November 5, 2010
Translations
• The failure to provide written translations of certain
documents is not per se a violation of Title VI. Rather, it
is the determination of whether the failure to translate
the documents denies a parent meaningful access.
• DOJ: “vital written materials” The more important the
activity, information, service, or program, or the greater
the possible consequences of the contact to the LEP
individuals, the more likely language services are needed.
Taking pause for self assessment…
• Do you adequately notify the parents of your students?
• How are parents notified about p/tconferences, course offerings, other placements?
• Are you familiar with your community and the populations in your school service area?
• Do you have a policy for communicating with parents in languages other than English?
• Does your school/ district staff know about the available resources, and how to access them?
• Are they (staff) aware of which parents of students in their class may need language services?
• Does your school staff know your procedures for providing translation and interpreters?
Do you provide meaningful access/
adequately notify? • Are essential documents available in languages other
than English?
• Is your District/ School website available in languages
other than English?
• Do you have a process for determining whether new
documents, programs, services and activities need to be
made accessible in other languages?
• How are you ensuring that interpretations or translations
are competent and accurate?
• How are you communicating this information to parents?
Revised Case Scenario
• An ELL child from a Vietnamese speaking family was struggling in school. Her teacher looked forward to visiting with her parents at parent teacher conferences. Invitations and reminders were sent out.
• The teacher was aware that the parents did not read English, and so the invitations and reminders had been translated as part of the district policy.
• The parents attended the meeting, where an interpreter was present for communication between the classroom teacher and parents.
• The parents were able to contribute to the teacher’s understanding of how to best help their child. The parents learned about an after school program that their child could participate in. The combined efforts of school personnel and parents creates a more effective intervention for the student.
The School/District’s Legal Obligation to
Provide Language Assistance
• Both adequately notify and meaningful access mean that:
• A parent or legal guardian is not to be excluded from, or
denied the benefits of the school district’s programs
because of language barriers.
• Both standards are intended to be applied on a fact
dependent case-by-case-basis.
Questions?
Karin Moscon
Oregon Department of Education, Equity Unit