JS U\I.R.: THE SCHOOLS OF GUADALUPE••• A LEGACY OF EDUCATIONAL OPPRESSION A Report of the California State Advisory Committee to the United States Commission on Civil Rights April 1973 PREFACE The United States Commission on Civil Rights,created by the Civil Rights Act of 195f, is an independent, bipartisan agency of the executive branch of the Federal Government. By the terms of the Act, as amended, the Commission is charged with the following duties pertaining to denials of the equal protection of the laws based on race, color, sex, religion or national origin: invest~gation of individual discriminatory denials of the right to vote; study of legal developments with respect to denials of the equal protection of the law; appraisal of the laws and policies of the United States with respect to denials of equal protection of the law; maintenance of a national clearinghouse for information respecting denials of equal protection of the law; and investigation of patterns or practices of fraud or discrimination in the conduct of Federal elec tions. The Commission is also required to submit reports to the President and the Congress at such times as the Commission, the Congress, or the President shall deem desirable. The State Advisory Committees An Advisory Committee to the United States Commission on Civil Rights has been established in each of the 50 States and the District of Columbia pursuant to section lOS(c) of the Civil Rights Act of 1957 as amended. The Committees are made up of responsible persons who serve without compensation. Their functions under their mandate from the Commission are to: advise the Commission of all relevant information concerning their respective States on matters within the jurisdiction of the Commission; advise the Commission on matters of mutual concern in the preparation of reports of the Commission to the President and the Congress; receive reports, suggestions, and recommendations from individuals, public and private organizations, and public officials upon matters pertinent to inquiries conducted by the State Committee; initiate and forward advice and recommendations to the Commission upon matters in which the Commission shall request the assistance of the State Committee; and attend, as observers, any open hearing or conference which the Commission may hold within the State. Recommendations to the United States Commission on Civil Rights This report was submitted to the United States Commission on Civil Rights by the California State Advisory Committee. The conclusions and recommendations in this report are those of the Committee and are based upon information gathered by its members and the Commission!s Western Regional staff. Extensive factfinding trips into the district were conducted by Commission field representatives Charles A. Ericksen and Thomas Pilla throughout the year 1972. Additionally, the California State Committee conducted two hearings in the district. The first was an open hearing on May 20; the second was a closed hearing on October 7, 1972. This report has been received by the Commission and will be considered in its report to the President and the Congress. i CALIFORNIA STATE COMMITTEE TO UNITED STATES Herman Sillas, Jr. Los Angeles Stephen Reinhardt Los Angeles Joe Jimenez Sacramento Dr. Mark Ferber Berkeley Helen Davis Culver City Han. Mervyn M. Dymally Los Angeles Fred W. Gabourie Sherman Oaks Maury Green Encino Junius Griffin Hollywood Aileen C. Hernandez San Francisco COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS State Chairman Vice Chairman, Southern California Vice Chairman, Northern California Chairman, Subcommittee on Guadalupe Study James L. Hesburgh Los Angeles Frankie W. Jacobs San Francisco William D. Rogers Los Angeles Robert F. Smith San Diego Robert L. Spivak Encino William T. King Los Angeles ii TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 1 DESCRIPTION OF DISTRICT•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••S BACKGROUND•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 7 SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS AND INVESTIGATIONS •••••••••••••••••••••• ll I. General Educational Practices••••••••••••••••••••••••• l3 II. Staffing Practices••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••21 III. Corporal Punishment•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••25 IV. Pattern of Reprisa1••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.••33 ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS I. General Educational Practices•••••••••••••••••••••••••42 II. Staffing Practices••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••45 III. Corporal Punishment••••••••••••••••.••••••••••••••••••46 IV. Pattern of Reprisal.•••••••••••••••••••••••••.••••••••SO A FINAL COMMENT'•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.55 APPENDICES A-F •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••S6 APPENDIX G-STATEMENT OF RESPONSE TO DEFAME &DEGRADE NOTICE ••••66 Prior to the publication of a report, State Advisory Committees afford to all individuals or organizations that may be defamed, degraded, or incriminated by any material contained in the report an opportunity to respond in writing to such material. All responses received have been incorporated, appended to, or otherwise reflected in the publication. iii INTRODUCTION In the mid-1960's, Theodore W. Parsons wrote his Stanford University doctoral dissertation about a predominantly Mexican American farming town in California. He called the town "Guadalupe. •1.!/ Parsons had studied the community over a period of three years, observing its mores and customs, and more specifically, the cleavage between Anglo Americans and Mexican Americans who lived there. His special interest was education, and he spent 40 days in personal observation of his "Guadalupe's" elementary school. His dissertation, which was published as a case study in cultural anthropology by Holt, Rinehart &Winston, gained national attention and shocked many people. In Parsons' town of "Guadalupe," the Mexican American was regarded and treated as a socially and genetically inferior being. Whether on the street or in the classroom, Parsons found this to be an omnipresent Anglo attitude. In his study, he cited such examples as: --A teacher explaining why she replaced a Mexican American boy with an Anglo boy at the head of a line prepared to march out of class: "His father owns one of the big farms in the area and .••one day he will have to know how to handle the Mexicans." --A principal connnenting on his grouping students by ethnicity in a reading program: "We thought that the white children would get more out of school if they could work faster and not be slowed down by the Mexicans." lf Parsons' "Guadalupe" was later identified as Castroville, an artichoke farming town north of Monterey. 2 --A teacher explaining why, at graduation, the Mexican American children march in last, sit at the back of the platform, and don't participate as class representatives or speakers: "Once we did let a Mexican girl give a little talk and all she did was mumble around. She had quite an accent. We had several complaints from other parents so we haven't done anything like that since. That was 12 years ago." --The Chamber of Commerce president praising the school principal! "He runs a good school. We never have any trouble. Every kid knows his place. We believe that every kid has to learn to respect authority and his betters." Parsons pointed out that historically, in most California communities, the school was deliberately used by dominant Anglo interests to maintain the "integrity" of the ethnically differentiated social structure. For Mexican American students, this meant segregated classes, differential guidance and instruction, different rules of conduct and discipline. "I' "Events in recent years, however," he went on, "have largely ended this deliberate, overt use of the school to maintain ethnic purity and structural stability. In general, educators have come to adopt the official policy of promoting the assimilation of Mexican Americans into the Anglo population through physical integration of the two groups in school activities and by Anglicizing Mexican American pupils through standard educational means." In his "Guadalupe," Parsons found it difficult to separate behavior patterns in the school from those in the community, despite changes in official school policies and practices. 3 He wrote: "The school is a substructure or subsystem within the larger social structure or social system of the community. As such, though it has its own focus of purpose and structure, it is an interdependent part of an integrated whole. The personnel whose standardized relationships constitute the school come from the ~hole community and can be expected to reproduce, covertly or overtly, their normal social relationships within the constricted framework of the school." There are some striking similarities in the "Guadalupe" which Theodore Parsons wrote about six years ago and the Guadalupe which the California State Advisory Committee of the United States Commission on Civil Rights visited only a few months ago. In his testimony to this Committee, Guadalupe's long-time superintendent, Kermit McKenzie, recalled that when articles about the Parsons' study were published, many persons assumed the study referred to the real Guadalupe. "This was real wide-spread. People in Guadalupe had these articles, and I think a lot of our trouble started right with this thing," McKenzie said. Dr. Parsons' study struck a chord in many rural California communities because, while specific incidents and events were different, the attitudes and resultant deprivation of human rights were too often the same. This Committee is in accord with Dr. Parsons' observation about the interdependency of the school and the community. What is happening in Guadalupe's schools appears dictated in great degree by community forces beyond the schoolyards. From our investigation and from testimony we have heard, we are convinced that our findings concerning the school district itself are merely the "tip" of Guadalupe's iceberg. In comments from professionals and parents alike, the town was referred to as a "feudal estate" and "feudal kingdom." After evaluating the educational system in Guadalupe and noting the fear of reprisal which exists among those who want to change the schools there, we suspect that the people who confused the two Guadalupes six years ago might still have difficulty today. DESCRIPTION OF DISTRICT The Guadalupe Union School District serves the small farming community of Guadalupe, at the northwestern tip of Santa Barbara County, eight miles west of Santa Maria on Highway #1. The district consists of two elementary schools, Main Street School and Obispo Street School, which have a combined enrollment of 800 students. It has no high school. Students progressing beyond the eighth grade are bused to Santa Maria. Population of Guadalupe, according to a 1970 United States Office of Economic Opportunity survey, is 3,500, with 40 percent of that number under 20 years of age. The same survey showed approximately one-third of the families having an income under $4,000 annually. The district is considered a poor one, even in comparison to those around it. The newer Main Street School houses grades 1 and 2, plus some grade 3. Obispo Street School, in a very old building, houses the district's kindergarten, grades 4 through 8, and part of grade 3 also. The superintendent, Kermit McKenzie, maintains his office in the Obispo Street School. He has been with the district for 41 years, the last 21 of them as superintendent. According to the racial and ethnic survey submitted to the State by the district for fall, 1971, its student population is 76 percent Mexican American, 4.0 percent Asian American, 0.9 percent black, 6.4 percent other non-white, and 12.7 percent other white. 6 The same survey shows the professional staff of the district to be 97.3 percent white and 2.7 percent (one teacher) Mexican American. There are five members on the School Board: a dairy farmer, three businessmen and a utility company employee. The latter and one of the businessmen are Mexican Americans. Board members serve terms of four years. 7 BACKGROUND The California State Advisory Committee began its investigation into the Guadalupe Union School District in the spring of 1972. It was prompted by complaints received by the Committee and the Commission's Western Regional Office. Major allegations in the complaints dealt with (1) poor quality of education, not geared to meet the needs of the Mexican American child, (2) failure of the district to hire bilingual, bicultural Mexican American professional staff, (3) excessive use of corporal punishment against Mexican American students, (4) failure to involve Mexican American parents in the school, and (5) harassment of individuals who complained about the school system. When the State Committee began its study, certain important events related to the issues of concern had already occurred: I. A group of Mexican American parents and community persons formed the Comit~ Consejero de Los Padres de Familia to confront the school district with demands for educational change. (Fall and winter, 1970) II. A walkout of Mexican American students at Obispo Street Elementary School was threatened and signs were posted in the halls reading "We Want Mexican Teachers." (January, 1971) III. A Mexican American lecturer for the John Birch Society was invited to the school by the Parent-Teachers Club to address a 8 public PTC meeting on the "real story" behind the Chicano movement. Because of a noisy protest at the meeting, he w~s unable to complete his speech. (March 16, 1972) IV. A few weeks later, ten persons--nearly all of them active in the Comit~--were arrested on criminal charges of disturbing a public meeting and disturbing the peace for their alleged roles in the PTC meeting protest. (April 5, lg72) When the State Committee began its investigation, the community was highly polarized. Those who sided with the school district blamed the problems on the United Farm Workers and their organizers. They viewed the Comit~ as a tool of the UFW. Those who were protesting stated that while many of those who were active in the Comit~ were members of the UFW, the issue was educational and not related to union activities. The Guadalupe School Board, as well as the school administrative staff, was regarded by the Comite" as insensitive and unresponsive to its complaints. One Board member, Joaquin Z~rate, was singled out as an exception. He was described as having an awareness of the Comite's and parents' concerns and a willingness to sit down and discuss the issues. On Saturday, May 20,1972, following staff investigation, the State Committee convened a public open meeting in Santa Maria on the issue of discrimination in the Guadalupe Union School District.1/ 1_/ Included on the agenda were other complaints against the larger, neighboring Lucia Mar Unified School District. State Committee findings and recommendations for that district are covered in the report, "Educa tional Neglect of Mexican American Students in the Lucia Mar Unified School District, Pismo Beach, California," released January, 1973. 9 Santa Maria Police Chief Richard Long expressed serious concern about the advisability of conducting such a meeting, both to staff representatives and the Committee Chairman. He said that there was a potential for violence and that he would have to keep his force on alert over the weekend. "You are dealing with irrational people," he told staff. When questioned about the statement, he identified two Mexican American youth organizations active in the schools and community, Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan (MECHA), and the Brown Berets. Members of both groups were among those previously interviewed by Commission staff and scheduled to address the Committee. The Committee requested that police--particularly uniformed police-remain away from the meeting. Although an estimated 400-500 persons attended the meeting, there were no public disturbances and the audience was responsive to the Chair at all times. One incident prior to the public hearing is worthy cf mention: A prospective witness, Jesus Ortiz, a five-year resident of Guadalupe with two children born there, was interviewed by staff on Tuesday, May 9, 1972, concerning his contention that he was among those singled out for arrest at the March 16 PTC meeting and that he was fired from his job of more than two years at a dairy because of his involvement with the Comit~. (The owner of the dairy, a 20-year member of the school board, and his foreman, president of the PTC, denied the charges. Other witnesses quoted alleged public statements by the foreman questioning how Ortiz could work for him and be active with the Comiie both.) 10 In his interview with Commission staff, Ortiz stated that his innnigration papers were not in order, but that he had taken steps to secure proper papers. Staff conf:i,rmation of these facts included a statement by a California Rural Legal Assistance (CRLA) representative that Ortiz's case was among 150 he had handled in the past five years and never had the Innnigration Service picked up any of his clients. On Wednesday, May 17, 1972, Ortfz was picked up and jailed by a local Border Patrol unit as an illegal alien. He was scheduled for departure from the United States on Friday, May 19, one day before the Santa Maria hearing. At the request of the Commission's Western Regional Office, Ortiz was given an extension on his date of departure by Dale Swa.ncut, Assistant Chief Patrol Agent for the Southern California Coastal Sector, to permit him to testify. Later, a Regional Immigration Service official in Los Angeles expressed surprise to Commission staff that a single suspected illegal alien would be picked up so speedily by local agents on an anonymous tip. After testifying before the Committee, Ortiz obtained legal counsel and was permitted to remain in the United States pending a hearing. Before that date arrived, processing on his innnigration application was completed and-he was admitted to the United States with permanent resident status in December, 1972. ll SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS AND INVESTIGATION While working with the Commission's Western Regional staff in a continuing investigation of the Guadalupe district, the California State Committee conducted two meetings in the area. At the May20 public open meeting in Santa Maria, 28 persons appeared and spoke. These included the superintendent, the two school principals, parents, former students, attorneys, representatives from the Comit~ and the Parent-Teachers Club, businessmen, Board of Education members, and others familiar with educational concerns of the community. Additionally, 22 written complaints charging excessive use of corporal punishment were submitted by students still attending Guadalupe's Obispo Street School. These dealt with individual cases of alleged excessive physical punishment, ranging from choking and taping of mouths to banging children's heads against the walls. A representative of the Parent-Teachers Club presented the Committee with a petition signed by 102 former or present Guadalupe residents supporting the school board and administration and stating, "We feel our civil rights are being violated by a small group of people who are not endeavoring to improve tne school but merely creating discontent." Commission staff interviewed a wide range of people. A substantial number of them--both supportive and critical of the school district-expressed fear of reprisal if they appeared. Some of those critical of the district did decline to address the Committee publicly. 12 On June 6, Commission staff members met with Santa Barbara County Superintendent of Schools Lorenzo Dall'Armi and eight members of his administrative staff to discuss county-supported programs within the district. After compiling additional information from the State Department of Education and sources within the district itself, the Committee returned to Guadalupe on Saturday, October ? , 1972. Convening in closed session at the Guadalupe Service Center, it heard from 19 new witnesses and seven others with whom it had met before. The new witnesses included four officials involved in the apprehension, trial and sentencing of Guadalupe Comit~ members for their involvement in the Parent-Teachers Club meeting disturbance, and several former and current teachers from the district. From these meetings and investigations, the Committee has identified four issues of paramount concern. They are: general educational practices, staffing practices, corporal punishment, and patterns of reprisal. 13 I. GENERAL EDUCATIONAL PRACTICES Testimony to the Committee on the educational practices and patterns in the Guadalupe District was often conflicting. It exposed a wide divergence of opinion. Superintendent Kermit McKenzie stated that, "Within the limited resources available, we feel the district is providing a well-rounded educational program, adapted to meeting the needs of all children, regardless of ethnic background." He mentioned a number of Federal programs in effect in the district, including a bilingual education program in which 78 children participated in the last school year. He cited financial woes as hampering the district. He related at the May 20, 1972, meeting: About a month ago, our boiler went off in a building that is about 40 years old and has been declared unsafe for school use, and so we had no heat in that big building containing 14 classrooms. We are presently operating on a revised, shortened day schedule for the balance of the school year to try to get by, because this steam boiler cannot be repaired because it's so old•••• We did not grant any salary increases last year, so we are behind. Our salary schedule is lower than other areas around us ••• Ross Ruth, Principal of the Obispo Street School, presented the Committee with figures indicating that sixth grade students have been achieving near or above their levels of expectancy in most areas. 14 Mrs. Annette Stewart, Principal of Main Street School, stated that the main emphasis over the past few years has been in the primary grades "and I think we are headed in the right direction." She said that students in her school had, by State testing instruments, shown steady improvement since the 1968-69 school year, adding "we have many Mexican American children in our best classes." The most current published State Department of Education survey which compares school districts statewide, "California State Testing Program, 1969-70," published in 1972, indicates that the Guadalupe School District is among California's very lowest in achievement test 3 I results. (See Appendix A for complete table on Guadalupe.)--- According to the State table for raw reading scores, Guadalupe's students ranked above average, in the 65th percentile in the first grade; in the 49th percentile in the second grade, and well below average, in the 29th percentile in the third grade. For school districts their size (average daily attendance between 500-999 pupils), their raw reading scores dropped in State rank from 72 (first grade) to 57 (second grade) to 36 (third grade). The State test showed that by the sixth grade, Guadalupe pupils' raw reading scores had dropped to the bottom 7 percent for all school districts statewide, and to the bottom 6 percent for schools their size. 1_L After the State Committee report draft was completed in January 1973, the California State Department of Education released an additional survey, "California State Testing Program, 1970-71." (See Appendix B for complete table and Appendix E for statement by Superintendent McKenzie.) According to its table for ra\\7 reading scc:Sres statewide, Guadalupe's first grade students ranked in the 52nd percentile, its second grade students in the 57th percentile, its third grade: ~tudents in the 65th percentile, and its sixth grade students dropped to' the 14th percentile. In scholastic ability, the district's sixth graders dropped from 88 in 1969-70 to 87.3 in 1970-71, placing them in the 8th percentile statewide. 15 At the sixth grade level, the study indicated an average IQ of 88 for Guadalupe's students. "While the IQ scores are meaningless to individuals," a State Department official explained, "they do have meaning when you look at groups. A factor value of 88 would suggest that you have a lot of non-readers who are guessing. That should tell you something as an administrator." In scholastic ability, Guadalupe's sixth graders ranked in the bottom 7 percent for all districts statewide and in the bottom 6 percent of students in districts their size. State figures showed that the pupil mobility rate in the Guadalupe district was in the 64th percentile (59th for districts its size)--above the norm, but not so much so that it would have dramatic influence on achievement. Educational practices in the district were strongly criticized to the Committee by parents, former students, and some former and present staff members. Most witnesses felt that Mexicam Americans in the district received a poor educational foundation and were ill-prepared to compete at the high school level on graduating from the eighth grade. Complaints focused generally on the following: --Insensitivity of district administration and staff to the educational needs of bilingual, bicultural students. --A historical emphasis on discipline, rather than achievement. --Refusal of administration and much staff to accept Mexican Americans as capable of learning. --Failure to hire teachers who were able to relate to or even communicate with parents. Additionally, parents complained of excessive retention of Mexican American students and disproportionate placement of Mexican American students in classes for the mentally retarded. In his statement to the Committee,on May 20, Roger Heroux, executive director of the Community Action Commission of Santa Barbara County, related one incident where he sat for three days as an observer in a fifth grade class: "The students were around 12 years of age and mainly Mexican American. Two of the children had just come from Mexico and spoke Spanish only. They were sitting in the back of the classroom. Not once in the three days I observed did I see the teacher or the teacher aide approach, talk to or do anything to aid these students. Half of the, class was functioning at the third grade level. The aide worked with a Title I group at a separate table in the back of the room. She told me that this group had been on the same lesson since Christmas time. This three-day period was three months later." Several persons told the Committe.e that many children in the district were one, two or more years behind, by chronological age. A former staff aide who conducted a tutoring program charged that many eighth graders were reading at the third and fourth grade level. One parent described his confusion when his children brought home good report cards, yet were made to repeat grades: He wrote \ the Committee in December, 1972 (translated from Spanish): "One of my daughters was detained two years in the second grade. This year, on October 31, the child (now in the fifth grade) was lowered from her class without notification to me by the administration••• (A month later) the child told me, and I went to talk to the administration..• The teacher said that she could not lose time with my daughter because she was too slow in doing her lessons .•• The most curious thing in this case is that my daughter brought me all A1 s and B1 s on her report card•.." 17 California State Department of Education statistics show that Guadalupe's class for educable mentally retarded (e.m.r.) students is 100 percent Mexican American. The fact that many California school districts have traditionally placed Mexican American students in e.m.r. classes in highly disproportionate numbers has been of concern to this Committee for many years. National psychological, anthropological and sociological associations are in general agreement that ethnic and racial background have no bearing on mental retardation. In the mid-1960's it was charged that many school districts used e.m.r. classes as a "convenient dumping ground" for bilingual, bicultural children, and received several hundred dollars extra per student from theState for doing so. The enormity of the damage to these children still remains to be accurately measured. In Santa Barbara County, Mexican Americans comprised 16 percent of the schools' student population in 1966-67; yet they accounted for 40 percent of the county's e.m.r. class population. Since then, changes in the State Education Code, successful class action law suits against individual districts, and minority community pressures have cut the statewide total of minority students in e.m.r. classes down consider ably, and brought the minority percentages in most counties--including Santa Barbara--more into line. The Guadalupe district trimmed down from three e.m.r. classes to one, but the disproportion of minority students still exists. In a report to the State Department of Education dated January 7, 1972, Dr. Alton L. Stafford, Santa Barbara County Coordinator of Special Education, commented: "I have no explanation for the 24.1% disparity between the 75.9% Spanish surname composition of the Guadalupe school population and the 100% Spanish surname composition of our e.m.r. population in that area. The above-noted disparity has always existed in the program. One year we had two Negro pupils and another year one Caucasian, and one year an Oriental. Otherwise, the classes have been composed entirely of Mexican American pupils. "Whether this gross disparity is caused by differential rates of teacher referrals or by generally lowered levels of ability among this ethnic minority group of children, I am at a loss to say. It may also be associated with the use of inappropriate test instruments, the efforts of Anglo teachers on Chicano children, linguistic impoverishments, depressed levels of parent expectancy, inadequate diets of pregnant mothers, inadequate prenatal care, higher rates of birth trauma, and the overall effects on children's learning of the depressed socio-economic sub-culture of this ethnic group in the Guadalupe area••. " (For complete text of letter, see Appendix C.) Clif Shryock, state consultant in education of the mentally retarded, responded on January 24, 1972, stating: "I think you have described well the 24.1% disparitybetween the 75.9% Spanish surname composition of the Guadalupe school population and the 100% Spanish surname composition of your e.m.r. class. If something could be done concerning the prenatal and postnatal care of these children, and some way to improve their diets as well as the other items you mention, I am sure this difference would disappear ••• " (For complete text of letter, see Appendix D.) A teacher who quit the district cited lengthy suspensions for minor infractions and failure "to work with children in a positive way" as additional causes for poor educational results in the dis trict. He complained of "bigoted" teachers who were "anti-poor," 19 and related instances where students were punished physically for not knowing the right answers. "How can they learn in that climate?" he asked, I Former School Board President Joaquin Zarate, who attended the Guadalupe schools through the sixth grade, told the Committee on May 20: "I do know that there has been a large percentage of our Mexican American kids not doing well in high school, and a lot of drop-outs, and it's very disturbing ••.! think the school system has to assume quite a bit of the guilt in that•.." Present Board President Frank Canales, who replaced Z~rate follow ing this Committee's spring hearing, told the Committee that he had attended the Guadalupe schools from 1938 to 1945 and that he saw a "tremendous improvement in the attitude toward the Mexican American child." Canales added: "The teachers are trying to do their best, and whatever then has come out of this (hearing), I hope that the teachers rightfully are acknowledged that they are working under a handicap that is probably unique in most school districts because there is 76 percent Mexican American, and a lot of those kids, when they started kindergarten, did not speak any English..•" The President of the Parent-Teachers Club, Fausto Regusci, told the Committee: "We are proud of our children attending Guadalupe and the education they received was good." He said that his daughter was beaten by other students "because she had blond hair and blue eyes." Regusci's wife, Barbara, added that the girl was placed in a bilingual class for three months and "when she was tested she was found to have learned some in Spanish, but she had moved behind in English. Instead of going ahead she had gone backwards." (The Reguscis have removed their children from the district, although they still live in Guadalupe.) Of the teachers who spoke with the Committee, none felt that the district was meeting the educational needs of the Mexican American child, although some saw improvement in recent months, or since such federally-funded programs as migrant education, English-as-a-secondlanguage and bilingual education were brought to the district by the county. "I don't really think that any sincere effort has been made," one teacher with many years tenure commented. A County Schools representative who works closely with the district complained: "Their attitude in the school--not just the administration, some of the teachers, too--is one of negativeness to the Mexican American community ••.The children in this community are being short-changed••. ! think the people who live in the community are being short-changed. I think the power structure just doesn't give them an opportunity to get ahead, and I worry about it." 21 II. STAFFING PRACTICES The Guadalupe district provided the State Department of Education with the following Racial and Ethnic Survey statistics for fall, 1971: Black Oriental Spanish Surname Other Non-White Other White Total Pupils 7 .9% 32 4.0% 613 76.0% 52 6.4% 103 12.7% 807 Staff 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 2.7% 0 .0% 36 97.3% 37 The district, although 76 percent Mexican American, had hired only one Mexican American teacher. This fact was one of concern to many parents who addressed this Committee. They complained that the district made no effort to hire bilingual, bicultural Mexican American staff, and as a result, the staff was insensitive to the students and incapable of communicating effectively with parents. Of the district's teachers, only three or four lived in Guadalupe, they said. The district's lone Mexican American teacher (who lived in Guadalupe) quit after the 1971-72 school year. One Mexican American teacher was hired for the 1972-73 school year. Superintendent Kermit McKenzie told the Committee that his district found it difficult to compete with other, richer districts to attract Mexican American teachers. He also pointed out that his district had a low turn-over of staff. He stated that he had contacted the Association of Mexican American Educators for help in finding qualified Mexican American personnel, and that the teacher he hired for the 1972-73 school year came as a result of a recruiting trip he took during the summer to Sacramento State University. 22 Recent hiring efforts in the federally-funded special programs resulted in an increase in bilingual staff, both teachers and teachers' aides, he said. Much contradictory test~ony was given to the Committee concerning the bilingual abilities and bicultural backgrounds of teachers and aides in such programs as Title I (educationally disadvantaged) and Title VII (bilingual education). Some county education officials indicated to Commission staff and the Committee that few if any efforts were initiated by the district without a carrot or a stick to motivate it, and that when the federally-funded bilingual project was brought into the district by the county, the district initially failed to hire a single Mexican American teacher for it. Parents complained to the Committee that if the special programs teachers did speak Spanish, they weren't using it to establish communication with the community. The administration and some parents agreed that there were Anglo teachers in the Federal programs who could speak sufficient Spanish, but who were not bicultural. One objection raised by parents was that the teachers' aides who were hired were not chosen for their bicultural backgrounds or their ability to relate to the community. 23 Lawrence Perales, Santa Maria chapter president of the Association of Mexican American Educators (AMAE), told the Committee that he had initiated contacts with the district, and that he had appeared before the Guadalupe Board of Education on several occasions to encourage the district to hire bilingual, bicultural personnel. Perales added that in neighboring Santa Maria, 12 Mexican American teachers were located, recruited and hired for one high school district alone. Following this Committee's hearing in May, the School Board did agree to teacher pay raises averaging ten percent. A proposed new salary schedule prepared by the teachers was submitted to the Board after the 1972-73 school year began. It was strongly opposed by Mexican American community members, Perales, and Mexican American Board ~ member Zarate, who said the proposed salary schedule would do nothing to attract new, young teachers, since most of the money would go to teachers with many years of service, and not to entry-level positions where newly credentialed Mexican Americans would be most likely to apply. According to Superintendent McKenzie, the teachers worked out a solution suitable to the Board whereby salaries for new teachers would be increased by 3-4 percent and teachers with many years experience and service would receive 15 percent increases. 24 Following the May hearing, some members of the School Board did state, in response to questions from community persons, that priority should be given to the hiring of Mexican American teachers, although some disagreement remains on that matter, even between the Board's two Mexican American members. Former Board President Joaquin Z~rate told this Committee that he recognized that the ethnic composition of the teaching staff was a major weakness of the district. "That is a step we should pursue very strongly," he said. Current Board President Frank Canales disagreed that it was a weakness. "I don't see the advantage of Mexican American teachers to a child," he told the Committee. 25 III. CORPORAL PUNISHMENT Much testimony concerning past and present corporal punishment by teachers in the Guadalupe School District was presented to the Committee. There were allegations that on more than one occasion, students required medical treatment for injuries inflicted by teachers. These included a choking incident, an incident where a student had two front teeth knocked out, and two incidents where students were cut severely enough to require stitches~/ Parents and former students complained that physical punishment was administered for such "infractions" as failure to know the correct answer, dropping a pencil, being caught in unauthorized play areas, talking, or being absent with or without a proper excuse. One school staff member stated that iast year, on a number of occasions, she witnessed a teacher "grab students' hair, pull them and shake them and spank them." Most common complaints were that teachers banged children's heads against walls, used paddles in classrooms (on girls as well as boys) and put tape on students' hair and mouths. There were also alleged incidents reported to the Committee where a teacher put a student's head into a fishbowl, where a girl was thrown out of a window by a teacher, and where a girl sustained a head. injury when a book was thrown at her. ~/ The California Education Code, Sec. 10854, states that the governing board of any school district shall adopt rules and regulations authorizing teachers, principals, and other certificated personnel to administer reasonable corporal or other punishment to pupils when such action is deemed an appropriate corrective measure. 26 "I can't see how any student is going to learn under that pres sure, being frightened," one former Guadalupe student told the Committee. "They'd be so afraid that they couldn't concentrate on their work." Appearing at the May 20 hearing were five teenage graduates of the district who related some personal experiences. A high school student recalled his first day in the sixth grade: "There was this real big dictionary, fat and big. I took it to my desk and I was looking through it for a word. The teacher, he came up to me. He started shaking me around. He picked up the dictionary and he threw it on my head. I ran out of the room and called my mother. We called the superintendent. He said the next time it happened, he'd do something about it to the teacher. And it happened again to other people and nothing ever happened." A teenage college student described how he and other students were beaten and "bounced against the walls" by teachers: "A teacher would tell me, 'Come herer and I'd be afraid to go. But I knew that if I didn't, I'd be worse off. So I'd go over there and get my pain. If we'd tell our mothers, our mothers would make a complaint sometimes. As soon as the mothers left, we'd get hit again." Another high school student recalled: "The teacher called a girl up in front of the room and he got a yardstick and he hit her once and it busted, and he picked it up and hit her again and it broke again, and he picked that piece up and he hit her again." Another told the Committee: "I was yelling to a friend of mine and I said a profane language. A teacher came from around the corner and kicked me. Then he asked me what I said and I told him, so he kicked me again, and he told me to go to the office. When I was walking to the. office, he kicked me again. In the office, he told me to bend jover, he was going to hit me with the paddle. I was wearing some 'Frisco I (jeans) and in the back of the Frisco's' it says, 'You Can't Bust 'Em.' Anyway, he said, 'Well, ,we'll see if we can't bust these Frisco's out the pants, riut the , ' so he hit me about five times. Then he s'uspended me from school for three days." · 27 Another boy described how a teacher banged his head against a metal pole and tore his shirt. One college student presented the Committee with 20 written complaints from students presently attending the Guadalupe schools. Typical of these, as the students wrote them: "On Friday, I droppred my pencil and he started to yell at me and I said Gau I can't even pick up my pencil and he started to shake me and he hit my head on the wall. A few people were talking and he said to shut up jack ass,"--Fifth grader. "I was in the hall and teach got us and she told us to stand up by the wall. And the teach told the other teach and the teach thrown us agens the wall."--Fourth grader. "Mr. ----one day hit a boy with a bord and told him to take off his pants and hit him. But he dint hit me with my pants off." "About two months a go I was just standing by the door and someone whistle and he got me and shook me up for nothing and threw me igiants the wall."--Fourth grader. "I got hit hard in the back because I borrowed colored I went to the back room to give pencils from a girl. them back. Then the teacher got mad and told me to get in my seat. After I got in my seat he hit me."--Sixth grader. "When I was sitting on my desk and my teacher hit me on the back hard because she tripped over my foot. When I went out to play with my friend we did not see our class go in and our teacher made me stay after school and she shook me hard. She made my friend cry. Once when I dropped a marble and she hit me on the head hard."-Fourth grader. "Mrs. ----made me drink a. lot ofwa.ter until the bell rang because I was in the third grade pla.yground."- Fourth grader. 28 "One day we were playing socker and we were tied and he said to have a relay race and we were tied and he took the class to the room and started to hit the class. And Friday came and he said if you people won't be qiet or I am going susen and came to me and choke me and I went to the hospital. And hit the class all the time." Written complaints by parents included one alleging that a sixth grade boy was struck by a teacher, "knocking him severely against the wall, thus giving my son a very bad bruise on his left side of his head, close to his temple;" and another alleging "I witnessed two children pinching each other on the necks till bleeding, by orders of II With the exception of one complaint charging mistreatment of a Filipino pupil, all of the complaints received by the Committee pertained to Mexican American students. Witnesses stated that other Mexican American students had similar complaints but were afraid to bring them to the Committee. One staff investigator visited a family whose son reportedly had required medical treatment for a neck injury caused by a teacher a few years ago. The child's father confirmed that such an injury did happen to the boy, who was nine years old at the time. It required six stitches. The father stated that the responsible teacher did apologize to him the following day, and that he did not want to make an issue out of it. Superintendent McKenzie acknowledged to the Committee that he was aware of some of the incidents which were described at the public meeting in May. He stated that when such incidents occurred, "I have always endeavored to hold a conference with the student and the teacher, and parent, if possible •.• Sometimes it has been discovered 29 that the teacher has made a mistake ••. I can't guarantee that some body won't use poor judgment, but I have tried to assure people, after discussing it with them, that good judgment will be used." In response to questions, he stated that he had never suspended or fired a teacher as a result of any excessive punishment. Mr. McKenzie said that he personally was not aware of any taping of children's mouths, but· that he did not consider it to be excessive punishment. Mr. Ross Ruth, principal of Obispo Street School, which houses most of the upper grades, offered the following view to the Committee on taping: "I don't believe it's necessary and it is not within the school policy. School policy does say, however, we may give punishment. However, it is also not stated that they cannot do it." Mrs. Annette Stewart, principal of Main Street School, which houses first, second and part of third grade, was asked whether she considered taping to be excessive punishment. "It would all depend how it was used," she said. Mrs. Stewart told the Committee in May that "Discipline is an impossible situation right now•••We're damned if we do and we're damned if we don't•..Could it be a lack of respect for the teachers or what, I don't know. I mean I think there is a lot of talking going at home, and they are saying, 'You cannot touch my child,' and this is what comes to us at school. I have many children tell me, 'You can't touch me or you're going to land in jail. '" When the Committee returned to Guadalupe in the fall, no new instances of excessive corporal punishment were reported to it. The practice of taping mouths was also reported to have been stopped, although it was reported that at least two teachers still kept tape on their desks as a "reminder" to students. At the Committee's October 7 meeting, administrators and one teacher reported a continuing breakdown in discipline. "The students just openly defy us," the teacher said. "The minute your back is turned, they're throwing erasers at you or at another student." Mrs. Stewart described the attitude of many students as "actual belligerence." She said that students were making remarks to teachers "that children wouldn't have ever said to a teacher six months ago, and I feel like a lot of this is coming from the home •.• I attribute it to a very militant parent who tells his child, 'That teacher can't tell you what to do and don't you let him. '" Since then, the subject of discipline has received much attention from administrators, t·eachers, parents,and members of the Board. In an October 27 memo to parents, Superintendent McKenzie commented: "A number of parents have stated that their children are not to be spanked even though their children are disrespectful to teachers; their actions could cause injury to other students, or they refuse to obey school rules or teachers. Other parents have said that they do not want their children suspended from school for the same offenses if the school is not allowed to spank children. The two objections, if followed, would leave the school without any way of controlling students ••• " 31 A lengthy proposed "sche'dule" of offenses and punishments was prepared by the school. It listed 18 offenses ranging from gum chewing and tardiness to thefts and defiance of authority, with specific punishmepts listed for first, second, and third occurrences for each offense. The punishments ranged from parent conferences to 10-day suspensions and referral to law enforcement and probation authorities. Parent meetings on the subject were sponsored and conducted by the school administration. A teachers' group prepared its recommendation. The PTC and the Comit~ each prepared their recommendations and presented them to the Board. The Comite strongly opposed a policy permitting corporal punishment. Comitemembers protested to this Committee that the parent meetings and other actions by school representatives were structured to elicit responses from parents that would support the administration's proposed course of action. They cited a home questionnaire distributed in November 1972, where parents had a choice of checking "(1) Suspension, (2) Spanking, or (3) Other (explain)" as their recommendation for punishment for a variety of offenses. They complained that teachers and administrators conducted and controlled parent meetings and provided only occasional Spanish translations at such meetings. The parent meetings were generally poorly attended. However, a December 11 Board meetihg on the subject drew a large audience and, according to a news article in the Santa Maria Times, "broke up in disorder" on a number of occasions when the issue of corporal punishment was being debated. 32 At its January 8, 1973, meeting, the Board adopted a discipline policy which includes corporal punishment for all grades except the seventh and eighth. Superintendent McKenzie told Committee staff that suspensions can be substituted for spankings in cases where individual students' parents specifically request that corporal punishment not be used on their children. McKenzie added that "only two spankings'' have been administered this year, and that the Board policy will be reviewed at the end of this school year. 33 IV. PATTERN OF REPRISAL During this Committee's initial investigation into the educational system in Guadalupe, investigators noted that (1) several witnesses who had complaints against the school district were reluctant to meet with our representatives to discuss them; (2) of those who did speak to Committee staff initially, many expressed the fear that they would in some way be marked for retribution if they spoke at the public hearing; and (3) many described recent negative personal experiences which they attributed to their previous public criticism of the schools. The experiences included arrests, loss of job, reprimands from supervisors at work, and threats of deportation. Individuals who had been active since the first of the year with the Comit~ Consejero de Los Padres de Familia particularly felt that they had been singled out for reprisal. Although some of these individuals did speak at the public hearing, the failure of others to do so was a principal factor in the Committee's decision to return to Guadalupe to conduct additional interviews and to meet in closed session with more witnesses. Even then, some potential witnesses declined to talk with our representatives out of what they expressed as personal fear. The site of the October closed session was moved from a contemplated private room in the civic building on Guadalupe's main street to a less conspicuous location. 34 Ten persons had been arrested on charges of disturbing a public meeting and disturbing the peace following a stormy Parent-Teachers Club meeting in the Obispo Street School auditorium on March 16, 1972. Because of the significant relationship between these arrests and other schoolcommunity discord, as well as claims that the arrests were selective and in reprisal to community efforts at organizing, this Committee heard several witnesses on the incident. Six of those individuals who were arrested spoke to the Committee. The Committee also interviewed complaining witnesses: Mrs. Annette Stewart and Mr. and Mrs. Fausto Regusci; Gerald A. Sperry, the Assistant District Attorney who filed the criminal complaints; Municipal Judge Richard c. Kirkpatrick, who tried the case; Defense Attorney William H. Carder; and Probation Officers Roger Hubbard and Frank Godinez, who submitted their reports and sentencing recommendations to Judge Kirkpatrick. 35 From these interviews, the following chronology is prepared: After much community organizing activity by members of the Comit~ Consejero de Los Padres de Familia early in 1972, the Parent-Teachers Club invited Melchior Ocampo, a lecturer for the John Birch Society, to address a PTC meeting on the "real truth" behind the Chicano movement. Announcements of the event were posted in Guadalupe. Many Mexican Americans protested that a "political" speaker should not be permitted to use a parent-teacher group meeting in the school auditorium as a platform for his views. PTC leaders disagreed that he was "political!' Superintendent McKenzie stated that the store owners who posted signs advertising the event were threatened with damage to their property unless they removed them. The March 16 meeting was attended by approximately 300 persons, including a sizeable number from Santa Maria. Reportedly acting on information that "the UFWOC, Brown Berets and MECHA (the Mexican American student organization active at Santa Maria's Allan Hancock Community College) would attempt to disrupt the meeting," several plain-clothes sheriff's officers were inside the auditorium. Others, in uniform, were outside. Ten sheriff's units and the Guadalupe Police Department were at the scene, according to Sperry, and three California Highway Patrol units were in the vicinity. Because of the shouting, booing and clapping at the meeting, Ocampo was not able to make his speech and was escorted out. There was no violence or other physical confrontation at any time, although some Anglos left "in fear of their lives," Sperry said. No police report was written at that time. 36 Sperry said that he contacted the sheriff's office about a week later and told them that he wanted to take some action against the leaders of the "group" that went to the meeting and created the disturbance. He asked for an investigation. Sheriff's investigators talked with Mrs. Stewart and Mrs. Regusci and other members of the PTC and Guadalupe residents. On April 5, following the sheriff's investigation, Sperry mailed citation letters to 10 persons, charging them with disturbing the peace and disturbing a public meeting. Before the trial, the District Attorney's office learned that one of the suspects (who had been personally identified by a sheriff's deputy as creating a disturbance) was not at the meeting that night, so charges against him were dropped. The remaining nine were defended by William H. Carder of Salinas, an attorney with the United Farm Workers Organizing Committee (UFWOC). He filed an affidavit challenging Robert Stewart, Guadalupe's only regular Justice Court Judge, as fraving a potential conflict of interest. Stewart is the husband of Annette Stewart, a complaining witness who is the principal of the town's Main Street School. The case was moved to Santa Maria, where the trial was conducted August 14-18, 1972. All of the defendants were found not guilty of disturbing the peace; seven were found guilty of disturbing a public meeting; and two were found not guilty of that charge also. On September 20, Municipal Judge Kirkpatrick pronounced the following sentences: 37 The defendant with one prior arrest was given six months in county Jail, suspended, with two years probation; 45 days in county jail as a condition of probation. The six other defendants who were found guilty were all given 90-day jail sentences, suspended, and two years probation. Additionally, one was ordered to serve 10 days in County Jail as a condition of probation and fined $125; another was ordered to serve five days in c'ounty Jail as a condition of probation and fined $75; another was fined $125. The sentences were in accord with the recommendations of Santa Barbara County Probation Department Officers Roger Hubbard and Frank Godinez. Prosecutor Patrick McKinley had sought jail terms for four of the defendants. At the sentencing session, Judge Kirkpatrick commented that "this is one of the hardest cases I've sat on.'' He lectured the defendants on freedom of speech, making references to an incident in Los Angeles the week before where some Mexican Americans interrupted a speech by a United States Senator. He stated that opportunities in the United States are greater than anywhere else for people who want to work to better themselves, and commented that he himself had "bootstrapped" his way through law school. The verdict is presently on appeal • The Comite.. members who were found guilty told the Committee that they felt their arrests were the result of their efforts to bring about change in the Guadalupe schools. In the course of our investigation, other individuals in Guadalupe stated to Committee staff that they themselves had been more boisterous than those singled out for arrest·. Assistant District Attorney Sperry told the Committee: "The Sheriff's Office supplied me with the ten people pursuant to my instructions to ascertain who were the leaders of the organization, not the organization, but the leaders of the group that went there and disturbed the meeting." He added that "there were a few people [;rrested/ whose involvement apparently wasn't as great as what I wanted because they did not actively participate to any degree in excess of what a lot of other people had." Several persons stated that they felt the overall effect of the arrest, conviction and sentencing of seven of the defendants was to stifle the voice of the Mexican American,who had been protesting about school practices in Guadalupe. Attorney Carder said that he expected a few Comit~ members to remain active--perhaps even become more militant--but that the actions would serve to frighten the majority. "In terms of popular support, you have to go back and start over," he said. "Little by little, you pick up people who are willing to work and commit themselves to the struggle, but you have to go back and reorganize people who are scared off whenever there's an arrest or any kind of confrontation." Carder was asked what the relationship between the farm workers union and the Comit~ was. "So far as I know," he said, "the education conunittee is not officially connected with the union, but a lot of the same people are involved." 39 He said that he felt that the farm workers' union had shown them that "not only farm workers, but the poor people, can build an organization that has an impact. (It) has convinced them that they can do it not only on the job and improve their wages, but they can organize to improve their schools. They can do a number of things." A Commission staff investigator reported that after the arrests, he encountered a group of Mexican American women outside an alreadyconvened Guadalupe Board of Education meeting. They inquired in Spanish whether he was going inside. When he responded that he was, they asked if they could go in with him. To his comment that it was a public meeting and they were entitled to attend, they replied that they didn't want to be arrested and would go in only if they could go in with him. David Sanchez, Director of the Ethnic Studies Department at California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, commented to the Committee on his feeling that: "The sentencing of the Guadalupe Seven has put a damper on some of the people who were really involved in trying to get people to attend school meetings and start asking questions. It has scared many people away." Other witnesses who made reference to fears and threats of reprisal included: A college student who was born in Mexico of United States parents. (He returned to the United States with them at age 8, and the family assumed that, as the son of U.S. born parents, he was automatically a 40 United States citizen.) He stated that after he became active in Chicano education issues in the Santa Maria and Guadalupe areas, he was told that he was here illegally, threatened with deportation and informed that he was responsible for $1500-$2000 back tuition fees as a "foreign student." The incident was settled, he said, when he agreed to transfer from that college. A Mexican American employee in the Guadalupe School District. She told ·the Committee that when she objected to a male teacher's abusive treatment of Mexican American children last year, he responded that he would continue to hit the children whenever he wanted, and that she would be "sorry" if she pursued the subject. A Santa Barbara County employee who formerly worked with the school district. Following the threatened walkout of Obispo Street School students, she said that she was accused by a school administrator of being connected with the incident and "trying to start a riot." The administrator contacted her supervisor and she was called on the carpet, she said, and instructed to stay out of Guadalupe. The director of a drug rehabilitation and education program in Santa Maria. He told the Committee: "I was appointed as an advisor to the Comite. I started meeting with them and pretty soon I found out that my employer was getting information that I was sort of agitating the kids and that I was a Communist. Apparently the purpose of this information was to get me fired." 41 Later, the same director was arrested while giving a college lecture, as an invited speaker, for "possession of narcotics." As is the practice of police and other lecturers, he used imitation drug powders and real marijuana in the presentation. He felt that the arrest was also related to his community activities with the Comite, he said. -A Community Action Commission worker. She wrote the Committee that two years ago, when she and a co-worker were observers in a class for mentally retarded in Guadalupe, a child was struck for no apparent reason by the teacher. The Community Action Commission worker reported it to the principal. Later--she told the Committee--she was called in by her superior and reprimanded for being a trouble maker. -Community persons also stated to the Committee that when they held their own meetings, a school administrator would be parked in front of their meeting places on some occasions, writing down the names of tholE individuals taking part. Others described what they considered to be a "web of power" against which it was futile to fight. Family relationships overlap the schools and the courts and the major employers and the school board, they said. The control of the poor farm laborer was so complete, they charged, that even if his child were seriously injured by a teacher, he would not dare complain. 42 ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS I. General Educational Practices From facts gathered and testimony received by this Committee, two unequivocal conclusions are drawn: Mexican American children in the Guadalupe Union School District have not received an adequate education, nor have they been encouraged to believe in their own worth as students and potentially successful Americans. A historical pattern of prejudice and arrogance on the part of the community power structure, as well as the school, has worked against them. California Department of Education testing instruments show Guadalupe's students scoring close to the top quartile in the critical subject of reading in the first grade; yet, by the sixth grade, they are with the bottom six percent of the state. Illustrative of the damaging stereotyping of the Mexican American student in Guadalupe is this comment to Committee staff by a teacher of many years service with the district: "My Anglo students learn quicker. I don't know if it's environment or heredity." Classes for the mentally retarded have been Guadalupe's traditional receptacle for Mexican American students, and there are administrators remaining in the district today who commented to Committee staff that recent, more stringent State laws on placement of students in such classes have "harmed" the many Mexican American students whom the district was forced to r,emove from those stigmatized classrooms. The mentally retarded classes, although considerably smaller now, are still 100 percent Mexican American. 43 Judging from current State standards and existing facilities, teacher salary scales and physical necessities in the district have been given inadequate attention by the Board. The Committee suspects that land and taxes and crops have been considered more important than the educational survival of children, particularly Mexican American children. It is the view of this Committee that those Mexican Americans in Guadalupe Who found pride in their cultural heritage and sought to retain and build on it were systematically cut off from the schools. They were either ignored or discredited--and blamed for the educational failures of the schools with their children. One Mexican American witness told the Committee that his name was used, without his knowledge, by the district for several years (19661970) as a "member" of a federally-required Title I Program community advisory committee. "I was unaware that I was 'serving' on a committee and was not invited to any meetings, if meetings were held," he said. One Anglo teacher with many years' tenure gave this Committee the following explanation as to What has happened to Guadalupe's Mexican American students: The general feeling is that if other children are surviving in this school's environment, Mexican American children should, too. That's what they call equal educational opportunity••• Because of discrimination and inferior treatment, the Mexican American child in the Guadalupe district has not received an equal 44 educational oppo+tunity. Contrary to the complaints of some community "leaders" and district administrators, the district's failures with the Mexican American child do not lie with the child himself or with his parents. The full burden for the failures must rest with those who designed them. As its first recommendation, the Committee asks the United States Office of Education to initiate a review of the district's educational practices as they relate to Mexican American students, and to seek legal remedies for any unequal application of the law through the United States Department of Justice. Such a review could be conducted with assistance from the State Department of Education and should include an investigation as to whether there is adequate policing of federally-funded programs in the district. II. Staffing Practices Little can be said in defense of a school district that is 76 percent Mexican American in student population, yet has only one Mexican American teacher on its regular teaching staff. Much of the burden for the failure of the Guadalupe School District to educate Mexican American children lies with this imbalance, and all that it implies. It is, perhaps, the most glaring imbalance of any school district in the state today. It is an incredible situation made even more bizarre by the statement of the School Board President--the Mexican American School Board President--that he sees no advantage in having Mexican American teachers. There is no evidence before this Committee that any significant efforts were made by the administration, staff or School Board to understand the unique bilingual, bicultural child or that child's potentially rich world until strong pressures were applied. As its second recommendation, the Committee urges that"the recruiting and hiring of bilingual, bicultural Mexican American personnel at all professional levels be given the highest priority, and that those administrators and teachers remaining in the district who lack Spanish language skills and the cultural sensitivity to work with the bilingual, bicultural community be required to take steps to gain these skills and that cultural awareness. 46 III. CofPoral Punishment In California's prisons, punishments involving the use of physical force are expressly forbidden. A California Youth Authority directive governing the care of state wards, from runaways to murderers, from teenagers to 25-year-old men, directs: "Use of physical force (corporal punishment) in any form as a discipli~e technique, other than to restrain, is prohibited•.•Violation of this policy may be grounds for suspension or dismissal.•." The California Youth Authority's .list of forbidden punishments specifically includes push-ups, arm twisting, slapping, gagging, excessive marching, washing of mouth with soap, and ducking of head in water. If half of the allegations this Committee has heard with regard to the treatment of 6 and 9 and 12-year-old Mexican American students in the public schools of Guadalupe are true, we must conclude that prisoners in our penal institutions fare better than they do. Practices which apparently have been common for years in Guadalupe's scho~ls I include many which are strictly forbidden and cause for dismissal in our State's prisons. It is this Committee's conclusion that the district has an obsession to punish excessively in maintaining discipline, and that this tragic fault has come close to destroying it as an educational institution. What has it done to the children it was created to serve? 47 A theme which recurred in this Committee's conversations with the powers of the district and the community was: "If we teach the children nothing else, we teach them discipline." We accept that as a fitting commentary on what has happened. According to these same persons, Guadalupe's graduates traditionally have had areputation for being "the best behaved" group of new students to enter the Santa Maria high school to which they are assigned. What initially shocked this Committee was that the community's leaders permitted the schools to indulge their obsession for corporal punishment and discipline. But as we came to know the community better, it occurred to us that its leadership not only condoned it, but in all probability was the real motivating force behind it. We remembered Dr. Theodore Parsons' .words: "The school is a sub-structure within the larger social structure of the community •.• It is an interdependent part••• (Its) personnel can be expected to reproduce, covertly or overtly, their normal social relationships within the constricted framework of the school." It is our suspicion that in Guadalupe the Mexican American is regarded as an inferior being, and that he--like an animal of labor--is expected to behave stupidly occasionally and to need a good switching to set him straight. The Mexican American student appears to be regarded as devoid of culture and less capable of acceptable social behavior. 48 (It was pointed out that at one Guadalupe school, forks were not given to students eating in the cafeteria. Explanations related to the Committee were ''How can you expect children to use forks if they use tortillas at home?" and "They'd just use them to stab one another.") In the process of our investigatio~and hearings, we have received a substantial amount of information concerning practices in the district which, to our surprise, have not been brought to the attention of the Credentials Committee of the State Commission for Teacher Preparation and Licensing in the past. As our third recommendation, we request that the Credentials Committee of the State Commission for Teacher Preparation and Licensing initiate a complete investigation into the disciplinary practices within the district. We offer to meet with representatives of the Commission and to share our files with its investigators. Sufficient evidence of excessive discipline was uncovered, we feel, to warrant a thorough study by body a with authority to take appropriate professional and legal action. 49 With this report, the Committee does not condemn the entire professional staff of the district. Some teachers obviously abhorred what was happening•.Some related their own unsuccessful personal efforts to discourage the use of excessive corporal punishment to the Committee, In view of past abuses, the School Board certainly should promulgate a policy forbidding the use of corporal punishment. This is our fourth recommendation. This Committee also feels that the district needs immediate outside assistance in coping with its discipline policies. A counteraction is setting in which can only serve to intensify the problem. Therefore, as its fifth recommendation, the Committee asks that the professional staff of the district be retrainedto handle disciplinary problems in a more positive manner, rather than use negative reinforce ment of undesirable behavior. 50 IV. Pattern of Reprisal An Anglo teacher with many years service in the Guadalupe School District described the town: "You're on a little island here. You're not in the United States. You have to realize that." * * A former teacher described the parent-teacher relationship: ''With most parents, it's a relationship of fear." * * A high school girl from Santa Maria drove a station wagon bearing the sign, "Marching to the Music of 'El Chicano.' Viva La Raza!" (in reference to a popular Mexican American musical group and its latest album) in last year's 16th of September Independence Day parade in Guadalupe. The entry won a prize, but the wife of a Guadalupe Board of Education member objected to the sign as being un-American. At her school the girl was called into the principal's office to explain the incident. * * "The definition of gross ignorance? 144 Mexicans." In the teachers' room of a Guadalupe school, the laughter stopped abruptly When one of its few Mexican American staff members walked in the door as the punch line was being delivered. * * For two days, this Committee listened to testimony about the schools and the community of Guadalupe. For many more days, Committee and Commission staff investigators interviewed people in their homes and on their jobs. 51 We came to investigate complaints against the schools. But with each succeeding interview it became harder to view the schools without viewing the whole community. We came to find out what rights were being denied the town's Mexican American students. We leave wondering whether the Mexican Americans of Guadalupe have any rights at all. We have visited many other communities in California and examined many other problems relating to civil rights. But never have we come close to seeing such absolute corruption of human rights and human dignity as we have seen here. From the evidence we have seen relating to the 10 arrests at the Guadalupe PTC meeting, and the sentences recommended and imposed on the seven persons who were found guilty, it is a crime to be a Mexican American and a greater crime to be a non-citizen. On the day when the assistant district attorney issued citation letters charging the original 10 with disturbing a public meeting, he wrote a letter to an inquiring State Senator describing not what the individuals reportedly did, but rather what Mexican American organization they belonged to, and whether or not they were citizens of the United States. His letter described the suspects with the following phrases: "Currently applying for citizenship, head of the Education Committee (Comit~) from Guadalupe which is sponsored by and receives financial contributions from UFWOC ••. active in UFWOC •• a Brown Beret member •••member of UFWOC ••• active in many organizations and deeply involved in UFWOC •••member of the Brown Berets••• connected with UFWOC ...not a citizen of the Uni'ted States, connected with UFWOC ••• connected with UFWOC •••not ·a citizen of the United States and connected with UFWOC." (See Appendix E) Comments on the suspects in the Sheriff's Offense Report (See AppendixF) similarly relate as much or more to the Mexican American club or union affiliations and citizenship status of the suspects than to their behavior at the meeting. A sampling: "Suspect 416: Upon contacting witnesses Rugsci (sic) and Monte~, it was learned that listed suspect was one of individuals making much of the disturbance. Mrs. Rugsci (sic) stated that suspect #6 was sitting near the front door, and would stand up with hands to.mouth and yel'l. It was also learned that the suspect is involved with UFWOC and is very vocal about his political feelings. It was also found that Ortiz, suspect #6, is not a citizen of this country. Suspect is connected with UFWOC. "Suspect #7: Officer Ortega advised this officer that he had observed listed suspect making a disturbance at the meeting by yelling at the speaker; suspect is known to Dep. Ortega and this officer as a member of the Brown Berets. Suspect was a member of a large crowd many of whom were also Brown Berets. "Suspect 418: Mr. Mel O'Campo (sic) and witness Montez related that they observed suspect sitting in the back of the room with another suspect in this case, suspect #9, Mary Cota Vaca. According to Mr. O'Campo and Montez, both suspects were yelling loudly and seemed to be very 'worked up.' Suspect connected with UFWOC." Ironically, Suspect #7, Angel Fierro, who was well known to the deputy who singled him out as one of the leaders of the disturbance, was nowhere near the meeting that night. When this knowledge eventually reached the district attorney's office, charges against him were dropped. Nineteen-year-old Sammy Gonzalez was one of those found guilty. Testimony at the trial was that he never left his seat, but he was seen hollering. Sammy denied creating any disturbance. 53 Sammy's probation report reads like letter of recommendation for a college scholarship or nomination for "Young Man of the Year" award: He's attending college and helping to support his mother and brothers and sisters by working in the packing sheds. He wants to be a lawyer. He doesn't drink or smoke and already he ran for public office--unsuccessfully for Guadalupe City Council. He worked with the County Delinquency Prevention officer in helping establish community and recreation programs in Guadalupe. But he also belonged to the Comite. He explained why in his Defendant's Statement in the report: "It started when I went to a meeting about two months (ago). The people who were speaking told how the teachers in Guadalupe were treating their children and that they were not teaching them anything. They were pointing out certain times when children were being beat up and showing us facts about the dropout rate of kids from Guadalupe, due to the lack of a good education. Well, I decided to help out because I knew this was true, because I went to that school and I saw a lot of my friends get beat up. Well, I said to myself, now is a good time to stop this kind of treatment, because I didn't want my two younger brothers and their friends to go through what we went through there. And I didn't do anything at that meeting. The reason they picked me out is because I became an active person in wanting to change this kind of treatment." Sammy's probation officer, Roger Hubbard, told this Committee about the boy's interest in law and probation work. Hubbard had recommended that Sammy serve five days in jail and pay a $75 fine for his role in the disturbance. A Committee member asked Hubbard why he recommended jail time. "I really felt that knowing Sammy a little bit, indirectly, through his work with probation, that it wouldn't hurt him to see the inside of a jail. .. ," Hubbard responded. 54 Although none of the defendants' cases involved drinking and none had records indicating a drinking problem, Hubbard and Godinez included, as a condition of probation, that all seven must "refrain from the use of intoxicating liquors, including wine and beer." When the defense attorney protested such a condition at the sentencing session, the Judge changed the condition to "excessive drinking." The Committee notes these peculiarities of justice here because they seem to reflect an official indifference--even at the county level-to what happens to Mexican Americans in Guadalupe. The Mexican American in Guadalupe has a right to an equal education and equal protection under the law. From our investigation, it is questionable whether he is getting either. A breakdown in the community's system of education and administration of justice appears to have created a massive denial of civil rights and spawned a pattern of reprisal against those who protested that denial. Racism and rancor have become etched into the character of the conununity. As our sixth and final recommendation, we urge the United States Department of Justice to investigate this apparent pattern of civil rights violations and to take necessary action to insure that those rights are restored. A FINAL COMMENT Is Guadalupe unique? In the particulars of its unwholesome story, it undoubtedly is. But there are too many similarities in complaints which this Committee has received concerning treatment of Mexican American students and families in other rural California communities to allow us to assume that it is an exception. There are too many elementary school districts in California-rural and 50 percent or greater in Mexican American population--with educational achievement records as bad as or worse than Guadalupe's. Our immediate hope is that this report brings about some desperately needed change in Guadalupe. We carry an additional hope that it will have an impact and a positive influence in other communities where the shoe also fits. APPENDIX A 323 TABLE 7 -Continuod C;::lifor.nia Str.iti; Te-.>tmg Program, 1959.. 70 Pen:entile f\ank·:i 3r..j t>Jcrrna!i:r.•..;-d St~nd.1nj Sron~s fer Achievement Test Scorr.:s .~:;{j O~her Schoo! fz.c~Gr-z. for AI! Ca!iforniu Sd'tC;:j~ Districts .:-.::..1--------=.::..-=--==..::::_-==.:-=.:-.:-_=:====-=-.::r= t S.I\NTA BARBARA -GOLETA UN_l_UN_~LE~'-k:~RY SANTA aARBARA -GUADALUPE FACTOR GROUP SCHOOL DISTRICT FACTORS VALUE 23 # l RANK I ~EADING RAW SCORES GRADE 1 23.4 72 65 0.4 XX GRADE 2 40.3 57 49 o.u GRADE 3 57.0 36 29 -0.6 I IXX ACHIEVEMENT TEST RAW SCOReS ' GRADE 6 -READING 4.4. a I 6 7 -1 • .5 I xxlxxx:r -LANGU~GE ..so. 8 24 211 -o.a I ixxx-1' -SPELLING 2 2o1 1 57 49 o.o -MATHEr-lAT!CS 65.7 I 20 16! -i.O GRADE 12 -READING -LANGUAGE I t"j -SPELLING -MATHEMATiCS READING PROGRESS SCOOcS J l GRADE 2 I · i ,1 GRADE ONE BASE -·G.~. 1.8 781 0.7 l xxxl \ MONTHS OF PROGRES~ 6.3 1 36' 28 i -0.6 GRADE 3 GRADE ONE SA$2 -S.~. t.7 I 551 I IXXI I ! 51 I o. o MONTHS OF PROGRES3 15. o 1 391 35, -0.4 ! IXXf I I OTHER SCHOOL FACTO I j I l MINIMUM TEACHER ~ s 7,199 I 831 741 0.6 ! ! ~XX i I MA~IMUM TEACHER D s 1o,8oo I 511 361 -0.4 MEDIAN TEACHER ~ ! xx; I j s 9,375 1 601 0.3 I 'I ::l:x AVERAGE CLASS SI 631 I 24o 2 I 29 261 -0.6 I I xx; i i PUPIL-TEACHER At J ~-B 26.6 1 44 -0.2 ! I x.t i I NONTEACHING PERS "EL 12.9:C' 9t 661 o. 4 GENERAL FUND TAX RA~E I' ! I txx I "I $ 2.92" 87 691 GENERAL PURPOSE T~x ~ATE 0.5 I i *X")( I s 2.51 911 76 0.7 I I ~XXXl ASSESSED VALUATIO~ I ADA s a, 688 . 101 -1.3 I ~xxx.t 1 1 MINORITY ENROLLMENT 80.21: 1 98 2.1 !jl I I ~XXJqxX~X INDEX OF FAMILY POVE~TY s 94 I 69.30 .,· 981 2.1 SCHOLASTIC ABILITY I rxx1.xx1x GRADE 6 GRADE 12 8s.o I 61 -~,-1.4 xx:xxxt I 1 I I I I I . I PUPIL ~OBILITY I GRADES 1-8 .a2 I GRADES q-12 I :~I ~=~ O.'t :I ~XX Ii I I RAfE OF STAFF TURN ,_ EXP~~O!TURES-INS R./~0~: s 1a. a I 111 141 0.6 . l ~XX I ~!GULAR ADA -GRAD 5 1-!~ L 481 1 741 HI -0~31 I X~ I 633 1 441 491 o.o I ! r 1 1 APPENDIX B TABLE 9 Profiles of School District Performance. California State Testing Program. 1970-1971 DISTRICT VARIABLES I SANTA BARBARA -GUADALUPE UNION ELEM State percentile ranks 1;l .., of of pre-r::: district dieted fl median score r::: ranges § 1970-'t 0 Output factors 71 &! ~9 Reading test scores: Grade 1 ..................... 23.4 22.5 65 52 11-39 A 000 00 Grade 2 ..................... 40.3 27.2 49 57 12-35 fl. 00 0 Grade 3 ..................... 57.0 66.2 29 65 10-37 1-. 000 0 I\ Achievement test scores: Grade6 Reading ............. 44.8 49.8 7 14 11-30 w 011110 0 Language ............ 50,8 53.3 21 34 H-43 w 0 GIO Spelling ............. 22.1 23.0 49 71 24-53 A 00 Mathematics ......... 65.7 70.7 16 44 19-42 A 0 0111 Grade 12 Reading ............. ------------- Language ............ ------------- Spelling ............. ------------- Mathematics ......... ------------- District values State percentile ranks of district values 1969-1970· 1969-70 =(0) 1970-71 =(X) Both= S Input factors 1969-70 1970-71 70 71 1 25 50 75 99] ' Minimum teacher's salary•......... $7,199 $8,099 74 89 ~ X Maximum teacher's salary ......... $10,800 $11 '700 36 40 ox Median teacher's salary............ $9,375 $10,013 60 60 s Average class size grades 1-3 ........ 24.2 25•. 6 26 40 X Pupil-teacher ratio grades 4-8 ...... 26,6 27.3 44 50 0 Percent nonteaching personnel ..... 12.9 12.1 66 61 General fund tax rate ............ $2.92 $3,07 (,9 69 IX~ General purpose tax rate .......... $2.51 $2,50 76 74 Assessed valuation per unit a.d.a..... $8,688 $8,943 10 10 s Percent minority pupils, total ...... 80.2 86,1 98 99 I OX Percent American Indian ........ o.o o.o 17 19 s Percent Negro ................ 1.5 0.8 76 68 X Percent Oriental .............. 4.1 4.3 96 97 ox Percent Spanish-surnamed ....... 74.5 75.7 99 99 s Index of family poverty .......... $69.30 $61.64 98 95 I X 0 Sclholastic ability: Grade 6 ..................... 88.0 87.~ 8 9 s Grade 12 .................... --------Pupil mobility: Grades 1-8 ................... .82 ,85 64 0 Grades 9-12 .................. ------V1 ~~I Rate of staff turnover ............ 18.8 17.6 74 81 f ~x I -..! Expenditures instruction/unit a.d.a... $481 $536 37 42 lox Regular a,d.a grades 1-12 .......... 683 705 49 49 APPENJ:)IX C Januaxy 7, 1972 }~. Leslie nrinegar Associate Superintendent California State Departcent o£ iuucation 721 Capitul Hall Sacramento, California 95814 Dear Hr. Brine1;ar: In accordance with Education Code Section 6902.095, we submit the follot\Ting report concerning the ethnic breakdown of child"n placed in speci~l education classes ior the mentally retarded in tue two programs aumiuiatered by the Santa ilarbara County Scl1ools Office. Mexican American A. Caucasian As:terican Ner.ro Indicn Other Solvan~ 4 0 0 0 0 Guadalupe 0 20 0 0 0 n. \le ho.ve placed no new pupils in our El-tR progrems this year. Explanation: The ethnic composition oi all of the pupils enrolled in the Guadalupe Union School uistrict is as follows: Total minority 87 .2Z Spanish Surnll!De 75.9% Hezro o.n Oriental 4.0:t Ault:rican Indian 0.0% Other non-white 6.4: I have no explanation for the 24.1% disparity between the 75.9% Spanish surname c~position of the Guadalupe school population and the 100% Spanish surname co~position of. our ~tR population in that area. The ~bove-noted clisp~rity has :~.lways existed in the r-rogrL!.r.l. One year we had two ne~ro pupils ~nd auoth~r year one c~ucasian, and one year an Oriental. Otherwise the classes have been C:Otlposed entirely of HexicanAmeric:an pupils. Mr. Lealie Brinegar 2 Jaliuaxy 7 • 1972 Whether this grosa disparity is causeu by differential ratea of teacher reterrals or by g~nerally lowereu levels of ability alUong this ethnic minority sroup of children. I am at a loss to say. It may also be associated with the use of inappropriate test instrwtents, the efforts of A%lo teachers ou Chicano children, linguistic i.Jl:poverishment, depressed levels of parent expectancy, inauequate oiets of pregnant wothers, inadequate prenatal care, hi~llcr re1tes CJf birth tra~a, and the overall effects on children's learning of the depressed socio-economic suo-culture or this ethnic group in the Guadalupe area. I have always been puzzled by this phcnor.1cnon and would be deeply grateful for any thinking on your part or e~planations or iaeas that you could share with ~e to help ~e better co ~nderstand this matter. Siucurely yours~ Alton L. S01fford, Ed.D. ~ Coor~inator of Special tducation ALS:mat APPENDIX D STATE OF CAUFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 117 WEST FIRST STREET, LOS ANGELES 80012 January 24, 1972 Dr. Alton L. Safford Coordinator of Special Education Santa Barbara County Schools Office of the Superintendent 4400 Cathedral Oaks Rd. P.O. Box 6307 Santa Barbara, California 93111 Dear Alton: Your letter of January 7 to Mr. Brinegar ~as been referred to me for attention. Your report in accordance with Education Code Section 6902.095 was the first one we received. We really hadn't expected to ask for these reports until probably May of this year, but we certainly appreciate your getting your report in early. I think you have described well the 24.1% disparity between the 75.9% Spanish surname composition of the ~uadalupe School population and the 100% Spanish surname composition of your EMR class. If something could be done concerning the prenatal and postnatal care of these children, and some way to improve their diets as well as the other items you mention, I am sure this difference would disappear. Thank you very much again for your report. I will be looking forward to seeing you soon. Sincerely, 6:/ Clif 'Lyock Consultant in Education of the Mentally Retarded CS:fp 213 -620-4224 APPENDIX E BRANCH OFFICE OF THE 61 DISTRICT ATTOI\NEY SANTA BARBARA COUNTY 312 E. COOK STREET P.O. BOX 1068 SANTA MARIA, CAL.IFORNIA 93454 PHONE 922·78'31 DAVID MINIER GERALD A. (JE:RRY) SPERRYDISTRICT A1TORNEY ABSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY April 5, 1972 COURT HOUSE Honorable Robert J. LagomarsinoTwenty-Fourth Senatorial DistrictState Capitol, Room 5080Sacramento, California 95814 Dear Senator Lagomarsino: In response to your letter of March 22, 1972, directed to Mr. David Minier, District Attorney of the County of Santa Barbara, regarding the disturbance at Guadalupe grammar school on March 16, 1972, please be advised that this office on this date filed a criminal complaint alleging violation of Section 403 of the Penal Code, Count I, Disturbing a Public Meeting, and violation of Section 415 of the Penal Code, Count II, Disturbing the Peace, against the apparent leaders of the disruption. Those individuals are: Augustina Gutierrez, currently applying for citizenship, head of the Education Committee from Guadalupe which is sponsored by and receives financial contributions from UFWOC; Carmen Magana, active in UFWOC; Sammy Gonzales, a Brown Beret member; J.lllargarito Cabello, member of UFWOC; Manuel Echavarria, active in many organizations and deeply involved in UFWOC; Jesus Ortiz, no·t a citizen of the United States, connected with UFVlOC; Angel G. Fierro, member of the Brown Beret; Juanita Estorga, connected with UFWOC; Mary Manrigues Cota vaca, connected with UFWOC7 Honorable Robert J. Lagomarsino Page Two April 5, 1972 Fermin Sepulveda, not a citizen of the United States, connected with UFWOC. Letters are being issued to each one of these individuals directing them to appear in Guadalupe Justice Court for arraignment on April 13, 1972, at 10:30 a.m. Thank you for the information supplied and the assistance given by your field representative. This office will keep you informed of any and all developments. very truly yours, DAVID D. MINIER District Attorney __./<;'::::._'~ .:~' ·;/ (:) ' . ;~---) .. ::::-:: -(. :..' B~: ___ G.erald A~>Sp~~;;·----~~ Assistant District Attorney cc: Mr. Herb Ashby Assistant Attorney General 500 Wells Fargo Bank Bldg. Fifth Street and Capitol r-'lall Sacramento, California 95014 rtr. David D. Minier District Attorney llf1 g. F' i~rucroa Santa Barbara, california 93104 APPENDIX F ! AGE/0.0,8. RES:DENCE ADDRESS =~;,:::..;:..::.-..:-.c: Det. R. Gardner IJ H Adult SOS0,1SI·l Substiltlon I~1E1-£3:~. I I 9. PERSON WHO DISCOVERED .CRIME AbOV;:l lotO'N IN\o'OLVE::· 10. PRINCIPALS CONT. MADE Lt. ~lersr.an SfJSO/SH Substation i 7-6; j\ i 7-E.:; :11 D.::t. Rcbledo " " II II II Dco Orteqa •• I 7-6}-:l _/jnn;.t tF• ~ tP>·';.>I"t v ~~ ~ 1\ ,,.,,. .2.G~ Tnnn;,7lnl r..w,-ll \Jl t"'"~"' I ..fBr!> lk>~Z y II f1 AsJ·•tt ~>111~ J'.n~:,·~_£;1 Ultrp~s ~-zr~-:a... II," VEHICLE INVOLVED 0 LICENSE NO, STATE YE.6.R MAKE ~ MODEL COLOR REG/OR LEGAL OWNER RESIDENCE ADDRESS RES. PHONESUSPECT VEHICLE D 10 NUMBER CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY OR THE PERSON 12. EXACT Of OR VICTIM AT TIME OffENSE 16. INSTRUMENT USED (DESCRIBE) OR {C'EAPO.\, !"O~CE OR.\:...:.,...;,·--~ ['SF: LOCATION PROPERTY Of 17. APPARENT MOTIVE PROPERTY TAKEN ()R ACT C0.\f.\ff1T£/) 13. POINT OF ENTRY OR APPROACH To c!srUJ.'t public rneetlnq 14. OCCUPANTS OR VJC1'/M(5) ACTIVITY AT TIME Of OfFENSE 18. TRADEMARK Of SUSPECT(S} ACTION OH EXACI '~lORDS L'S£t) '9. ~DOL CONT. RACE MADE Ho H 1-!o H 'l. M Of SUSPECTS OR PERSONS INVOLVED {B) SUMMARIZE DETAILS Of OCCURRENCE OR .!~"EST (C) DESO:~ !:. :.~y~ :o._ LIST CONTiNUATIONS. (A) fURTHER OESC'R!PTION DETAILS RELATING TO THE CRIME {E) TIME AND ,_CCAI'IO .. '"'KE.~E VICT;~.l. ,.,.7,'E:55:0: :a EVIDENCE, LOCATION FOUND, AND GIVE DISPOSITION (O) SUMMARIZE OTHER PROPERTY. NUMB::=<.:; .:..':'! o--:;:::. OR S: BE CONTACTED BY DAY INVESTIGATORS, IF NO ,lVAILABLE PHONE NUMBERS (F) ITE'MIZE AND DESCRIBE LISTlN!:i ALL S!:Ri.!..L MAR-KS OF IDENTIFICATION. (G) lF JUVENILE, ._IST NAME, ADDRESS, PHONE NUMBER AND RELATIONSHIP OF PARENT GUAR;)IAN, W~ZinE.R NOTIFIE:), .!': iF -:• AND BY WHOM. 10 con 1 t: Urs. R. Reguscl, Yes U F Adult, 629 ff2 Simas Rd., S.M. HI tness 21 con 1 t: iJI:29 llolJy, Guad. #3-3035. No 3-1-36 Unk Thin build !llJ:Rrr.. 14. Hargarlto Cabello, 15. Manuel Echavarria, 622 E. Cox, S.H. #5-97~7 Ho M 8-22-l:OUnk ~led v"' ;.; Blkf2r.,, 66. Jesus Ortiz, 629 tl, Sims f\d. S.M. <::Sf!558-B;I_7C.G3 H H Unk {l() 3 U N !':: tl 0 t! N U7. Angel G. Fierro, 1;526 llth St. Gucd. flo fl H 12-2-43 Short 1104' ~iJ:rn. 68. Juanltte:!'r'---=-:: --------------'----;:-::-::-::-=c-:-:c-:-:---=-:-::-=c::':-::-:-c::_"]-f;-·lO-l:r=-':'f" EXCEPTIONAL OISTRtBUTrON IS J..UTHORIZED 1-----------j----Thlltcp1 ulutnishediOtthee•clutiYeunol: EO~ ':!. ond ;, not to be duplicated, copied, or furni•hed to on~ ctl'let person ~ ~~:S~1n',:a:.~<~~: c~:~;~~~~h~~,:f.:·o:;:~~~;,eR~:~~;d\' ~~:;~~·~:.; TO'------------------------------------------------ ;, t.! apparent that th~r~ tlc to he<~r O'Campo even thounh the offlcers \-rore sitting cllri:octl)· ln frvr.t of :111;; and he \-.ils using a public address system. Described beiO\'I are the actions of ltste~ susp"'cts as witnessed by U/S, fello..t officr~rs. and tti tncsses: Su~p_ect !1: As the tet:!pO of the disruption becarce \ ...orscncd, suspact II got up from her scat and appro.Olched the front of the building where O'Ct:r.lpo ~t'm Dcret r.;~mbers at the r.:eeting. ~~c~-~-~:: \Jhl Jc the shouting and yeJ J lng \tus going on, this officer turned and loo\8d at a r.>an uho Hns making a great deal of noise. This offtcer observed a thin mun st.:lnc!ing on the south side of tho building near thG front. tle ttas standing up .:md yelling v:~ry loudly at O'Ccmpo, he \-;as speaking In Sp<:!nlsh but he see1red ve.ry upset. After talking ~:i ti~ above witnesses, It \>laS found that this person was suspect #4. Cabe11o \'li'JS one of the mjor dlst·uptors In the bufldlng or. 3-16-72. Susp.::ct Is il rn~r;;ber of UF'.!OC. Suspect !5: During the meeting, this officer observed suspect yelling and apparently directTng-A(;gustlna Gutierrez to the front of the reo,., where O'C<~:-,;po ~~3s t.:1lklng. Suspect l-Ias sitting near the front of thi! room ncar the front dcor along l'iith oth;;r persons. U;:-on talk! ng HI th the other wl tness~s, It \'IllS found that they toa sa•ns this officer could Se.:l it \4<:\S app;:,n;nt th.o:t he t:::,-1. may be one of the leaders. After O'Ca:q:>o had left the roc~ !>?cause of the r.c,isc, su~p""ct 15 stood up on a table and In front of the croud and ti'llkcd \rlith a large group r~?.pre~:entln~ the BrOl:lS a member of a larg-.; cro·.-d many of \o was attc~1I'ting to s;ck and start yelling at the audience. Suspect was then asked to sit was chased out of the ll'eetlng and they were not a1lc~1;;,d to hear him. It shc;,;la be ~-:~~:; also. that many persons leftthe meeting t-thl le It wasln progress because of tile r.oiB. This copy ;s furn;shed for the exclus;ve use of: DISTRICT ATTORNEY and is r,ot to be duplicated. copied, or furnished to any other person or agency, except as provided by law. without the express permission of the ... Rurbara County Sheriff's Department Records Bureau and is tc-be re • l'"'l~oartment upon demand. 66 APPENDIX G STATEMENT OF RESPONSE TO DEFAME & DEGRADE NOTICE Attached is the statement of response of Kermit McKenzie, Superintendent of Guadalupe Union School District, to the original draft of this report. His review and comments were solicited on February 23, 1973, and forwarded to the Committee through staff on March 30, 1973. The text of Superintendent McKenzie's response is printed verbatim, as are the declarations of Guadalupe School Board members Hugh Maenaga, Aurturo Tognazzini, and Frank Canales; a declaration by Mrs. Mary Tognazzini, wife of Aurturo Tognazzini; and statements by Lorenzo Dall'Anni, Superintendent, Santa Barbara County Schools; and Harold Danenhower, school psychologist for the Santa Barbara County Schools. These were also submitted by Superintendent McKenzie. In his statement, Superintendent McKenzie makes frequent references to the "Commission" (United States Commission on Civil Rights) and the "Committee" (California State Advisory Committee to the United States Commission on Civil Rights), using the two designations interchangeably. This report is a report of the California State Advisory Committee to the United States Commission on Civil Rights; it is not a report of the Commission and in those instances where Superintendent McKenzie refers to the Commission, the reader should infer State Advisory Committee. The statute and the rules and regulations governing the Commission and its State Advisory Committees provide an opportunity of response to any individual or organization who may tend to be defamed, degraded, or incriminated by Commission or State Advisory Committee reports. In the case of statutory reports of the Commission, a right of response is secured by Statute (P.L. 91-521, Nov. 25, 1970, amending 42 u.s.c. 1975a (e)). Response procedures for such non-statutory publications as State Advisory Committee reports are set forth in Commission Administrative Instruction 5-4, It states that the substance of requested responses should be reflected in the final report to the extent that they are relevant. If the response is irrelevant, prejudicial or defamatory, the Committee is under no obligation to attach it. In his response to the draft of the California State Advisory Committee report on Guadalupe, Superintendent McKenzie also included evaluations of other school districts in Santa Barbara County; a list of Federal, county, and other programs in the district; and other informational materials relating to the employment of bilingual and/or bicultural teachers and aides in Federal and county programs in the district. 67 He also included a needs assessment survey of student attitudes and of parent attitudes. These, in the opinion of the Commission's Office of General Counsel, are not relevant to the State Advisory Committee's comments and recommendations in the report, and therefore are not included in this appendix. Based upon Superintendent McKenzie's response and on additional relevant materials and information received by the Committee after the original draft was forwarded to Superintendent McKenzie, the Committee has made the following modifications and additions in the final text of this report. It is including the "Profile of School District Performance, California State Testing Program, 1970-71," as Appendix B. This was published by the California State Department of Education in late January 1973, after the Committee's original draft was completed, It indicates progress in some areas, and lower results in others. (See Footnote 3, page 14 of report.) With reference to Superintendent McKenzie's comment concerning the statement by Lawrence Perales, Chairman of the Santa'Maria chapter of the Association of Mexican American Educators, neighboring Santa Maria Joint Union High School District hired 12 Mexican American teachers for the 1972-73 school year, according to Clark Miller, district director of personnel. Seven were hired at Santa Maria High School, four at the city's other high school, Righetti, and one at Delta Continuation School. The district is presently recruiting an additional 12 Mexican American teachers for the 1973-74 school year. The Committee notes that the Independence Day Parade was held in Guadalupe on September 16, 1972, not July 4, as indicated in the original draft, and that a complaint about a sign reading "Viva La Raza" was made by the wife of a Guadalupe School Board member, rather than the member himself. This is now clarified in the report. The Committee acknowledges that the wife of another School Board member, who is bilingual and bicultural, recently resigned as a teacher's aide in the district. The Committee sees no other ' statements in Superintendent McKenzie's response which contradict the content of its report. In the report, it acknowledged that some teachers and teacher's aides in special Federal and county-initiated programs were bilingual and/or bicultural. However, it has received no information from the Superintendent or any other source to contradict its statement that there is only one bilingual, bicultural Mexican American on the district's regular teaching staff of 37. State Senator Robert J. Lagomarsino's letter to the Santa Barbara District Attorney's Office did not, as implied by Superintendent McKenzie's comments on pages 12 and 13 of his response, request anyinformation relative to the citizenship, union affiliations or Mexican American fraternal affiliations of the individuals who were arrested at the March 16, 1972, Parent-Teachers Club Meeting. Since completing its original draft of the report, the Committee has received new allegations of taping of students' mouths and Qther excessive use of corporal punishment, which it intends to share--in addition to more than 30 other written and transcribed statements it received on the subject--with the Committee of Credentials, California COmmission for Teacher Preparation and Licensing. UNITED STATES COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS --------------------------------------------------------------69 Washington, D. C. 20425 February 23, 1973 Mr. Kermit McKenzie Superintendent Guadalupe Union School District Guadalupe, California Dear Mr. McKenzie: Enclosed you will find a copy of a report of the California State Advisory Committee to the u. s. Commission on Civil Rights on the problems of Mexican American students in the Guadalupe Union School District. As you will remember you were invited to attend a meeting of our State Advisory Committee in Santa Maria. This report summarizes testimony received at that meeting. We hereby offer you the opportunity to comment on information concerning your district by forwarding this advance copy to you. Any response received by us by March 16, 1973, will be included, as appropriate, in the published report. Sincerely, ISAIAH T. CRESWELL, JR. Assistant Staff Director for Field Operations Enclosure Editor's Note: This date was extended, at Superintendent McKenzie's request, to March 31, 1973. GUADALUPE UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT P.O. Box 788 GUADALUPE, CALIF. 93434 March 30, 1973 Mr. Isaiah T. Creswell, Jr. Assistant Staff Director -Field Operations United States Commission on Civil Rights Washington, D. C. 2042 5 Dear Mr. Creswell: Please find enclosed a copy of the Guadalupe Union School District's response to the California Advisory Committee report, "A Legacy of Education Oppression." Because the time for preparation of a response was unreasonably limited, it was not possible to answer all the charges set forth by the commission. There are inferences and innuendos which are not answerable because it is impossible to disprove a non-existent fact. Because much material in the report tends to defame, degrade and incriminate school personnel as a group as well as the entire community, we are hopeful that our complete response, including all appendices will be included in the published report as your letter of February 23, 1973, indicated would be done. Sincer~~-~o.urs, ...?" /• . , ~~ fr6rnit -ivJ;Ie:ve10W!l'It?a1" 9-yslexia: 202 .. .Test~ .~~:;level .of .ability -17 ' ~ •,, , I Educat~_onally meptally retarded, · protta:t>.ly (referred to Special 7 EdtlcJi;t1on Coordinator) .· . . _·-,_.,~ •.' -·.~< ~l\-~Ql"probl~ms 13 ~!1:.and auq1tory perceptual .~};ems 10 278 ·, separately) '. GNOtcHf . .. , ~: ,.:.::...-.. 'All of the conditions did not occur . .-.... -~~--~~cldence of de:vcalopmental dyslexia, or specific language disabillt·t J.Ul:S resulted in extens1ve effective programs, particularly in the prlluary school. The condition, developmental dyslexia, is a netiro:genetic disfunction which interferes with learning to read and spell as traditionally taught. It requires specific remedial pro~ · cedures and techniques. Prognosis is good when condition is detected early. The incidence of this condition in the population at large is thought to be 5% to 15%. It has been observed in every literate nation in the world. It is not specific to Guadalupe, nor is it re --. lated causally to bi-lingualism. The incidence among the children in these schools in this District is thought to be about 20%. This is not thought to be related in any way to the large ethnic "minority". Since the condition is inherited, many of the parents of these children mus·t have it. This is a very great occupational disadvantage (to be unable to read and spell) for adults. Anywhere in the nation, adults with the difficulty gravitate to occupational areas where job re~ quirements do not require reading and spelling. Because of the great number of field worker jobs in the Guadalupe area, it is quite reasonable to assume that there is a larger than usual incidence of people with this difficulty in this area. Thus, the higher than usual incidence. llt~t-Jll••-if1.',_M!y· rcoNdE~: l e;£'973 . During the past four or five years there have been many other programs, some of them continuing to the present, de.sigried to help childreri succeed in school and in life, and to help t~achers help children; i.e., 'The 'ritle VII Bilingual Program, Title T Compensatory Education, Pre~School education. There are several bilingual-bicultural staff members. Infrequently, I have ~itnessed spankings with a ping-pong size paddle applied to the buttocks (one or two swats) of a child in the Principal's office. I have very infrequently seen teachers shake I have not witnessed any agf_"ressjve crutal punish!T'ent. Tt children. may have occurred on occasion, but I can't believe it is a regular thing. I have met and worked with some delightful children, some very capable. I have not experienced "opppession" among children or staff. I have not observed violations of individual rights, nor disregard for the dignity of the individual. In contrast, my experience has been to observe and participate in a good deal of consideration for the well being of individuals~ were evident fro!T' the te3tinc program~, particularly Advance~ among primary grades (K-3), and this is where a great deal of emphasis from Federal and County Programs has been placed during the past few years. There have been wholesome positive changes occuringJ all to thegood. To many of us involved in the work, the results are very re warding. Clearly the California Committee did not wish to report facts about school programs. I '; / K~ I Ld<-~1:./ Harold~wer SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGIST