Equal Participation and Representation in Education: A Chicano Perspective “We are not so naive as to think that the social studies program can solve all of society's problems. We do know, however, that there have been few other times in our nation’s history when it has been more imperative that we teach about our nation’s heritage in its totality.” ~Jack T. Pottle, 1969.1 In 1969 Jack T. Pottle, the director of curriculum development for Denver Public Schools, eloquently stated the importance of incorporating, a true and holistic portrayal of the nation’s heritage and culture into the classroom. Pottle described the vast efforts the Denver School district was implementing in order to have a school system that taught and valued the culture of different people groups. He stated that over 450 teachers were taking university classes, highlighting Latin-American and Afro-American history. Pottle also mentioned a curriculum project titled “Who Am I” aimed at “the development of positive attitudes about self-image” for minorities within the district? It is apparent that in 1969, Pottle saw the necessity for minority histories and culture to be represented in a school curriculum, He recognized that such a perspective would not “solve all of society's problems” but would certainly be a stepping stone in rebuilding trust in communities that had previously been racially divided from one another. Pottle was positive and excited about the direction of Denver Public Schools in regards to its curriculum development but he also saw a glaring need. Pottle stated, “[W]e still suffer from a shortage of books and audio-visual aids dealing with Hispanos—particularly in regard to Hispanic peoples of the Southwest.” Pottle believed this lack of material was minor and could be addressed, * Rocky Mountain News, February 9, 1969, 50 ? Wid. ° Wid,especially considering the traction his district had gained in implementing a curriculum which valued diversity. The issue of Hispanic incorporation and representation into the curriculum however, would prove to be a point of contention for Chicano activists, parents and communities for the next 15 years. It appeared in 1969 that the Denver Public Schools were well on their way to creating a cohesive and inclusive schooling atmosphere for all groups within the city. The conversation shifted however, as a growing Chicano activist community felt itself being ostracized and neglected in its involvement and representation in the public education system, Most activism regarding public education occurred within the Denver court system but was not isolated only to the Denver School district. Many other significant Chicano student populations in Colorado dealt with similar concerns. The major difference that separated the Chicano community in Colorado from other minority groups was a language barrier, For this reason their community faced different hurdles in their fight for equal participation and representation in public schooling than other minority groups. Chicano students had needs as well as desires including the incorporation of their heritage as well as their language into the school curriculum. Chicanos needed to create an argument explaining their very specific needs and the problems associated with the inability to meet those needs. The unwillingness and inability of school administrators and board members in urban Colorado to incorporate Chicano language, history, and culture into public school curriculum inspired a passionate and angry Chicano activism aimed at pursuing effective bilingual-bicultural programs. The desire for educational equality and cultural representation was pursued by Chicanos in the form of lawsuits, enlisting popular support from the mainstream, and involving parents from the Chicano community.Itwas evident, according to Chicano’s, that their needs were not being met by the urban school districts in Colorado in the 1970's and 1980's and that in their struggle Chicanos would have to create an argument to address their specific needs. Tom Romero's in La Raza Latina?: Multiracial Ambivalence, Color Denial, and the Emergence of a Triethnic Jurisprudence at the end of the Twentieth Century and Mark Brilliant’s Color of America Has Changed: How Racial Diversity Shaped Civil rights Reform in California 1941-1978 describe the difficulties Chicano’s faced in trying to bring their language and culture into a public school setting, Previously, equality in education had been defined by lines of color and more specifically dominated by the events of black activism in the Civil Rights movement of the 1960's. Policy and law at this time was largely seen through a binary lens, sifting people into categories of minority/majority or black/white. The Chicanos’ pursuit of education equali did not fit so neatly into these groupings. Their argument was more complicated in that legal language was vague and confusing if one was to use arguments surrounding color, ethnicity, or national origin. Up to this point, primarily in the 1960's, desegregation and the pursuit of equality was primarily seen through a racial vision that was Black and White.* For most Chicanos their vision of equity and equality in educ: n was the representation oftheir language, culture and history due in large part that law had historically considered Latinos to be white. In order to pursue their solution, Chicanos found that they would need to establish themselves as not only non-white but also as non-black and their own distinctive group.5 Romero argues that Chicano students were different than black students “Tom, Romero, i, “éLa Raza Latina?: Multiracial Ambivalence, Color Denial, and the Emergence of a Triethnic Jurisprudence at the end of the Twentieth Century,” New Mexico Law Review 37, (2007) : 274. "Romero. “éLa Raza Latina?”, 275.due to the language barrier. By not providing children the opportunity to learn based on their primary language and knowledge of their culture their assimilation would be incredibly difficult and almost impossible.’ It was not defacto segregation that was the issue but rather the curriculum. Many Chicano students were not able to learn basic skills in their native tongue or learn about their national origin. Mark Brilliant points out that in the Lau vs. Nichols case in 1974 the argument was put forth by the prosecution that “the Equal Protection Clause forbids not only different treatment of similarly situated persons, but also identical treatment of persons who are not similarly situated.’? Brilliant also notes thata different but equally important argument of disproportional Chicano dropout rates was used by activists to point out the inequality of disallowing the same opportunity for Chicanos to succeed in the classroom. Both Mark Bril int and Tom I, Romero point out the difficulty Chicanos faced in arguing for educational equality. Activists has to prove that as a distinctive minority group they had different and specific needs that needed to be met in order that they be provided equal participation and equal representation for their children. As Romero points out the Chicanos’ problem with public education was not one of clearly defined racial discrimination but rather a “discrimination based on retaining sociolingual identity.”? In ‘most cases school districts were teaching a curriculum that only represented a white history. The Chicano community had a deep need and desire to be represented in the © Romero. “éLa Raza Latina?”, 275 7 Mark Brilliant, The Color of America Has Changed: How Racial Diversity Shaped Civil rights Reform in California 11941-1978 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 249. * arillant, The Color of America Has Changed, 231. ? Romero, “éLa Raza Latina?”, 282.school community in a positive light. This would allow their children the opportunity for success both during and upon completion of their schooling. This need for cultural representation was explicitly laid out in 1969 when Colorado submitted its Formal Project Application for its Primary Bilingual Program which was a formal request of the state for federal funding for their bilingual program. Under the heading “Statement of Need” the program funding application it stated: “{W]hen we speak of “our bilinguals,” we do not simply refer to our citizens who speak two languages. We usually refer to a group of people who may be identified by the fact that they...speak Spanish, are of Mexican ancestry and “belong” as an Hispano group. More important than these characteristics...is the extent and depth of the differences which separate the culture of “this” group from that of the dominant group...{t]hese cultural and linguistic differences have...resulted in the creation of barriers, social, psychological and educational. These barriers have made it impossible for the group as a whole to attain the general educational, social and economic level of the dominant social group.”:° It didn’t take long after Pottle’s adi ance of a lack of Hispanic curriculum and this explicit statement of need by the state, for Chicano activists to find fault with the Denver Board of Education. Most of the blame would be placed on the public school administrators as well as the board of education. Nationally, the Chicano community had begun to organize in order to find solutions to their growing problems with language barriers, special education, drop-out rates, and implementation of their history into curriculum. In 1972 an event titled the Institute of Chicano Affairs was to be held by Latino educators in Albuquerque, New Mexico. The intent of the conference was to address Chicano specific issues in education and invite Latino educators nationwide. The event was * ailingual Education Program. Primary Bilingual Education. Formal Project Application. School District No. 1 In the City and County of Denver, June 1969. LARASA Collectionlocally sponsored by the Denver Classroom Teachers Association (DCTA) and from the local population 6 Denver teachers and 3 principals were selected to participate."! The Denver Board of Education decided not to grant leaves of absence to these educators because they felt it would be a “redundant effort” and that the district had already been addressing the issue.!? Chicano educators who were invited to the conference were outraged by this decision. It was a perfect example of the district not being more aggressive and genuine in its attempts to include Chicanos in the educational process. Bob Moore, the DCTA spokesman, stated that all information regarding the nomination of teachers and principals to the conference was available if the administration “had picked up the phone and asked.” This statement suggests that the DCTA expected the district administrators to ask why Latino teachers should be attended such a conference. Instead administrators assumed the conference wasn’t needed and didn’t allow its Chicano teachers to attend. A growing rift of, distrust separated Chicano educators from their administrators “We looked on the institution as a ray of hope,” said Greg Hart a teacher from the West Side Action Center speaking to reporters in reference to the event in Albuquerque “We find your decision (to be) another example of the exclusion of our people from participating in school affairs.”13 Robert Pefia from Fairview Elementary School echoed this sentiment stating that the community needed administr ion that would “deal fairly with Chicano problems."!# Chicano educators cared deeply about the development of their community and knew its future rested on success in the classroom. In order to achieve this success, solutions needed Denver Post, March 24, 1972, 18. » ibid, ibid “biato be found addressing specific Chicano student problems. Due to the increased gap in ideology between Chicano educators and their administration, building a mutual agreed upon solution was far away. One way Chicano activists felt they could further their cause was to garner mainstream support for their movement by describing in detail how they have been neglected by school administration. Sofie Zamora, Chairman of the Board of Latin American Research and Service Agency (LARASA) in Denver, decided to take the lead when she published her arguments in the Denver Post. All of Denver would be notified of what the Chicano community was asking, LARASA was a well known Chicano activist organization which would have been recognized as holding some power by means of the population it represented. Zamora was direct in both her attacks on administrators and her proposed solutions. Zamora brought to attention the fact that since 1967 the annual drop-out rate for Chicano students was 5,000. This was an immense loss, she continued, not only to the Chicano community but also a loss of “human potential” for the community as a whole.!5 Zamora charged the Denver Board of Education with “neglect, or incompetency” stating that it had made no intentional choices or moves aimed at reversing this trend and it was their responsibility as administrators to actively do so. Zamora also adamantly believed that this trend could be reversed. She stated that the “initial thrust” should come from a “Chicano Counselor Corp", a group of Chicano counselors who would be able to mentor young Chicano students.*¢ Zamora believed that Chicano students needed mentors and advocates with whom they could relate. Zamora's evidence showed that distrust had ben breed between Anglos and Chicanos within the school and therefore Chicano students ® Denver Post, April 21, 1973, 26 * ibid,‘would hesitate to listen to the advice of an Anglo counselor. Zamora proposed providing Chicano students with 101 Chicano counselors. These counselors could then give advice and mentorship to Chicano students, helping meet their educational needs. There would be 1 counselor for every 212 students.!? While Chicano activists were seeking solutions to their problems the administration continued half-heartedly if at all implement solutions. Zamora’s solution was presented to the Denver Board of Education. From the board she receive neither a “murmur...nor a moan.”!® For this reason Zamora chose to publish her article and proposed solutions in a newspaper hoping to enlighten the community of this injustice stating, “[T]he Denver Public School system has never concerned itself, and does not now intend to concern itself, with a basic problem in education—the salvage of 5,000 potentially contributory members to an industrial society” Zamora continued *[I}t does not possess the intellectual will to construct an original solution to the special problems of the Chicano and... is not receptive to constructive suggestions from the community.” !9 By submitting her argument to the Denver Post Zamora most readers were aware of the discrimination being subjected to Chicano students. Denver was losing valuable human potential for its workforce and Zamora argued this would have a detrimental effect on Denver's future. While Zamora’s attacks directed towards the Board of Education brought publicity to the needs and demands of Chicano students the equal education movement needed to find a more forcible and practical way than merely publishing their arguments to implementa solutio: ‘The forcible way in which activists chose to further their movement iid. * id, ° ibid,was through the courtroom. The Chicano community felt that “bilingual-bicultural” education could be the solution to their problems and that through the courts they could mandate the incorporation of bilingual-bicultural education. This was how Chicano activists would be able to incorporate their language and culture into the curriculum as well as advocate for those students being left behind. Chicano activists were able to implement their strategy by way ofan important Supreme Court decision and a little-known Colorado Statute. On January 21, 1974 the United States Supreme Court ruled in the Lau v Nichols case that the San Francisco school districts failed in helping Chinese students surmount the language barrier. This was a lation of the fourteenth amendment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.2 The combination of this ruling and a 1969 Colorado Statute built the foundation for a Chicano argument in favor of bilingual-bicultural education. The Colorado statute stated, “It shall be the policy of the state to encourage school districts to develop bilingual skills and to assist pupils whose experience is largely in a language other than English to make effective transition to English.” The statute also dictated that “the history, culture and contributions...of Spanish- Americans shall be taught in public schools of the state.”2t This Colorado statute was nota widely known document but once bilingual-bicultural education gained momentum with the Lau v Nichols case the Colorado statute proved to be useful in building a legal case for providing representation and participation to Chicano school children, The first lawsuit to be filed forcing bilingual-bicultural education in Colorado came from the Chicano Education Project (CEP). This organization described itself as “a catalyst working within our system of laws and institutions to bring about school systems which ® Lau v Nichols. Accessed through Lexis Nexis April 19, 2012. * Rocky Mountain News, February 13, 1974, 8.10 genuinely meet the needs of students, and which give parents a real voice in the education of their children."22 The group was mostly comprised of Chicano professionals who saw themselves as advocates for providing equal opportunity to succeed in the classroom for Chicano students. The Chicano Education Project (CEP) filed a lawsuit against the Colorado Department of Education and the commissioner of education attempting to force public schools to teach both bilingual and bicultural courses. Roger Cisneros, a co- plaintiffin the case and a member of CEP adamantly stated: “[T}he basic educational rights of at least 8,000 Mexican-American children sitting in Colorado public schools have been and are at this moment being flagrantly violated, because they can’t speak English...{tJhis is an intolerable situation which does violence to individual lives and to an entire ethnic culture comprising a significant portion of our population...We're not looking for special privileges or favored treatment. But, we're determined Chicano students will be given equal educational opportunities guaranteed to them by law as free citizens of our state and nation.” ‘The language of this statement was important in that CEP was arguing not for special treatment but rather rights that should be given inherently to citizens. CEP felt that, Chicanos were being left behind in the classroom because of their ethnicity and primary language. Cisneros, using the Lau decision and Colorado Statute, was able to argue that Chicanos were being discriminated against in violation of both federal and state law. A significant portion of the state population was being denied its right to proper education based on their native language. Chicanos, as Cisneros points out, were not asking for anything more than a basic right given to free citizens, the opportunity to pursue excellence and academic success, Cisneros and the CEP wanted equal opportunity for success in the classroom for their Chicano students. This lawsuit, which they felt would provide equal ® ibid, » Ibid,a footing, came on the heels of the release of the U.S. Commission of Civil Rights. The release of this document in 1974 charged that Chicano’s were being denied basic opportunities.2 The U. S. Commission of Civil Rights added fire to the movement and validity to its arguments. This was especially relevant for Chicanos in Colorado as the report emphasized the failure of school districts in Arizona, California, New Mexico, Texas and Colorado. Maurice B. Mitchell, the civil rights commissioner, pointed out several failings of the school districts such as the Chicano proportion of drop-out rates and reading levels; the failure to recruit Chicano teachers; and the failure to include Chicano’s in textbook committees and curriculum planning? Mitchell summarized these failures in saying, “the educational needs of these students aren't being met, their culture is being suppressed, and their hopes and ambitions are being substantially stifled."26 The report emphasized statistics that had been previously reported concerning Chicano drop-out rates and how these rates were at a higher proportion in comparison to the rest of the student body. The report, however, claimed that these dropouts were a result of an unfair and unjust system and not personal failures. The Civil Rights Commission described it as a process that “represents a self fulfilling prophecy. [a] set of conditions which greatly impedes the success of Chicano children...Having established the conditions that assure failure, the schools then judge the performance of Chicano children."?” Many of the solutions put forth in the report mirrored those of Zamora five years before. The Civil Rights Commi ion described the importance of having counselors and teachers in the school who spoke the same language as the students and that Chicanos’ should have an “integral part of the education process” and “be * Rocky Mountain News, February 5, 1974, 64 * tid. * id. ® Denver Post, May 26, 1974, 35.2 fully represented in educational decision-making,”28 The report also stated that it was, essential that schools with a higher proportion than 5 percent Chicano maintain an effective bilingual-bicultural program. Such a program was central in the reports’ solution to obtain educational equality.”° Colorado had begun in the 1970’s to implement bilingual-bicultural programs in hopes that it would provide its Chicano community with equal representation and participation. Now, with the microscope centered on these programs in their beginning stages it became apparent that efforts towards Chicano student success were deficient. The CEP pointed out that fewer than 5 percent of elementary school-aged Chicanos and only 2 percent of high school-aged Chicanos in Colorado were enrolled in bilingual projects. These figures were even more startling considering that only 34.9 percent of Chicanos were graduating high school.2® Gilbert Cisneros, director of the CEP stated that these programs are “needed and wanted by community people, but they must be designed for success” he added, “some of the federal projects...are obviously designed to spend money, be visible and fail.’2* Chicano activists charged that school administrators and directors were not doing their due diligence in attempting to alleviate these problems and change the course of Chicano students’ inequality. In 1974 lawsuit was filed in a Denver federal court wherein five Chicano families charged the Mesa County public school system with discrimination by not properly supporting a bilingual-bicultural program. These five families were also joined by the * Rocky Mountain News, February 5, 1974, 64. » rid, » rocky Mountain News, March 21, 1974, 26 Ibid, ® Rocky Mountain News, March 30, 1974, 8.2B Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF) as plaintiffs who were also involved in the Lau v Nichols case. The lawsuit listed members of the board of directors, the district’s superintendent, and the federal programs director as defendants the case, claiming that these administrators had made “no significant effort’ to provide an effective bicultural-bilingual program even thought the district qualified for and accepted federal funding in order to implement such a program. The plaintiffs continued to argue their case, citing that all members of the school board were Anglo, as well as its superintendent, administrative staff, all 31 principles, and that out of 667 teachers only 6 were Mexican-American.%# These statistics were in direct contrast to what the Commission on Civil Rights had dictated was essential for a successful and effective bilingual-bicultural program. Not only did the Mesa County School District fail in its attempt to implement such a program but it had accepted federal money that was supposed to be used to bolster the program, and it made no attempt to use the funding for any such program.3s The school district in Mesa County School District was not isolated in its failure to recruit the necessary teachers to foster a program aiding Chicano students. The Chicano Education Project once again filed a lawsuit against the Colorado Department of Education. This time, in 1976, the CEP charged the department with neglecting to hire Chicanos to the state department by maintaining a hiring bias. The CEP argued that the Department of Education was in violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act in its hiring bias. The complaint. stated that despite executive orders by Governor John Love in 1972 and Governor Dick Lamm in 1975 the department continued neglecting to hire Chicanos in appropriate ® pia. * Ibid. * tia. “Denver Post, July 21, 1976, 20.4 proportions to its student body. In December 1975 the department only employed seven professional Chicanos when its total employees count was 106.3” The plaintiffs charged the department with actively trying not to hire Chicanos. The CEP described a situation in which the Colorado Department of Education had advertised a position of assistant commissioner with grandiose requirements in 12 major areas of which most professionals could not meet. Three months later the department hired two Anglos to fill the position and split the requirements in half changing them that night after the hiring had already occurred. The CEP claimed that this deceit was intentional in trying to scare off minorities from applying, Numerous Chicanos would have been qualified had the position been originally listed as two positions with the requirements fitting two separate jobs and individuals. Chicanos now were aware of the fact that they not only were discriminated against in an unconscious sense because of their language differences but were also victims of intentional deceit. This deceit was not limited to the hiring practices that school districts employed in regards to Chicano teachers and professionals but also came in the form of neglecting to pursue federal funds designed to better the effectiveness of these bilingual-bicultural programs. In August, 1977 federal officials rejected the Denver school district's application for roughly $700,000 to maintain a bilingual-bicultural program. Had the entire story been a declined application, there would not have been such an issue. A district failing to receive money was hardly an uncommon event. Chicano activists dug a little deeper, however, and found that the rejection letter included documents stating that the ” bid. * Ibid. » Rocky Mountain News, October 16, 1977, 20,45 application was incomplete and disorganized. In addition, the rejection letter was received in the spring with ample time available to have resubmitted a complete and more organized application for the grant money. The application was never re-submitted and the rejection was eventually complete." Other instances of school districts mishandling or failing to pursue funding showed themselves in later court cases. In 1978, a complaint was filed in Denver District Court stating similar grievances against the Center School Board in Colorado which named the Colorado State Board of Education and the Department of Education as defendants. The defendants were charged with “willfully failing to carry out an adequate bilingual- bicultural program this year and for the past two years.”* Federico Pefia, the plaintiff's attorney, explained that the school district had to return about $11,200 of funds directed towards a bilingual-bicultural program due to noncompliance with the law. Therefore during the 1976-77 school year the district failed to carry out any sort of program at all and was forced to forfeit another $30,000 of state-allocated money for a bilingual-bicultural program." Pefia added that the district had still yet to hire a program director and another $11,000 would likely go unclaimed. The district had also received state approval in the same year to spend twice the money on the program in order to achieve student success but the district refused to accept the money and returned the $30,000.43 The documentation of these incidents showed that administrations in multiple districts around Colorado were actively refusing funds as well as being inactive in pursuing similar funds that were designed for bilingual-bicultural programs. Deceit and discrimination against * Wi. * Denver Post, March 6, 1978, 2. * iia Wi.16 Chicano students came from multiple angles. In some cases opponents needed only to do nothing in order to thwart attempts at bilingual-bicultural education. ‘The frustration and distrust between Chicano's and school administrators in the 1970's could not have been greater. Most activists had continued to work through some sort of public system in order to create change. This was mostly done through lawsuits filed against school districts and the Colorado Department of Education. There were Chicano activists who chose, however, to improve student participation and success outside of the public school system. These activists sought their own solution and distrusted the public system so much that it was impossible for them to work within it. One such Chicano activist was Rodolfo “Corky” Gonzales. Gonzales was the leader of the Crusade for Justice in Denver, an organization aimed at bringing justice and equal representation to Chicanos on all societal fronts. In 1969 Corky Gonzales started his own school, Escuela Tlatelolco, in order to provide Chicano students with proper education. Opinions concerning the intent of the school were mixed among activists in Chicano community. There were those whose children attended the school but many families felt that it was “one of those outfits bringing together impressive youngsters to fill their minds with the rhetoric of revolution.”*5 Gonzales himself stated, “Revolutionaries are bred, not born’ in reference to Escuela ‘Tlatelolco and its “consciousness raising.”*6 The Crusade for Justice and Gonzales, certainly had carried a tone of revolutionaries but this was the language they chose to use. The revolutionary rhetoric may have instilled fear or questioning in some, but it did not take away from Escuela Tlatelolco's mission of educating its students. One school administrator * Denver Post, November 29, 1972, 92. © told. “Rocky Mountain News, October 17, 1977, 5.Vv described the atmosphere of the school as “students ... very much aware of the Chicano movement and the difficulties their people have had in blending in the American culture.” He continued, “They are also very much aware of their heritage and have a newfound pride in who they are, coupled with a desire to broaden themselves through educatio! One reporter spenta day in the school and described it as the Crusade for Justice's “pride and joy” its “crown jewel.”*® The reporter went on to say “Despite the revolutionary decor, the focus in the classroom is on the three Rs, with some accent on sciences like geography.” Mrs. Josfine Salinas’ classroom was “paying no attention to the revolutionary posters....[a]nd politics seemed the furthest thing from Mrs. Salinas’ mind as she circulated among the students dispensing advice and praise for assignments well done.”#? According to the reporter revolutionary ideology was far from the core focus of the school. Escuela Tlatelolco was a way for Gonzales to give Chicano students a chance at succeeding, providing them with a good education and at the same time maintaining their cultural, social, and lingual identity. Gonzalez maintained that “parents liked what their kids were learning” and in comparison to public education that “what they are receiving here is superior to what they were being offered there.”39 There were Chicano parents who felt that Escuela Tlatelolco gave their child the best opportunity to succeed while maintaining their identity. There were also Chicanos who feared the revolutionary rhetoric and what that meant for the future of their children as could be seen by the schools eventual diminishing enrollment. In 1972 the school had around 380 students but an incident near the school between police and Chicano activists led to an explosion and a gun *" Denver Post, November 29, 1972, 92 “Rocky Mountain News, October 17, 1977, 32. © Wid. ** Denver Post, November 29, 1972, 92.18 battle. The result was many parents pulling their children out of the school. Gonzalez acknowledged that this violence led to a significant decline in school attendance, but also claimed that improving bilingual-bicultural programs in public education also influenced this change! The school would continue but with small student enrollment. The Chicano activist community decided to continue to place its efforts in mainstream public education. Gonzalez was partially correct in his claim that bilingual-bicultural programs were improving. It was hard to decipher whether the programs were actually improving or not but there were positive signs pointing to increased support for the programs. The Chicano Education Project had begun to publish a book of articles in the 1970's titled Un Nuevo Dia. The title of the publication itself (A New Day) suggests an optimistic perspective. In its, spring 1976 issue Carlos Saavedra, Director of the ingual-Bicultural Unit of the Colorado Department of Education, published an article describing the state of the program in Colorado. He gave support for the program stating, “What is the hoped-for result of bilingual-bicultural teaching? It is one with which few Americans would quarrel. It is the participation of all citizens in the education of the country’s children.”5? This new argument emphasized the student body as a whole. Every citizen, Saavedra claimed, has a role to play in the education of its children, In his assessment of the current state of the program Saavedra felt that, “We have some very good beginnings.” He cited more than 22,000 students and 179 teachers in the program. While Saavedra was excited about the progress of the program, he was hesitant to say that it was perfect. In the same article Saavedra expressed a great need for more bilingual teachers: 179 was not enough. bid, ® Carlos Saavedra, “Saavedra Examines Bilingual Education in Colorado,” Un Nuevo Dia 2, No. 1. Spring 1976, pg. 1. * bid.19 Optimism continued to grow, as could be seen in publications to follow, despite the obvious hurdles to the program’s success. In the 1980 publication of Un Nuevo Dia, Frederico Pefia expressed optimism surrounding new legislation that was being passed that would provide accountability for the programs based on input from the Chicano community. Pefia, a State Representative from Denver, had been involved in previous lawsuits concerning bilingual-bicultural program deficiencies. In his article, The Purist Form of Accountability: Bilingual Bicultural Education, Pefia expressed excitement over the passing of the Federal Bilingual Education Act on March 29, 1979.5 The reason for his optimism was due in part because the act mandated the involvement of the Chicano community which activists had begun to pursue. Parents of Chicano students would hold the programs accountable in their applications for funding, preparation of curriculum, recommendations and evaluations for the program.‘ The importance of involving the Chicano community in the program could not be understated. Parents now had a hand in the development of their children. Various other expressions of optimism among Chicano activists could be found due to the growing support for bilingual- cultural education among potential members of the Denver Public Schools School Board. The Denver Community Desegregation Project published a magazine, titled Parent Point of View. In its May 1981 Special Edition it interviewed candidates for the board elections, One such candidate, Armando Atencio, responded to the question, “What is your position on bilingual education?" by explaining, “I am a supporter of bilingual education....1 am in support of maintaining that kind of a * Federico Pea, “The Purist Form of Accountability: Bilingual Bicultural Education,” Un Nuevo Dia 6, No. 1. Winter 1980, pg. 20-21 * ibid.20 program with local funds if necessary, if federal and state dollars are not available."s* ‘Atencio was then asked, “Do you support moving the bilingual program into more schools than are currently being served?” He simply answered, “Aboslutely...yes.’"” Armando Atencio was not alone as a candidate in his support of bilingual-bicultural education programs. When asked if she supported such programs Virginia Rockwell stated, “Iam a strong supporter of bilingual education... We have worked to develop a curriculum and techniques that are district-wide. I think there is a great deal more to do in that area...but I think we have a firmer grasp of what the need is and what our skills are in making this program successful."S* With candidates like Virginia Rockwell and Armando Atencio for the Denver Public Schools school board Chicano activists could be excited and optimistic about the progress being made towards having equal opportunity and representation in public education, Chicano students had gained supporters for their cause and advocates for their needs. The obstacle to their optimism however, was that for every supporter to the bilingual-bicultural education there were just as ardent and outspoken opponents to the program. Even though in the late 1970's and early 1980's, Chicano activists had seen some growth in the support of bilingual-bicultural education the fight was not over. The program. had supporters in the Department of Education with Saavedra and possible supporters on. the Board of Education for Denver Public schools in the form of Rockwell and Atencio. This support however, produced only a reserved optimism. Chicano activists knew that bilingual-bicultural programs were still not where they needed to be. These programs were 5 parent Point of View. Published by Denver Community Desegregation Project. Special Edition, May 1982. * tbid. * ibid.2 lacking in terms of their quality and were still met with strong oppositions. This belief would be echoed in 1983 when U.S. District Judge Richard Matsch cited language failures as the reason for Denver Public Schools failure to create a “unitary system with equal education opportunities.”®® Judge Matsch found that a significant portion of Chicano students were not being granted an equal chance to succeed in the public school system. He articulated his growing concerns stating that language barrier was the primary issue and that the district, “violated a section of the Equal Educational Opportunity Act, which requires school districts to take appropriate action to overcome language barriers that impede equal participation by its students in its instructional programs." Judge Matsch’s ruling was a double-edged sword for the Chicano community. On one hand the ruling could be interpreted by Chicano’s as a success, progress towards developing a curriculum that would represent and include their community. The ruling could also have been interpreted asa failure. Despite Chicano activists’ attempts at implementing a program aimed at giving their children equally opportunity to succeed no real progress had been made. For over a decade, beginning in the 1970's and into the 1980's, the Chicano community had continued trying to implement various strategies in order to solve the specific educational needs of their children. Chicano children faced hurdles that were different from other minority groups, most specifically their needs differed from the Black community. This difference is significant because previous changes in educational policy and ideology were implemented along Black and White racial color lines. For the Chicano ‘community, however, the primary obstacle to achieving equality in their public schools was a language and cultural barrier and not necessarily a racial barrier. It was important then * Denver Post, December 31, 1983, 1A. Rocky Mountain News, December 31, 1983, 10.2 for Chicano children to have full representation of their culture and language inside of the classroom. They needed progress both in staffing and curriculum development, giving, students the opportunity to participate in an engaging manner. The Chicano solution to these problems, bilingual-bicultural education, was met with great opposition. It is difficult to decipher the rationale behind the actions or inaction of administrators and members of the board. It cannot be fully determine as to whether or not racial bias was part of their motivation, What is of significance is that people of influence within public education intentionally excluded Chicano input as well failed to properly handle funding intended to further bilingual-bicultural programs. These decisions directly impacted, in a negative manner, the education of Chicano children. Although Chicano activists heavily pursued the implementation of bilingual-bicultural programs, school administrators declined to help disallowed Chicano students the same opportunity to succeed as their Anglo peers.