The court has rejected this view primarily for laches most probably, it would be rejected in any event on the merits. and be assigned to the bilingual program if he scores better on this than on the English version. The central focus of controversy, however, is the defendants' position that only Hispanic students scoring below the 10th percentile on the English version should be eligible at all for testing with the Spanish version of the L.A.B.Īs their broadest position plaintiffs urge that there should be no cutoff at all that every Spanish-surnamed student should receive the Spanish L.A.B. This last revision, along with other things, has been the subject of considerable discussion and some dispute. The position *1163 urged at oral argument is that the universe of Hispanic students taking the Spanish version would be ranked on the basis of percentiles taken from the Spanish-speaking sample, and that all Hispanic students scoring below the 10th percentile would be excluded from our class on the ground that they are shown in this fashion to be unable to participate more effectively in Spanish. will also be "normed" from a sample student population which is predominately Spanish-speaking. Just prior to yesterday's oral argument, defendants evolved a modification of the foregoing position: It is now proposed that the Spanish version of the L.A.B.
would be given only to those Hispanic students whose scores fell below the 10th-percentile score of the norming group and (2) from among those thus given the Spanish version, the bilingual program would then embrace the students who scored better on this version and were thus designated as being able to "more effectively participate in Spanish."
The third step comprises what has been called the "norming process." Defendant Board, acting on the judgments of its experts, had determined before the court heard oral argument yesterday that (1) a Spanish-version L.A.B. Next, the same test has been given to all Hispanic students, from among whom will be selected those who will be entitled to the program of bilingual instruction. has been given to a sample population of English-speaking students whose performance was scored and who served as the "norming" group. The testing program formulated by defendant Board of Education begins with a group of tests called the "language assessment battery English version." In a first (and seemingly noncontroversial) step, this L.A.B. The testing procedures for determining which students are eligible for the program have now generated some interesting and difficult questions on which the parties are in sharp disagreement. e., those whose English language difficulties prevent them from effectively participating in the learning process and who could better learn in Spanish, and then for the program of instruction these class members are to receive. The decree goes on to provide in detail for a course of testing to (in effect) identify the members of the class, i. 2d 1 (1974), the court's consent decree dated August 29, 1974, states the plaintiff class of Hispanic children, whose "English language deficiency prevents them from effectively participating in the learning process and who can more effectively participate in Spanish", shall receive a program including intensive training in English language skills, instruction in substantive courses in Spanish, and reinforcement of Spanish language skills. Greilsheimer, Doron Gopstein, New York City, of counsel. Counsel of City of New York, New York City, for defendants James G. Hiller, Kenneth Kimerling, Jack John Olivero, New York City, of counsel. *1162 Puerto Rican Legal Defense & Education Fund, Inc., New York City, for plaintiffs Herbert Teitelbaum, Richard J.
ASPIRA OF NEW YORK, INC., et al., Plaintiffs,īOARD OF EDUCATION OF the CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Defendants.
0 kommentar(er)
