¡Basta Ya!
Latino Parents Fighting Entrenched Racism

Zulmara Cline and Juan Necochea
California State University, San Marcos

Abstract

At times it is necessary for individuals to get out of their comfort zone in order to be able to make a difference and have a positive outcome. In this article, we discuss the story of a group of parents who chose to fight a school district in order to bring about some needed changes within the district to guarantee educational equity for their children. In their story, we see the courage and determination of the human spirit.

Sections of the Article

Introduction

Nervously, Sr. Rudolfo Bueno awaited his turn to speak at the school board meeting. His mouth felt like cotton and his heart was beating so fast he was sure everyone could hear it. What would he say? What would be their reaction? What words would he use? Would he sound coherent? Was his English good enough? He could not quiet his mind of all the chatter. He tried to focus, to take a deep breath, to listen for his name. When were they going to call him? He just wished they would call his name now. He wanted to get this over with as soon as possible. It was nerve racking.

His hands felt clammy and were beginning to shake. Oh no, he had to stand for the pledge. Why was he here? Why was he doing this? Is it worth all of this anxiety? Is it worth all of this stress? He could be home right now enjoying the evening with his family. Instead he was in this room, waiting and waiting.

But no, he had to do this. This was important. There were at least 40 families here tonight to listen to him ask for help for their kindergarten children who were being turned away from the bilingual school. What the district was trying to do to the children and the families was not fair. It was not right. He had become the leader of the group almost by default, and the group needed someone willing to speak up and he was it.

But, it was so hard. It would be a lot easier if he could speak in Spanish. In Spanish he was eloquent and could passionately speak about the hopes and dreams they had for their children, for themselves, for their families, for their community.

In English, his speech was halting, he often could not find the right words for what he wanted to say. He could not think straight in English, especially when he was nervous.

It was time! They had just called his name.

More than two years have passed since Sr. Rudolfo Bueno approached the school board on behalf of the Latino community in the Lompoc Unified School District (LUSD). At that meeting, he was not allowed to make his point or argue his position for more than a few seconds before he was told by the school board president that the issue had been resolved in the best interest of "all" students and the board would not be discussing this matter anymore. He was directed to speak with the superintendent about this issue. Since that time, a group of Latino parents have become political activists in the district to obtain educational opportunities for their children.

This school board meeting in May 1997 has become a rallying point on how "poorly" Latinos are treated within the district, in essence serving as a triggering mechanism for the intense political activism that quickly escalated in the ensuing years. This triggering mechanism served as a catalyst that launched a new and unexpected phenomenon wherein the apparently docile and collaborative Latino parents engaged in unprecedented contentious political interactions with district administrators. The political activism has led to a favorable report from the California Department of Education (CDE), the involvement of lawyers from both sides, the activation of outside agencies such as the Office of Civil Rights (OCR), and numerous newspaper articles both favorable and unfavorable on the issue. The parents appear prepared to use all legal means at their disposal to demand equity in educational opportunities for their children.

Before this triggering mechanism, political activism among Latino parents within the district had been rare to non existent. The tenacity and effectiveness of these parents to bring attention to their cause—inequitable educational achievement among English language learners (ELLs)—surprised most district personnel, who did not take parents' concerns seriously. Moreover, district personnel had failed to understand that the parents were driven by democratic issues of social justice and equity, compelling them to continue their fight in spite of the lack of respect, disdain, and adversity encountered in the process of pursuing better instructional programs for Latinos and ELLs. Parent political activism is difficult to measure, at least in terms of objective data, because of the absence of parameters, elusiveness of the concept, and unclear quantifiable definitions. Consequently, it is extremely complex to gauge the exact impact of the parents on the LUSD. Furthermore, since change is often illusory in view of the resiliency of the organization toward the perpetuation of the status quo, the impact may be more perceptual than real. Nonetheless, the disturbances and "shock waves" that have been created due to Latino parent political activism have been extraordinary and noteworthy (Tyack & Cuban, 1995). This nascent Latino parent group, in demanding fundamental change in the institutionalized behaviors, norms, rules, and expectations that govern instructional practices for ELLs, as well as the role of Latino parental involvement, shook the very foundations that perpetuated the status quo within the district. Latino parents, no longer complacently accepting the "expert" opinion of educators in the district, were instead proactively activating many legal mechanisms at their disposal to achieve their goals. Furthermore, their effectiveness in involving outside agencies to support their cause has greatly escalated the conflict, much to the chagrin of the district.

Indeed, for the first time in the history of the LUSD, a Latino voice has reverberated throughout the district with a very distinct "¡Basta ya!" message that had persistently pursued equity and excellence in education for ELLs. Driven by a strong desire to improve educational opportunities for Latino and non-English-speaking students, this group of parents gained notoriety by making their views known in a variety of district and school meetings, writing several letters to state and federal agencies requesting interventions, and engaging in extensive and systematic information gathering activities to support their claims.

As the conditions were examined that led to the newly found social voice of Latino parents, critical components emerged that appear to explain their unexpected and unprecedented political activism. This paper presents a systemic conceptual model that may explain the increasing intensity of parental activism within the district on behalf of Latino children. As the components are described, this paper then explores many of the events that have transpired since that ill-fated evening when the school board president chose not to acknowledge the legitimate concerns of a group of Latino parents.

Systemic Model

Systems-thinking, as a technique to examine parental activism, allows an understanding of the whole through conducting an analysis of the parts, therefore helping to determine the interdependent relationships of the conditions that can lead to an increasing intensification of political action by heretofore supposedly "docile" and complacent Latino parents (Deming, 1987; Morris, 1997; Keefe & Howard, 1997; Tyack & Cuban, 1995; Wheatley, 1994). Systems-thinking was advantageous for this analysis in that it allowed a deeper examination of the critical components and helped develop a more comprehensive explanation and understanding of the conditions which helped contribute to the creation of the phenomenon under study.

Figure 1 illustrates the systemic parts used to develop a conceptual model for analyzing the parts-to-whole interconnectedness of the following critical components leading to the intensification of political action among Latino parents: (a) el caudillismo (power), (b) cultural abyss, (c) unwanted Latinos, (d) planned strategy, and (d) la falta de confianza (lack of trust).. These components of the systems model were gleaned from a qualitative analysis of available extant data (such as letters to the editor, the superintendent, the school board, state and federal agencies, minutes to school board meetings, bilingual advisory committee meetings as well as informal meetings, and newspaper articles).

(Editor's Note: To view Figure 1, open the PDF version of this article. Select the following link: ¡Basta ya!)

To conduct the analysis, this paper employs the constant comparative approach (Glaser, 1965; Goetz & LeCompte, 1984; Straus & Corbin, 1991) to determine the themes and categories that constituted the "systems" conditions that appeared to have contributed to the intensification of Latino parent political activism. A careful study of the patterns reveals that the components included were likely to be instrumental in accounting for the increasing political activism by the parents, heretofore non existent within the LUSD. Although these components are presented individually, their separation was artificial due to the difficulties of isolating complex and perhaps overlapping conceptual categories when applying systems theory. Therefore, these components should be viewed as holistic, interdependent, and interconnected, thus creating the conditions that allowed political activism on the part of the parents to emerge, intensify, and increase.

Within Figure 1, the expanding inner circles, which depict the conceptual presence of each of the components and their interrelationships, reflect the intensity of political activism. The increasing political activism of the Latino parents was consistent with the degree of presence (reflected by the darker shades) of the critical system components. The broken inner lines reflect the conceptual interdependence, interconnectedness, and interactive nature of the critical components, all contained within the larger circle, which represents the holistic properties or "systems influence" on Latino parent activism within the district. Referring to a systems influence, Wheatley (1994) states:

The obvious overlaps of the components will be implicit in the individual descriptions, where comments related to one component could at times define the other. The separation noted is analytical rather than practical; thus, it is to be viewed as a conceptual explanation of the "holistic" conditions that have resulted in the intensification of Latino parent political activism in the district.

El Caudillismo

Effective political activism often requires caudillismo (leadership) or an individual willing to say "basta ya" and take a stance against the entrenched racism in society and rampant social injustices. Leaders often catapult groups into action, channel energies toward desirable goals, and offer a vision of what could be (Fullan, 1997; Tyack & Cuban, 1995). In the case of Lompoc, a small group of Latino parents served as a "lightning rod" that attracted the community as they addressed numerous grievances against the district. Of the four original parent leaders who signed the first letter to the CDE, three have continued in key leadership roles representing the community in their fight for justice against the district. These three parents have become a very cohesive group that actively seeks to improve educational opportunities for Latino students in the district by serving as the defenders of their civil rights and mediators for the community. Representing the Latino community, these parents have frequently addressed the school board, attended a variety of district and school sponsored meetings, written letters to a variety of audiences, taken up causes of other parents, and served as negotiators for important issues that have been brought to their attention.

As a result of these efforts, the three have been able to rally the non-English-speaking community around a common cause: improved educational opportunities for Latino students. From a cursory analysis of the issues raised, it was apparent that these parents were driven by a strong sense of fairness, social justice, and an inner voice that compelled them into action to go where "no Latino parent has gone before in Lompoc." At the core of their political activism, therefore, were the perceived civil rights violations of Latino and non-English-speaking students as a result of social and institutional racism, which has precluded educational success for their children.

For example, in a meeting with the OCR, Sr. Bueno was able to get approximately 15 individuals to his home to discuss the civil rights violations of their children. Many of these individuals had contacted one of the three leaders to help them handle issues of discipline, lack of achievement among their children, differences with personnel and administration, problems with the GATE program, and concerns regarding the high school.

As the case continued, the recognized leadership of the group made it to the newspapers, with both Cubillo and Bueno responding in kind with letters to the editor of the Lompoc Record:

Perhaps the Record was not completely clear in its reporting, but the state of California was very clear in its conclusions. The LUSD was not found out of compliance for not teaching Spanish to Spanish-speaking children. The district was found out of compliance for not teaching English.

As both these responses show, as the parents emerged as leaders within the Latino community, the mainstream press reported attacks on their demands and actions.

What started as a small issue, allowing ELLs to stay in bilingual schools, rapidly escalated to incorporate other issues related to social justice and equity in the district. For example, in a follow-up letter written to the members of the board of education, the parents added concerns regarding overall services, the quality of bilingual classes, and the recruitment of teachers to their initial complaint. Specifically, in a letter to the LUSD board dated June 24, 1997, the parents argued the following:

As time went on and the issues broadened, the parents continued to take on a strong leadership role, to include filing a complaint of discrimination with the OCR, becoming members of the English language and the Interventions Task Forces, analyzing the English Learner Master Plan before board approval, and helping to shape the new "No Social Promotion Policy." For example, when the district's lawyers sent an appeal to the CDE concerning the initial findings for non-compliance, in a letter to CDE, Bueno responded with:

Political activism requires strong leadership that can pull a group of concerned citizens together around a common cause and create the ambiance necessary to channel the issues and concerns raised. In Lompoc, a small group of Latino parents have been able to effectively challenge the district in times of change and turmoil, as they raise issues that appear to be closely aligned with the needs and concerns of the Latino community.

Knowledge Is Power

Knowledge is essential to successful political action since activists need to be aware of their rights, have an understanding of organizational norms, and know how to influence the district (Fullan, 1996; Keefe & Howard, 1997; Tyack & Cuban, 1995). In Lompoc, the parents quickly discovered that only with substantial knowledge about their rights, organizational operations, and how to leverage influence could they be effective in their struggles against the district. The Latino parents dealing with the district actively sought information regarding civil rights, required programs, and the district's policy-making process, in order to increase the likelihood that their conditions for change would be met.

The parents even recognized the fact that the district did not want them to have information because it made them too powerful, and in a letter dated Feb. 22, 2000, they wrote:

Increased knowledge of their legal rights allowed the parents to effectively negotiate their demands during the various meetings with district and state representatives. For example, in their interactions with the district, the parents insisted on using their primary language with a translator when necessary. This allowed them to more eloquently express their views, speak passionately about issues, and negotiate more effectively with district personnel.

As the parents continued their quest to comprehend schools and educational opportunities for their children, they spent considerable time talking to teachers, district administrators, and other individuals to learn as much as they can. Thus, they have come to a better understanding of effective instructional practices, the materials needed, and the necessary qualified personnel, which are needed for their children to be successful in school. In various meetings with district administrators, the parents clearly articulated their desire for quality programs for their children, including a biliteracy school, high standards for English language development, the acquisition of resources, and cross-cultural understandings.

One example of the parents request for effective programs is the following letter read to the LUSD school board (R. Bueno, A. Cubillo, & B. Manzanares, personal communication, June 22, 1999):

The connection between knowledge and power was accentuated as the parents began to understand the district's policy-making process. This knowledge allowed the parents to effectively put their concerns on the public agenda, become power brokers in their own right, and shape some of the policies of the district regarding ELLs.

The parents realized that the school district was not designed for their voices to be heard, therefore propelling them to activate outside agencies to effect desired changes. Consequently, they had to become proficient at interacting with various agencies on behalf of their children. As the parents discovered the power of documenting issues and making written demands, they have become more effective at putting pressure on the district to meet with them, consider their proposals, and take them more seriously. In writing letters to the CDE, the LUSD board, the news media, and the OCR, the Latino parents realized that their voices could no longer be silenced, thus spurring them to newer and greater heights as they have demanded equity and justice within the district on behalf of their children.

With knowledge came the power to affect the fabric of the organization, laying the groundwork for fundamental changes, which were consistent with democratic principles. Oftentimes, disenfranchised parents lack the knowledge, awareness, and consciousness to truly become advocates for their own children. This certainly was the case with poor and minority parents in Lompoc, whose children often experienced educational neglect and failure within the schools. Indeed, knowledgeable parents were essential if reforms were going to be successful at breaking the cycle of failure that many children of color currently experience within public education.

Cultural Abyss

A cultural abyss can develop when there is a mismatch in norms, behaviors, and expectations between schools and minority communities, especially when they are required to collaborate in order to resolve issues. When a cultural abyss has been created, there is an increase in the probability that miscommunication, distrust, and escalation of conflict will occur (Grant & Sleeter, 1997; Nieto, 1996). Oftentimes in these situations, the dominant perspective tends to prevail particularly at the local level, thus silencing the minority voice. This silenced cultural voice is typical in many districts, especially those located in poor and minority settings, that tend to incorporate traditional middle class perspectives when addressing the complex issues arising from diverse communities. When inevitable conflicts emerge due to cultural collisions, districts have a tendency to become even more entrenched by playing it "safe" as they resolve all community issues in the way they know "best" (what has worked well for them in the past, with little to no regard to the differences in communities served). Without a voice that would facilitate the resolution of issues from a community compatibility perspective, the actions of many districts are suspect and often tend to increase the cultural abyss that fuels conflicts and controversies unnecessarily.

A silenced cultural voice refers to the sentiment that district personnel represent a monochromatic perspective that reflects a white, middle-class, English-speaking orientation, which could lead to the exclusion and alienation of parents and students who are not a part of the mainstream or dominant culture. Issues and concerns that emanate from divergent groups are often ignored by the school organization due to the lack of cultural compatibility, until the stakes are raised.

In the LUSD, a cultural abyss soon became apparent as the parents tried to resolve issues pertaining to the education of ELLs. The district interactions with the parents were fraught with miscommunication and distrust, which became evident when the parents insisted on using Spanish in their interactions with district personnel. The Latino parents in Lompoc sensed no cultural connection with any of the central office administrators or school principals with whom they were in contact, because the cultural incompatibility made effective communication extremely difficult and strained. Many of the concerns the parents raised often became major conflicts and controversies due to misunderstandings, lack of cultural resonance, and the perceived "unwillingess" of district administrators to collaborate with the parents to resolve issues. For example, in a letter written to the OCR, parents state:

Although the cultural abyss between the parents and the district was an everyday occurrence, there were two events that perhaps reflected the district's administrators' inability to present a cultural voice that resonates with the Latino parents. First, the 30 Latino parents attending a school board meeting on June 10, 1997, were very upset with the board president's reluctance to allow their spokesperson to read the first complaint letter sent to CDE in Spanish because "no one here speaks Spanish," referring to board members and district administrators. Sr. Bueno's response to the school board president was, "I have a roomful of Spanish-speaking parents who came here to listen to me read the letter."

After some moments of hesitation, due to the fact that no one had ever addressed the school board in Spanish (there were no structures in place to do so), Sr. Bueno was finally allowed to read the letter, with some prompting from the audience who appeared to be flabbergasted by the apparent double standard. However, the president's reluctance to allow Sr. Bueno to read the letter in Spanish had already caused irreparable damage, especially when compared to the treatment of the previous white, middle-class speaker. Referring to that interaction, the school board minutes state:

Rodolfo Bueno, parent representative, then read a letter that had been sent to Dr. Norm Gold, a bilingual education administrator at the state's Department of Education. The letter was written in Spanish, and Dr. Forinash translated it as Mr. Bueno read. The letter outlined a number of complaints and asked the Department of Education to investigate the district for violating the civil rights of some of its non-English-speaking students. Mr. Campbell explained to Mr. Bueno that the Board of Education could not respond or take any action on his concerns at this meeting because the Brown Act forbids discussing or taking action on items not on the agenda.

These interactions, during the presentations to the school board, epitomized for the Latino parents, perhaps for the first time, the blatant and ingrained racism that they would encounter with district personnel as they attempted to secure greater educational opportunities for their children. On the one hand, the school board listened politely to Celeste McConnell speak for more than 20 minutes on an obscure issue not on the agenda, with no other parents present to hear her speak. However, Sr. Bueno was originally silenced when he tried to read his letter in Spanish, which presented inequitable learning opportunities for ELLs, with a roomful of parents in attendance to hear the complaint.

In the second incident, the Latino parents were very disturbed when the only district administrator "que trabaja con nosotros y habla español" (who works with us and speaks Spanish) was reassigned to a different position and would no longer be working on behalf of the parents. Indeed, months after his removal, the parents still see his reassignment as a racist plot to silence their voice by forcing them to work with an administrator who neither understood their issues nor could speak their language. Moreover, his removal was viewed as indicative of the district's unwillingness to engage in good faith negotiations to resolve the pressing issues pertaining to educating ELLs, thus widening the cultural abyss. In a letter to the school board, the parents state:

Of the many administrators who have been employed by the district during the past two years, none have been Latino or bilingual, thus sending the parents a strong message that the district was not concerned about hiring personnel that understood the community, spoke their language, and facilitated the resolution of the complex educational issues facing Latinos. Demanding to be part of the interview process shows the parents' understanding of how to influence the school organization in order to achieve their goals, which in this case pertains to hiring a Spanish-speaking administrator who could reflect their cultural voice and therefore help reduce the cultural abyss.

Demonstrating the growing gulf between the district's position and the parents' interests, after the passage of Proposition 227, a parent, Mr. Cubillo, wrote the following letter regarding Lompoc's lack of concern for Latino children:

This passage reflects how the silencing of the Latino voice created a communication chasm between the Latino community and district administrators. In effect, Mr. Cubillo was asking the district to implement all provisions of Proposition 227, as well as inform parents of all their legal rights under this new mandate. It was interesting to note that he felt a need to write this letter to the district and did not just assume they would implement the law with the best interest of the families and students in mind, thus reflecting the growing distrust between the district and the parents.

A cultural voice allows parents and administrators to work together to find a common ground of understanding as they are attempting to interact constructively in a concerted effort for the advancement and achievement of all students. In this case, the parents did not feel as if the district was even remotely interested in collaborating with them for the good of their children, especially since they did not have anyone who speaks their language, reflects their views, or resonates with their concerns, working at the district office. Indeed, the parents have been propelled into political activism largely because their concerns were not legitimized by the district. The cultural abyss had grown too wide to be crossed using traditional methods.

Unwanted Latinos

Another condition that has contributed to the political activism on the part of the parents is the intense anti-immigrant sentiments that have been plaguing the state of California. The LUSD, located in a small town in central California, embedded in a larger socio-political climate, had been greatly influenced by the passage of Propositions 187, 209, and 227, which were considered anti-Latino and anti-immigrant initiatives within the state (Crawford, 1999).

The parents were driven by a desire to attain social justice and equity in a district they viewed as racist and discriminatory, often reflecting the current climate in California. These strong anti-Latino and anti-immigrant sentiments had found many avenues for expression in radio talk shows, news magazines, newspapers, daily TV news, documentaries, and political campaigns, where Latinos were often scapegoated for what ails society such as welfare, crime, moral decay, and ineffective schools. It was within this political climate that the parents found themselves fighting for their rights and trying to secure educational opportunities for their children.

The local newspaper, The Lompoc Record, carried a number of letters to the editor that were not favorable to Latinos or the changes the parents were attempting to secure for their children. Some of those letters, as in the following example, made public reference to anti-immigrant sentiments and implied that parents and children should just "go back to Mexico":

This anti-Latino and anti-immigrant climate played a significant role in initiating and maintaining the political activism of the parents, for they often mentioned and wrote about issues of social justice, equity, and rights for Latino children and ELLs. The following documents demonstrated how this theme of "social justice and equity" had become consistent in the parents' writings, showing up in minutes and correspondence on various occasions:

As these quotations suggest, the parents' concerns with issues of justice and equity were grounded on strongly held democratic ideals regarding fairness and access to educational opportunities, which they believed were currently being denied to Latino students. The parents came to believe that the district would not change their modus operandi unless forced to by outside agencies. Realizing that the civil rights of Latino children would continue to be violated by the district, the parents sought the protection of third parties (e.g., CDE) in an effort to compel the district to offer equal educational opportunities for their children. According to this strategy, change would not come from a collaborative relationship within the district, because of the entrenched racism that precluded effective services for Latinos.

As the parents became more adept at recognizing racist behavior on the part of district personnel, they began to openly challenge, orally and in writing, organizational practices and decisions that were viewed as harmful to their children or in violation of their civil rights. For example, right after the passage of Proposition 227—the English for the Children Initiative—an English-only principal of a bilingual school removed all the Spanish library books (supposedly with orders from the central office) because the district had just become "English only." The parents immediately took the case to central office administrators, arguing that removing books from the library was not required under Proposition 227, and that, the principal was providing her own interpretation of the new law. The parents claimed that the removal of the books was a blatant attack on their cultural heritage, indicative of the lack of respect district personnel showed for the Latino community, and partially responsible for the failure the students were experiencing. The parents believed that cultural artifacts, which were housed at the schools to help the students feel successful, integrated, and culturally connected, were an important part of the educational process and need to be respected and cultivated to help ensure that the students would be successful.

In another incident, Sr. Bueno witnessed a Latino, Spanish-speaking student, who came late to a before-school "Story Time" activity, not being given a "participation ticket" that was needed to obtain a certificate of participation; however, an Anglo, English-speaking student who came later received one. At the time, Sr. Bueno dismissed this incident as inattentiveness on the part of the teacher. However, in a meeting a few days later, many Latino parents were complaining of the same treatment against their children. The parents were claiming that when their children were late, they did not receive tickets, but when non-Latino children came late, they were given the tickets. The multiple complaints prompted Sr. Bueno to write a letter to the principal complaining of racism. More specifically, the letter to the site principal stated:

In this instance, the parents felt as if they had to bring it to the attention of the school immediately, for the detrimental effects on their children were profound. Indeed, the parents have become vigilant in seeking out and rectifying institutional racism.

The parents often mentioned other "evidence" they had of civil rights violations against Latinos, such as the high proportion of suspensions and expulsions, the lack of academic achievement, underrepresentation in college preparation courses, lack of Latino teachers and administrators, and the rapid implementation of Proposition 227 (English-only) when the bilingual education program had never been fully implemented. Reflecting the racism in the district, the parents wrote a letter to the OCR asking for direct intervention to improve educational opportunities for Latino children, stating:

It was difficult to determine whether school representatives were driven by racist tendencies, but it was interesting to note that the parents certainly believed this was the case. This belief was not formed in a vacuum nor will it go away without a proactive attempt on the part of the district to eliminate activities, policies, and practices that appear to be racist to the parents. Latino parents were well aware of how they were scapegoated by both schools and society, and the parents in this district have decided to say ¡Basta Ya! and fight the discrimination head on.

Planned Strategy

Developing strategies for political activism is critical for shaping projects, offering guidance, and keeping a focus on the goals of the group. A planned strategy allows individuals to emphasize the areas important to them and not be misled by extraneous concerns, which may or may not be pertinent to the cause. Additionally, a planned strategy, when fighting an entrenched bureaucracy that is difficult to change, helps to keep the activists from "burning out" (Fullan, 1996; Milstein, 1993). Consequently, planned strategy is identified as a critical component in the systems model developed to explain the extensive Latino parental activism in the district.

An examination of the extant data, especially of the letters, indicated that the parents became increasingly proactive in their responses to district activities and their efforts to improve learning opportunities for Latino students. The letters increased both in volume and sophistication, reflecting the expanding ability of the parents to anticipate issues, influence the decision-making process, and present their position to the larger community.

From reacting to district policies and other "crises," the parents had become more analytical and developed the ability to predict the behaviors and reactions of others as a result of their activism. The parents moved from being reactive to being proactive as they became more involved in the political process, allowing them to shape the situation to their greatest benefit.

By the beginning of the 1999-2000 school year, the parents became very skilled indeed in analyzing the situation and quickly responding to the district on the issues and concerns regarding the education of ELLs. This nascent proactivity helped the parents derail potential policy that could have been damaging to Latino students. For example, when dealing with the English Learner Master Plan, the parents offered suggestions in June of 1999, before completion, in order for their "voice" to be heard in the final copy. In a letter read to the LUSD board, the parents stated:

The quotation shows the level of understanding the parents attained of the process and the methods they needed to use in order to influence the political arena of the district. At this point, they were not reacting to decisions made by the district and invoking state support for their position and rights; they were ascertaining their rights at the very beginning of the process.

Likewise, at the beginning of the 1999-2000 school year, when the district had an English Learner Master Plan ready to be presented to the board of education, the parents insisted on seeing a copy before the plan was submitted for approval. They insisted on having the opportunity to fully analyze the plan and offered suggestions for changes and improvements. When the parents analyzed the plan and noticed that their suggestions and concerns were not reflected, they sent a letter to the LUSD board stating,

At this point, two years after beginning to fight for their rights and for equitable educational opportunities for their children, the parents were now using a very proactive strategy to secure success for their children, as well as to educate the community regarding their struggles with the district. This can be seen in the exchange of letters to the editor that began in the local paper, with the parents picking up on the issues that were reported on and then responded to in kind.

Some of the letters were especially acrimonious, with racist overtones and sarcasm, implying that the parents did not care about educating their children, or that the parents themselves were at fault for educational failure. For example, in a letter to the editor, Euclid Patin stated,

Patin goes on in his letter to say, "At this point I can't help but wonder how so many Asian students come here and do so well in school, finishing at or near the top of their classes" (Pattin, 1999).

A letter by James Denton to the editor stated:

In his first response to the newspaper, Bueno wrote in a letter to the editor:

In a second response, with the intent being to educate the community, Bueno writes:

And not all of the letters to the editor to the Lompoc Record have been against the parents, as shown by the following comments by Ron Fink:

As these letters show, the parents have engaged in proactive political action to include the community, the school board, and outside agencies in an effort to secure the changes they knew were necessary for their children to succeed. The planned strategy that has evolved enabled the parents to more effectively influence outcomes on behalf of their children.

La Falta de Confianza (Lack of Trust)

Trust within an organization is an essential ingredient for the resolution of differences and conflicts as diverse groups work together to achieve a common goal. The establishment of trust needs to be based on mutual understanding and respect, open and honest communication, trustworthy behaviors, and integrity (Cline & Necochea, 1997; Fukuyama, 1995). In the absence of trust, it becomes very difficult to resolve the many differences that arise as organizations attempt to satisfy the needs of the various constituencies.

There were many different issues that kept the parents involved with this case, but no issues spurred the parents on to greater and newer heights than the half-truths and deceptions they were told by the school district as they attempted to secure educational opportunities for their children. The more the district told parents half-truths, the more the parents felt committed to the cause. It was perplexing to the parents, who came from a culture of respect for teachers and educators, to realize that the district would intentionally deceive them as they attempted to collaborate to improve the learning conditions for their students.

For example, a report by Dr. Bradley to the school board on April 8, 1997, stated:

Almost in direct contradiction to these board minutes, a couple of months later Dr. Bradley tells the parents the following:

This discrepancy between what was told to the board in April and what was told to the parents in August set the stage for future interactions between the two groups. At the board meeting, it was stated that students would be allowed to go to their school of choice only if space was available. However, with the parents, Dr. Bradley stated that there was never any intention on the part of the district to "force" students back to their neighborhood school regardless of their language needs. The foundation was set for no trust and a relentless questioning of all inconsistencies and discrepancies that were later noted.

In another instance, the parents were hearing different "stories" at the school sites and district office. What they were being told at meetings with district administrators was often in direct contradiction to what the district office was saying. For example, the district office personnel told parents that the language needs of their children would be taken into consideration when schools of choice was decided, but the school district personnel would say that all schools of choice at bilingual schools were to be denied. They questioned whether or not they were being told "half-truths" again, as demonstrated in the following exchange between Sr. Bueno and Dr. Bradley as detailed in the minutes to a district bilingual advisory committee (DBAC) meeting:

In their dealings with the district, the parents soon realized that they could not trust the personnel to tell them the truth as half-truths began to appear in minutes, in letters to the CDE, during meetings, and even in quotes to the newspaper. For example, the assistant superintendent told the newspaper that there was a stipend for being a bilingual teacher; however, upon further investigation, the parents discovered that the extra pay for bilingual teachers was also available for other "specialist" credentials (e.g., Montessori), although the latter were much easier to obtain, since mastery of a second language was not required.

In another incident the parents were told that bilingual teachers were being recruited in Madrid, Spain (minutes, June 18, 1997); however, the parents soon discovered that this meant that "some recruiting materials had been sent to Spain with teachers vacationing there." There was no concerted effort to recruit teachers; consequently, no bilingual teachers were hired from this effort.

In a Lompoc Record article the assistant superintendent was quoted as saying that there were no qualified bilingual administrators (Galindo, 1999), when the parents knew for a fact that three had recently submitted applications for administrative positions in the district and been denied.

As these half-truths began to add up, the parents decided they could not trust the district and began documenting many of the meetings, especially in letters to the editor, to school board members, the CDE, and the Office of Civil Rights. As the parents became aware of the half-truths and deceptions, they became diligent in documenting the inconsistencies and making them part of the public record.

This pattern can be seen in the response that parents wrote to the district regarding the English Language Master Plan, where they openly stated:

The parents began going on record with the half-truths when they realized that the district's version of the "truth" was rarely questioned by others, and thus presented a "lie" as official dogma. As the parents increased their interactions with the district, they soon realized that they could not rely on district administration, thus spurring greater vigilance and scrutiny of all district communication for inconsistencies and half-truths. With the growing distrust between the district and Latino parents, the interactions between the two parties progressively deteriorated, thus thwarting efforts to amicably resolve the issues. Meetings between the two parties were often fraught with tension, disagreement, suspicion and "gritos" (screams).

Effective organizations require a strong foundation of trust between members. When trust has broken down due to one party using deception, half-truths, or inconsistencies in order to gain an advantage, then trusting relationships are no longer an option. Trust is built over time by building relationships, respecting the rights of others, and acting with integrity. In Lompoc, the absence of trust certainly contributed to the increasing political activism on the part of Latino parents.

Conclusion

Among many of the "cures" suggested for education, parental involvement appears to be high on the list. Since many effective schools appear to have a high degree of parental involvement, the argument goes, then school improvement in general will occur only if parents are actively involved in school programs and activities. This sentiment is particularly strong for the parents of poor and minority youth, where lack of student achievement is often directly associated with the virtual absence of parental involvement. To many educators, therefore, it is axiomatic that to significantly improve student achievement there needs to be a concerted effort to develop programs that will result in high levels of parental involvement.

However, this quest for parental involvement comes with a caveat—only parental involvement that is supportive of school policies and instructional practices are welcome here; if parents express ideas, values, and norms that are contrary to the dominant view, then their behaviors will be regarded with concern. Parental political activism is not welcomed within the school setting. Moreover, parents whose culture, ethnicity, SES, and language background differ drastically from the white middle-class norms are usually kept at a distance, for their views, values, and behaviors seem "foreign" and strange to traditional school personnel. Their involvement is only recognized and appreciated when it is within the parameters of parental involvement set by the school system or the district. When minority parents express their issues and concerns, they are often quickly dismissed, especially when they challenge the status quo. Therefore, rarely are the voices of poor and minority communities reflected in school policies, activities, or instructional practices, particularly when their demands can potentially disrupt the core technology of schooling. Only when the parents become politically active can they have a chance to effect policy and make a difference in the educational lives of their children.

Compatibility, therefore, plays a strong role in terms of the reception parents receive in school settings, with those who share similar social and cultural characteristics with the school having more access to teachers and principals. Although this truism applies to many groups, non-English-speaking Latino parents are perhaps one of the most excluded groups from any significant parental involvement in schools. Their lack of English language skills virtually makes it impossible to have constructive interactions with school personnel, who tend to be monolingual English, with the only contact usually negative due to student discipline or failure. For poor and minority parents to have a voice, they need to get out of the prescribed realm of parental involvement and become politically active as they seek remedies to the injustices that are rampant within our schools.

In the LUSD the call for parental involvement followed the typical pattern of, "We only want parental involvement from English-speaking parents who support our views, policies, and norms." As soon as the parents expressed views and desires in Spanish that were contrary to those of the district, the administration became somewhat hostile and suspicious and activated mechanisms to exclude them from any significant involvement. This exclusion included not allowing parents to address the board in their own language, trying to divide and conquer the team, and withholding information that would have enabled them to make more informed decisions. Since the parents were not willing to accept this treatment, particularly when they felt that the civil rights of their children were being violated, the escalation of conflict has been tumultuous and inevitable as the intervention of outside agencies was activated. The Latino parents of the LUSD were simply seeking their democratic rights to influence the school system for equitable educational opportunities for their children.

Educational opportunities, as expressed by Thomas Jefferson, are the cornerstone of a successful democracy, thus guaranteeing the essential rights that are the foundation of a free society: the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Democracy can be tumultuous, notably when majority rule clashes with minority rights, but it is the responsibility of all of us to uphold our democratic principles during these turbulent times. To quote Frederick Douglass:

These are turbulent times indeed.

Author's Note

In March 2000, the California Association of Bilingual Educators (CABE) awarded Sr. Bueno Parent of the Year for the work he has done on behalf of families and students in the LUSD.

La lucha continua (The fight continues).

As this story is told, the saga continues into 2001 when Sr. Bueno spoke to a group of more than 120 parents at the annual conference of the California Association for Bilingual Education (CABE) regarding his efforts in the LUSD during a presentation in Spanish entitled "Basta Ya: Padres de familia luchan contra el racismo." During this session, many parents were sharing heartfelt stories about their own struggles with racism and inequities in their district. It was obvious that there is a need for widespread support among the Latino community to end the cycle of failure our children are experiencing.

It was evident from the passionate discussions that many of those in attendance identified with the themes that were raised by Sr. Bueno during his presentation: such as reclaiming your Latino voice; working within the system to achieve change; fighting racism mano a mano (hand to hand) through political activism; and persevering even when there is discomfort. The effectiveness of his presentation was increased because the audience closely identified with the fact that he was a campesino (farmworker) who came to this country and learned English as a second language and has been fighting for the educational success of his children. The conference made it evident that Spanish-speaking parents throughout California face the same issues of racism, discrimination, and an educational system ill-prepared to effectively address the needs of English language learners. For many attendees, there was a general sentiment expressed that for the first time a Latino leader had articulated in Spanish a common narrative that is often played out in many different school settings. Furthermore, Sr. Bueno provided them with a roadmap through the various samples of documents (e.g., letters to OCR, school superintendent, California Department of Education) that he discussed during the presentation so that those interested in pursuing this journey of political activism could have concrete models to follow. As one of the participants commented at the end of the presentation, "Este es la primera vez que alguién nos ha ayudado de esta manera en estas conferencias, una persona como nosotros que nos habla en español" [This is the first time that someone has helped us in these conferences—a person like us, who can speak to us in Spanish].

References

Appeldorn, K. L. (1999, October 6). [Letter to the editor]. The Lompoc Record.

Bueno, A. (1999, October 17). [Letter to editor]. Lompoc Record, Opinion section.

Bueno, A. (1999, October 30). [Letter to editor]. Lompoc Record, Opinion section.

Bueno, A. (1999, November 3). [Letter to editor]. Lompoc Record, Opinion section.

Cline, Z., & Necochea, J. (1997). Inclusive collaborative negotiations: A new labor relations paradigm in the LUSD. Journal of Collective Negotiations in the Public Sector, 4 (26), 303-332.

Crawford, J. (1989). Bilingual education: History, politics, theory, and practice. Trenton, NJ: Crane Publishing Company.

Cubillu, B. (1999, October 17). [Letter to editor]. Lompoc Record, Opinion section.

Deming, W. E. (1987). Out of the crisis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Demon, J. (1999, October 26). [Letter to editor]. Lompoc Record, Opinion section.

Fink, R. (1999, October 19). [Letter to editor]. Lompoc Record, Opinion section.

Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust: The social virtues and the creation of prosperity. New York: The Free Press.

Fullan, M. (1996). Leadership for change. In M. Fullan (Ed.), The Challenge of School Change (pp. 115-136). Arlington Heights, Illinois: Skylight Professional Development.

Galindo, Y. (1999, March 13). Parents say LUSD violates Latino students' rights. The Lompoc Record, A1-A2.

Glaser, B. G. (1965). The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Social Problems, 12, 436-445.

Goetz, J. P., & LeCompte, M. D. (1984). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research. San Diego: Academic Press.

Grant & Sleeter (1997). After the School Bell Rings. Routledge Falmer.

Keefe, J. W., & Howard, E. R. (1997). Redesigning schools for the new century: A systems approach. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary Principals.

Milstein, M. M. (1993). Changing the way we prepare educational leaders: The Danforth Experience. Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press.

Morris, D. R. (1997). Adrift in the sea of innovations: A response to Alexander, Murphy, and Woods. Educational Researcher, 26 (4), 22-26.

Nieto, S. (1996). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural education. White Plains, NY: Longman Publishers.

Pattin, E. (1999, Nov. 9). [Letter to editor]. Lompoc Record, Opinion section.

Straus, A., & Corbin, J. (1991). Basics of qualitative research. Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications.

Tyack, D., & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia: A century of public school reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wheatley, M. J. (1994). Leadership and the new science. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.