“Let All of Them Take Heed”
Mexican Americans and the Campaign for Educational
Equality in
By Guadalupe San Miguel, Jr.
1987
[With my
comments in brackets]
Preface
The political battles of
the Mexican American (MA) activists have not received much historical
attention. We know little about MA’s
educational aspirations over the last 150 years or their efforts to develop
indigenous formal institutions in
Some have looked at what
American schools have done to MAs or not done, but that creates a “victim-oppressor”
view. MAs have not been passive nor have
they willingly succumbed to English-only assimilationists policies.
This study takes MAs to be
active agents in history. It looks at
The struggle had two
components. One focused on public
schools and the other on the MA community itself.
1910 was the beginning of
the biggest immigration into
The Second section is post
WW II Chapter Five will look at the first serious phase of the struggle. Chapter Six will look at LULAC’s creation of
their own approach for educating MAs.
The final section will
look at the expansion of the campaign.
Especially the implementation of the ESEA of 1965 and the Bilingual
Education act of 1967. Chapter Seven will focus on the
Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF). Chapter Eight looks at bilingual
education.
Introduction
In 1984 a new
private research group, the Hispanic Policy Development Project issues a
report. It said that most Hispanics come
from poverty and are in five states.
Their schools are inferior and highly segregated,
they are extremely overage for their grade levels in high school and were disproportionately
enrolled in remedial English classes.
There are few staff that care about them or
their problems.
[I will likely make fewer
comments later on. It is highly
unrealistic to think that people entering another culture from a background of
poverty will have equivalent scores with the native population. Were I to move from a background of wealth
and try high school in France (not speaking French) it would be predictable
that I would not do as well as native French and my comrades would be disproportionately
enrolled in remedial French classes.
Furthermore, if they would, I would be grateful to
I wonder how it is
documented that few people care about them.
I taught in one of these areas for eight years. I cared about my students. Much of our staff was Hispanic. Did they not care? Unsupported historical claims of racial
hostility are in the first paragraph of this book. Perhaps they are supported later on. But to say that in 1990 when this was printed
is a bit of a stretch.]
The Hispanics have
distinct needs, he says, but do not want to be treated differently (second
paragraph).
“The continuing quest of
educational equality provides a crushing blow to the myth of MA indifference
towards education.”
[Elites arguing for
education is not what I would call a “crushing” proof
of the general culture’s attitudes.
Again, sloppy basis for facts are being touted as solid assertions of
truth].
There is a deep historical
respect for education [which has not been manifest in
Many organizations started
to advocate for MA education in the 20s and 30s. They also challenged discrimination and
assimilation.
Mexican immigrants and MA’s
both contributed, but especially MAs.
Their members were born or raised in the
“Unlike Mexican immigrants
(MI) residing north of the border, MAs pledged their allegiance to the
Richard Garcia has
suggested that the kids had dual identities.
Families “encouraged their children to be proud of their cultural
heritage but to learn American customs and especially the English language.” This forged a new identity.
Members of this MA
community created two types of organizations.
LULAC was the largest and started in 1929. It sought to a) upgrade the cultural and
intellectual development of MAs, b) protect Mexican individuals and their
cultural heritage and c) incorporate the population into the mainstream of American
institutional life.
They encountered two
problems. Public schools were not
readily accessible to MAs. And secondly,
the attitudes the MA community had towards education [didn’t he crush this myth
a few pages back?]. “LULAC members
believed that MAs were not fully convinced of the need to obtain increased
educational opportunities from the public schools.”
Neither
the schools or the MAs were committed to education.
PART ONE: 1910 – 1940
Chapter One :::::::::::::::::::::From
Dominating to Dominated
By 1820 fewer than 2,500
non native-Indian persons lived in
When, in 1821,
The switch to Anglo rulers
did create a change. From 1836 to 45 few
Anglos went into
Anglos dominated state
politics. At the county level Mexicans
held sway in numerous areas [these are the results you’d expect from democracy,
given the population]. Mexicans even
held the Mayor of San Antonio after the revolution.
Mexicans who ran away or
went back to
Within three decades of
1848 war Mexicans had systematically been reduced a subordinate position. Part of this was due to there being literacy
and citizenship requirements for voting.
By 1880 the Anglos owned most of the land in
Pg. 6 Charts show that Mexicans held the
lowest job positions. Government jobs
were “not made available to Tejanos, but were instead limited to Anglo
immigrants.” Even citizen Mexicans [an
oxymoron] were pad less for the same job.
There were attempts to
make all public business happen in English.
In 1841 it was decreed that laws would not be printed in Spanish. Only three years later, however, a charter
was given for a German language university.
Spanish use
in the courts were limited in 1856.
Also in 1856 a law was passed mandating the speaking of English in
public schools (two years after the first public school funding was
passed). It simply required the teaching
of English. Later it was made to be the
primary language of instruction.
There was a lot of
violence against Mexicans, but this subsided as Porforio
Diaz suppressed bandits in
In the last half of the 19th,
though, Tejanos still played an important role in county and city
politics. [Doesn’t sound like total disenfranchisement
to me.] In several cases they took tight
control over county elections and job opportunities [isn’t he complaining
against unfair practices?]. Some were
union delegates, became professionals.
Parents sought education
from religious authorities, public schools and public institutions. Mostly the rich got religious education.
Incarnate word in
In border areas private
schools were created to a) uphold Mexican “spirit” and ideas and ideas. B) teach Mexican
history and national traditions to this end and c) arouse race pride. [Italics
mine. Are we talking about racists
Americans here or foreigners who claim no loyalty, but rights and the right to
complain?]
Colegio
Altamira had 100 students and was maintained until
1930.
Public school was
difficult due to poverty and a lack of political influence. Public officials were obligated to provide
educational opportunities for all children in said districts, but failed to
extend these rights to the Texas Mexicans.
[I wish he would clarify. If
these folks were truly Mexicans I find it hard to believe that officials were
obligated to give citizens of another country education].
Some local schools were
provided, but they were inferior. A
handful of Tejano children enrolled in the first public school established in
This school opened with
twenty-nine students in 1887. The local
school board subsidized it. By the turn
of the century it had about 500 students.
It had the highest enrollment of any school in
Public schools in
P. 12 In
San Antonio there were schools for Tejanos that some Anglos attended and the
teachers took it upon themselves to learn Spanish.
Rancho schools were also
found in rural areas. But they were
terrible and of lower quality. Teaching
was generally done in Spanish.
We see here that Tejanos did
want education and that they got it and sometimes excelled and became teachers
and principals.
The
New Economic Order, Mexican Immigration, and Public Education
In 1904 that changed. Many Mexicans sold their land and the
railroads penetrated the South of Texas.
Huge irrigation projects were started.
As agriculture boomed, cheap Mexican labor became more important.
Immigration was aided by
how miserable Diaz made it in 1900. The
Mexican revolution of 1910 sent more North.
In the beginning of the 20th
Mexican laborers started going past the border areas. By 1920 Mexican immigration had passed
Another change was that
they started to settle permanently.
P. 17 In 1890 the number
of Mexicans residing in
Some were upper
class. But most didn’t speak English,
knew next to nothing of the customs and traditions of the community, were not Methodists
and their children did not attend school.
Not only were they foreign in outlook, “they had no intention of
becoming Americans.” They were also the
most ignorant and poor of folk. They
were hard workers and willing to live in deplorable conditions, however.
This created big education
problems. Were they to be taught? What were they to be taught? Over crowding, overageness in the grades,
irregular attendance, late enrollment and early withdrawal were problems.
State officials considered
these local problems. They were first
just trying to create a public school system.
In 1854 the first law creating a public school system was passed in
P. 20 Several reports were
made. H. T. Manuel made a report in
1928. He noted that the inability of
these kids to speak English was state wide (90% in first grade). They also could not read Spanish. He also found the number of
these children were increasing faster than Anglos or blacks. In six years they went from being 12.8 % of the white
scholastic population (between the ages of six and seventeen) to 15.6% (1922 to
1928). He also found these kids were not
strictly in rural areas and came from impoverished backgrounds.
The kids
not being proficient in Spanish or English was important because 85% had
been born in the
A fourth finding by Manuel
was that the Tejano children were not provided with equal educational
opportunities due to racial prejudice.
The State did not provide schools for them. This was due to “a policy of antagonism.”
P. 24 In a survey in one
area Mexicans were 54% of the scholastics and yet 70%
did not go to school. 22% of whites didn’t
go.
Statewide 40% of the
Tejano, but only 9 % of the whites were given no educational facilities or
services in 1927 – 28 school year. What they were provided was a shorter year
and less resources and a curriculum that did not reflect their heritage.
Finally, Manuel’s reports
showed that Tejano children did not do well in school. Low attendance, high retardation and “push-out”
rates. Few made it past the fourth
grade. Secondary attendance was less
than 4%. Anglo attendance was 60%.
Both social and hereditary
reasons were postulated. The racial ones
started to gain prominence over the socioeconomic in the coming years.
The differences showed
Anglo dominance in decision making. But
the time when they could be ignored was being ended by surging population.
Chapter Two ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Cross – Purposes
P. 32 In 1923 Webb Blanton
was the state superintendent of public instruction. He said, “A State may, with safety, admit as
residents only those capable of being assimilated – those who can adopt its
standards of living, its language, and its ideals of citizenship and of
government.” She said that if they
wished to live as one with us you are welcome.
“But if you wish to preserve, in our state, the language and the customs
of another land, you have no right to do this.”
The choices she set out were to learn English and American customs or, “you
must go back to the country which you prize so highly and rear your children
there.”
This reflected the two
wars and continuing dislike and distrust between Anglos and the “Texas Mexican
population.” [His new
term]. His reading is that this
was a form of denigrating Mexican culture and the Spanish language.
Blanton’s attitude was
also shaped by the national Americanization movement. The movement was friendly until WW I when it
went from being voluntary to forced.
Americans were expected to give up their foreign language and cultural
behavior. Patriotic legislation was passed in 1918. [There was a Texan component, but I’m having
a hard time determining if the author is referring to national legislation
also]. There was a bill making English
the exclusive medium of instruction in the public schools.
Unlike earlier such bills,
this one applied to principals, superintendents, board members, and all other
public school personnel. Secondly, the
state legislature made it a criminal offense to teach in a language other than
English.
The Governor, Hobby,
created a special session of the state legislature that recommended English
also be extended to non-public schools, but it failed
to pass. The Texas State Teachers
Association and PTA backed such ideas.
They said you should respect our flag and language. Blanton continued working on the “foreign”
problem. [His quotes not mine]. She advocated state standards that the
private schools would have to conform to.
P. 36-37. In 1922 a law passed but said that non-public
schools that had a focus on good citizenship were exempted from making English the
only medium requirement. Texas Mexicans
did not complain because, a) they generally did not attend school (public or
private). Secondly, those who did attend
were strongly supportive of Americanization and such English language laws in
particular.
The continued influx of
Texas Mexicans into public school made this implementation difficult. This caused an amendment exempting elementary
grades near the border with a population over 5000 in 1925.
Also in 1925 there was a
call for the state to get more involved in this process. Every township doing what it wanted was not
working. But through out the 1930s and
40s these pleas were not heard.
Curriculum
Local folk could not
ignore those that had enrolled. They
tried various strategies for teaching English, reading, hygiene, and desirable
social habits to these children. Most
agreed that the best way to teach English was to use the English-only
method.
The State Department of
Education (SDE) issued curricular guides for teaching English to non-speaker
elementary kids in 1924. It said that
English was to be emphasized at the expense of other subject matter. The whole first year should be given over to
English instruction. It pointed out that
if they didn’t get this in first grade, it would be difficult to provide it in
second grade.
The objective, naming
approach and the dramatic action verb methods were recommended. It was best if these were used concerning
objects in their every day world.
Community words were later to be used.
The ear, then the tongue then the eye were the order to be emphasized as
per the suggestions of their language acquisition theories. IQ tests were also to be used.
Another one was issued in
1930 to teach “foreign” children. These
were based on the techniques used to teach English speaking kids. They included a drive to popularize English
so that it would be used on the playground.
This program was to be verbal and aimed at teaching 300 – 500 words to
the kids by the end of the first year.
The author complains that
Spanish and teaching of Spanish was not given importance.
P. 46 For
older Mexican students non-academic programs.
Some presumed that they excelled in sport, music and art. The teachers were optimistic about these
potentials. Vocational education was
also suggested. But so
many dropped out early that these programs were not much implemented.
Personal hygiene was
taught because the Mexican children marry at an early age, said one
instructor.
“While teachers were
finding ways of Americanizing Mexican children, local school officials were
developing new administrative techniques for providing separate and inferior
educational opportunities for them.”
One technique was in the
non-enforcement of compulsory school attendance laws. Several studies done in the
1920s show the attitudes behind the lack of enforcement.
P. 48-49 One part of the law was that it was only operative within 2
and ½ miles of the school house. This
makes many geographically exempt. A
second problem was that the punishment was a fine and the poor Mexican parents
did not have the money to pay it. They
didn’t have jail space for those who wouldn’t comply and the families of those
who were put in jail for this would have become dependent on public charity and
debilitated local agriculture, caused people to flee to
Another problem would have
been the impact their presence would have had on the other children.
Some thought it would make
them dissatisfied with working. Others
thought they wouldn’t benefit because they are intellectually inferior.
Some school officials said
educating them would be a financial burden and interfere with the regular
course of instruction.
One said the Mexicans like
school but not enough to sacrifice work for it.
Apportionment
and the Distribution of School Funds
P. 53 During
the 1920s and 1930s most of the funds for schools were state and local. They were disbursed by local or county boards
of trustees. The apportionment of state
funds was based on the number of children between six and seventeen reported by
the census. Many districts counted the
population of the Mexicans, but then did not distribute the money to them via
education.
The more Mexicans didn’t
attend the more money they had per white student.
Only enough money was
given to the Mexicans to satisfy them and meet the minimum requirements of the
law.
School
Segregation
Most were sent to
different buildings. School officials
kept them apart to comply with the wishes of the general population. Local autonomy facilitated segregation. These were the policies supported by the
majority.
When there were a lot of
Mexicans the reasons given were a) that association was undesirable to the
Anglo population and b) it was to the advantage of the Mexicans to be
separate. Cleanliness was a big
deal. Lice and odors. Others said that not speaking English and
irregular attendance made it hard for them to be a part of the regular program. Separate facilities helped them get more
appropriate instruction.
From 1920 – 1942, when
immigration was big, segregation flourished.
In 1930 it was estimated
that over 40 districts created separate schools for Mexicans. By 1942,
Some of it was De Jure discrimination (if that is the one where it is just a
function of the population that one race is not represented).
This segregation was
particularly strong in early grades. But
in the higher grades, Mexicans were discouraged from attending the “American”
schools. Another grade was added for
those who were advanced or they were told they’d have to go to a farther away
school if they wanted to continue their education.
Transportation was provided
for Anglos, but not Mexicans.
If, somehow, they made it
to an American school in a higher grade, the locals would make it very
uncomfortable. The idea was that the
Mexicans were just here to work.
He says exclusion and assimilation
were at cross-purposes. They did not
want folks to get together at a social level, but wanted them to at a cultural
level. This discouraged Mexicans from
trying to get an education.
Chapter Three ::::::::::::::::::::::: Roused from Our Slumbers
p. 64 In the 1920s several
studies found that rural Mexicans were indifferent to education or else unaware
of its advantages. 75% were rural. Paul Taylor said this was due to poverty,
discrimination and a lack of school facilities.
Historically, he noted, Mexican laborer’s heritage includes very little
schooling or none.
He interviewed a Mexican
who said they had large families and needed them to work. This is good for the parent but not the
kids. Often the parents cannot read or
write. An old vaquero said Mexicans don’t
like school cause they like to sing and dance.
A select few, Taylor found
were beginning to express an intense interest.
The change was most apparent among workers in small towns (clerks and
small merchants). They started
complaining. They blamed the teachers
because after four or five years, the kids cannot get out of the second grade
reader.
The teachers don’t do
enough and it is hard to send your kids five or six miles in the winter.
There was also some
evidence of people trying to set up their own schools. These were small and focused on maintaining
Spanish and Mexican culture. People
described these to
These changes in attitude
were due, in no small part, to LULAC (again the League of United Latin American
Citizens).
LULAC
and Attitudes toward Public Education
LULAC was a response to
the economic deprivation felt by the well-to-do from 1900 to 1930. Texas Mexicans were said to be disloyal and
blamed for juvenile delinquency, illiteracy, and crime. Unwanted except as a source
of cheap labor, Texas Mexicans were discouraged or prohibited from
participating in politics, denied their civil rights, and discriminated against
in all spheres of life.
Violence against Mexicans
was also increasing. Lynchings,
“no lots sold to Mexicans” and “No Mexicans allowed” signs were to be
seen.
P. 68 As early as 1910
there was an (unsuccessful) conference to organize a group to advocate
rights. It was not until 1929 that
LULAC, the first, was formed.
All the individuals in
LULAC were born in the
Ben Garza, LULAC’s first
president general, for example. He was
the head of a household of eight after his father died. He worked his way up to sending his brothers
to college and owning a building (he made the last payment right before he
died).
He went to
It was also distinguished
by its commitment to having Mexicans integrate into the political and social
institutions of American life. Their
constitution said one of the central aims was to “develop within the members of
our race, the best, purest, and more perfect type of true and loyal citizen of
the
Half of all the Mexicans
in
P. 70 They de-emphasized dependence
on
They were not calling for
total assimilation as has been suggested by some authors. Their constitution declared one of their aims
was “to assume complete responsibility for the education of our children as to
their rights and duties and the language and customs of this country; the
latter insofar as they may be good customs.”
They did not wish to “abominate”
their Latin heritage. They had
respectful reverence for their racial origin.
P. 72 LULAC was also
different from the previous mutual help groups in that they limited their
membership to
They were about education
and stopping persecution and were going to use legal means. They did not use violence which may disturb
the peace of “our country.”
They wanted to gain access
and go among their own people and disseminate faith in public education. Both officials and their own people were to
blame.
They identified language
and attitudes as the main cultural barriers.
90 percent of the problem was that MAs did not talk English at
home. It was so important to advancement
that they made it the official language of the organization.
They noted that if you
speak English you will think American.
They promoted American behavior, cultural values, and communication
patterns. Education would lead to
professions and respect.
LULAC
and the Campaign for Educational Equality
They focused on
challenging segregation in schools. Many
thought that if they sent their kids to schools with whites, they’d learn to
speak English better. [They do not
mention the effect they think it’d have on the education of whites].
Some were for segregation,
but by the 1920s many opposed it.
They noted that German
students who did not speak English were not segregated.
Garza accepted that
perhaps segregation would be required until English was learned and cleanliness
was appreciated, but not based on race.
The first challenge to
segregation happened the year before LULAC was founded.
The plaintiff had adopted
the kid and said that he was not Mexican and shouldn’t be put in the Mexican
school.
Both sides agreed that the
board of trustees didn’t have the right to discriminate based on race
alone. They also agreed that the child
had been assigned to this school because the adoptive parents were
Mexicans. Language would be a sufficient
reason, they also agreed.
Little Amada Vela, it was
found, did speak English. The child was
let in. This just applied, however, to
one child. Two years later LULAC did a class
action lawsuit on a similar basis. It is
the first lawsuit regarding the placement of MAs.
P. 79 They were suing, not
concerning the quality of facilities, but the act of segregating itself. The court found that in this case, since it
just concerned the extension of segregated buildings after a bond measure was
passed, did not force segregation. They
also found the separation based on language ability was not arbitrary or
unconstitutional.
The school said the
placement was due to late enrollment and sporadic attendance. Efficiency is hampered if people just drop in
sometimes. Secondly,
the language problem. Finally the
court found no intent to discriminate.
So segregation on
practical grounds yes, on national origin, no.
LULAC, low on funds and
frustrated, decided to switch from legal tactics to getting to know principals,
sups and teachers. In one case they
opened a school that was shut on the promise of delivering students. 90 came.
The school was opened. They also
sent letters to state legislatures. They
also spoke at conferences. In one about
getting rid of Mexican stereotypes in history textbooks. They established a scholarship fund. LULAC organized PTAs. They wanted parents to encounter the Anglo
world.
They documented that in
In 1934, as a result, the Liga de Defensa Escolar was founded.
It was composed of thirty-seven social , civic,
commercial and religious organizations to present a united front. They worked for fourteen years to little
effect.
PART TWO: 1940 – 1965
Chapter Four :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
On the Home Front
P. .91 MAs seemed to have
political clout for the first time during WW II. During the war there was a need to cooperate
with Latin American countries. To this
end the Feds formed the Office of Inter-American Affairs in 1940. The office had an informational and economic
mission.
Public schools were to
play their part in the information aspect by disseminating information about
Latin American countries’ cultural attributes.
The treatment of MAs in the
In 1943 the zoot suit riots didn’t help the Good Neighbor Policy. In
Mexicans were
resentful. [Their record of not allowing
us to buy houses or immigrate is not gone into.
As always
Nazi’s broadcast
information about these incidents throughout
We made two proclamations
and set up a Texas Good Neighbor committee.
[Again, the irony. We are fighting a war and they want us to
apologize for giving them employment.
They were not being Great Neighbors].
Good
Neighbor Policy Committees and Mexican American Appointments
The State Dept of Ed (SDE)
sought advice from Mexican officials, MAs were hired too. Mexican officials wanted us to, among other
things, change our textbooks. George I. Sanchez,
professor of education at the U of Texas, was perhaps the most outspoken person
on these committees. He was an
ex-president of LULAC.
Inter-American
Educational Policy: Neighborliness Begins at Home
P. 96 In 1942 -43 Sanchez
started studies of
Part one of these surveys
recognized the fact that the Spanish speakers were an important part of the
school population. It also called for an
end to segregation. The second big focus
was on curricular reform and teacher training.
They wanted us to teach of the Latin American cultures and in
Spanish. He wanted us to teach about the contributions
of
P. 100 14 teacher training
workshops were convened. Conferences were
held to see what could be done to improve the health and economic conditions of
MAs. [Did they see this as helpful to
the war effort?]. They promoted plays
and curriculum that helped us understand life in
The final statement said
there were differences between Anglos and Spanish speaking people were
different in respect to language, cultural attributes and socioeconomic status,
all individuals are alike. And the
heritage of every child in
Redefining
the “Mexican Problem” in the Schools
P. 103 In 1943
The old view of the Mexican
problem was that their failure was due to inherently lower intelligent or
cultural attributes as reasons for non-achievement.
The old best way for
resolving the Mexican problem was to provide segregated schools for them where
they would be taught English and American customs.
The new definition noted
the differences in MAs according to their socioeconomic circumstances. Sanchez also wanted us to realize how diverse
the culture of various types of Mexicans were.
They also noted that
Spanish speakers were widespread, though heavily concentrated along the
The conference results
wanted to note that children are all children, though the MAs had a
complication in Language. Educators
pointed out that many children did not have sufficient opportunities to learn
English due to time limits in instruction and limited opportunities to mix with
English speakers.
P. 106 Conference
participants did not consider language central, however. Health, citizenship, and vocational
adjustment were big goals.
They suggested that
Spanish be used in the teaching of English.
Teaching English speakers Spanish was the main outcome of this. This was done so we could understand them and
minimize homefront hostility during the war.
Beginning in 1941 people started asking if we were teaching English
speakers Spanish, why not teach Spanish speakers
Spanish? That is “if we really feel that
there is something in Spanish and Mexican culture worthy of
Americans’ knowing”
Ester Brown of El Paso
said this was necessary as often MAs were ridiculed because they could speak
neither Spanish nor English well. Teaching
Spanish would make them feel useful and important. “From appreciation of what he and his family
can contribute o the school through Spanish, he comes to take pride and
interest in his schoolwork.” In
recognizing their culture and language MAs could be made to be more valuable
members of society.
They also wanted to adopt
child and community centered education curriculum. They wanted vocational education.
Chapter Five ::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Compelled to Litigate
P. 113 During
WW II women and minorities got more urbanized.
Legal and illegal immigration increased.
But as societies’ wealth increased MAs stayed second class
citizens.
It has been estimated that
between 375,000 and 500,000 MAs served during WW II. They were the most decorated ethnic group in
WW II. In the army, for the first time,
many were given a first taste of first-class citizen life. But at home that status was not
recognized. Many places still would not
serve Mexicans, veterans or not.
P. 116 “Although
of Mexican descent, these veterans came to understand that they were American
citizens and, as citizens, they were entitled to full protection under the law.”
The American G.I. Forum
was organized in 1948 by Hector P. Garcia.
It was, originally, a veteran’s organization. They became an MA rights organization that
focused on education.
The
Campaign against School Segregation, 1946 - 1957
The effort to end
segregation started in 1945 under LULAC’s supervision. They protested a segregated, dilapidated
school near
Mendez v.
This was the first time a
federal court had said such a thing.
Second, it undercut the idea that Spanish speakers learn English faster
in segregated schools. Next, the essence
of equal protection was held to be equal facilities and teachers. This case was encouraging to MAs in other
states.
In 1947 the attorney
general of
P. 120 There was, however,
no mechanism to enforce this decision and no guidelines for implementation were
provided to local school districts. When discrimination was brought to the
attention of the SDE, they did nothing.
George Sanchez found 8 of
10 randomly chosen
This was in no way
conducive to their Americanization, better health, social habits, language
development or school attendance.
p. 122 The Mendez case did
not define segregation or the basis upon which it was illegal. It also did not address whether or not state
officials had any responsibility for monitoring such situations.
In 1948 LULAC filed a suit
for Minerva Delgado and twenty other parents against several school districts
and officials. The American G.I. Forum
also helped. During this case Hector
Garcia and George Sanchez became good friends.
Delgado v.
The court said the
practice was arbitrary, discriminatory and illegal. The court said this had to stop by September
1949.
It clarified Melendez in
that it said no segregation could happen without a stated policy.
It also said that separate
facilities had to be on the same campus and only in the 1st grade
for educationally justified reasons. It
held state officials responsible too. On
the day of the ruling the state superintendent of public instruction issued
regulations regarding the illegality of segregation.
P. 126 The letter said
that segregation practices applied to members of the Negro race, but not
members of any other race.
Though a legal and moral
boost, school districts did not comply.
In 1949 the American G.I. Forum did a study that found of 14 districts,
six had made no efforts or did not promise to end segregation, the rest used
other evasive tactics.
P. 129 LULAC and the
American G.I. Forum petitioned officials to enforce compliance. This had some effect.
To counter this the State legislature transferred the elected Sup of
Public Instruction’s powers to the newly created and appointed office of
commissioner of education. Declared an
emergency, the switch took place immediately.
It is unclear why MAs did
not mount a significant challenge to this type of maneuvering, but it stopped
desegregation for several years. Accreditation
was given back immediately.
LULAC and the American
G.I. Forum asked for redress. The State
Board of Ed said that this was illegal, but left it to local communities to
handle grievances. They could return to
the Commissioner of Ed only after local officials had been given an opportunity
to address the practices. Complicated
procedures were set up by locals to make the grievance process impassable. It had time limits but required a study paid
for by the complaining party. The
decision had to come after a “reasonable time.”
Then appeals would have to go to the county and etc and etc.
Between 1950 and 1957 many
cases were pursued through the process and all but one were
dismissed before the courts had made a final decision.
They won the federal
Driscoll case in 1957, but it had no effect.
No further litigation was pursued until the political and economic
circumstances changed in the late 1960s.
Chapter Six :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Beginning with the Beginner
P. 139 During the 1950s MA organizations
became concerned with issues other than education. For example the American G.I. Forum
vigorously opposed the entry of wetbacks into the state and opposed the 1951
congressional renewal of the Braceero Contract
Agreement.
LULAC stayed with
education. It promoted Little Schools of
the 400, an English instructional program for MA preschool children. The attempt to teach English was not
new. What was was
the fact that MAs themselves were at the forefront of it.
Origins
of the Little Schools of the 400
The Little Schools of the
400 were the brainchild of Felix Tijerina, the president of LULAC from 1956 to
1960. He was focused on reducing the
high drop out rate for MAs.
State officials told him
that lacking English was the reason so many dropped out in the first
grade. 70 percent would not be promoted
after the first grade. Having to repeat
other grades too, they would fall, stumble and then drop out.
Felix had dropped out at
the age of nine to help in the cotton fields, but taught himself English and
opened a chain of Mexican food restaurants.
He said learning English was the key to his success.
The schools were to teach
400 English words, hence the name.
Originally conceived as a
radio program, Tijerina launched the program using a public high school
classroom and a 17 year old teacher he personally paid. The program was designed by Elizabeth Burrus, who had taught MAs for 20 years. She believed in learning by doing. Teachers were to teach in both languages. Success required teachers who had cultural
understanding and parental or family rewards.
P. 145 Getting enrollment
was hard. Many parents were just not
interested. Others needed the 5 and 6
year old baby sitters, others were ashamed that their
kids didn’t have adequate shoes or clothing.
The first class was
Spanish was used
sparingly. Only one of the original 60
that attended had to repeat the first grade (80% was the norm).
P. 146 -147 Still several
LULAC members were skeptical. Tijerina
had to launch a campaign to convince LULAC.
But they made a fund. It cost
$8.75 a child. This could save the
state millions in that it would reduce grade repetition. And it could raise the average grade level of
the MA population from
State
Sponsorship of the Little Schools of the 400, 1958 - 1959
In 1959 H.B. 51 was passed
funding for a program based on the Little Schools of the 400. There were several reasons for its
passage. Only 1 of 12 MAs were getting
to 12th grade. Many kids
reentered and cost the state money.
Another reason for passage was that its implementation was
voluntary. Finally it deflected
criticism of the politicians involved.
Operational
Policies of the Preschool Instructional Act, 1959 - 1960
Tijerina was one of three
MAs on the six person commission to implement the program. Evaluation of the program was to be delivered
in 1961.
The Texas Education Agency
wrote up who could teach and attend and that any school with 15 willing to
attend could apply for the money. The
state would pay 90% of costs and the local district the rest.
Promoting
and Publicizing the Instruction Program
No funds were provided for
promoting and publicizing the program.
Tijerina said, the program is here, now is the time for MAs to show that
we care and make the program a success. If folks don’t show, all the efforts
creating the program will have been wasted.
P. 152 They got Spanish
newspapers to donate space, radio stations too.
Even a station in
One field organizer who
sent daily reports conveys it taking many days to find the superintendent of a
local school district. When he found the
Sup, he said that they already had that kind of program, but would apply for
the state funds. Some districts didn’t
want the program, most did.
Gulf Oil donated the use
of a plane and $15,000 dollars for a publicity tour of states with 200,000
circulars and 2,500 posters. On the same
day tv and 38 radio stations
ran advertisements.
It was a success. In 1960 when the doors opened 15,805 students
showed.
To attend you needed vaccination
proof and birth certificates.
In 1962 the state did
their evaluation and found it was a success.
95% instead of 51% of kids passed first grade reading after having taken
the course.
Only 7 % of the kids who
took the program were retained in first grade.
This was in contrast to the 52% otherwise.
Despite its success, the
program diminished in significance as a result of federal programs like Title I and Head Start. They
had to work hard to show that their program was different and didn’t duplicate
efforts.
Manuel criticized the
program for not including the learning of Spanish. George Sanchez was also a big critic. He felt they got more out of repeating first
grade.
P. 159 By 1966 the lack of
district participation and student enrollment was discouraging. The peak year had been 1964 when 1,427
districts participated.
They recommended it e
extended to a year for migrant kids and started earlier, but this was
ignored.
PART THREE: 1965 – 1981
Chapter Seven ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
A Sustained Legal Attack
P. 164 Restlessness
created by the growing black civil rights movement, the federal government’s
war on poverty, and the anti war sentiment fueled restlessness and moral
outrage and made folks discontent with middle class organizations like LULAC
and the American G.I. Forum.
People were at first
hopeful, but Kennedy, for example only appointed a conservative, non-democrat
as the first MA federal judge in history in
After LBJ became president
MAs were very hopeful for federal leadership and assistance. He did not give important posts in drawing up
the War on Poverty guidelines to MAs.
Most of the attention was focused on black needs, not the special needs
of MAs.
LBJs
conference on civil rights included no MAs.
One radical group claimed
there were 6 million MAs in 1966. They
demanded federal jobs and representation.
In May LBJ privately met with 5 leaders.
LBJ didn’t put them in the Civil Rights commission, but agreed to a
conference just for them and to appoint a MA to the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
They didn’t get their own
conference and were unhappy with the hearings alternative and that radical
leaders weren’t invited.
Instead group leaders
decided to walk out and have an alternative conference. They called the group La Raza Unida, in the barrios of
Those that stayed in the
conference heard that the MAs were poorly served by government programs but
proud of their cultural and linguistic heritage. They wanted to get the same benefits from the
feds that the blacks were getting. They
wanted more programs.
P. 168 – 169 Those who went to the Raza conference heard the same, but
more radical stuff too. They affirmed
the “magnificence of La Raza.” The newer
groups favored confrontation even though it sometimes led to violence.
Student activists
sponsored walk outs for MA studies programs.
The Mexican American Legal
Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF) was started and
became a key supporter of the new student activists.
Founding
of MALDEF
The founding of MALDEF is
usually attributed to Pete Tijerina, a MA lawyer from
P. 170 – 171 LULAC had won
the right for MAs to be on
Unlike LULAC and the
American G.I. Forum that did lawsuits as a last resort, MALDEF used the courts
as the primary instrument to effect changes.
Education
Litigation: The Early Years
Early on it did not choose
its cases with the understanding that they needed to strategically go for cases
that would effect the largest number of folks. By 1970 they started to get strategic.
In 1968 it filed suits in
the areas of police brutality, voting rights, discrimination in employment, and
civil liberties. In education it filed
suits against discriminatory practices in testing, student placement, and
finance. It also did so
on behalf of bilingual education advocates.
In
The Department of Health,
Education and Welfare (HEW) pursued black desegregation after Title IV of the
Civil Rights Act mandated them to. They,
in turn, designated the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) to enforce these
provisions.
In
Even when OCR’s reviews
found discrimination in student and faculty assignments, facilities and
tracking they took no action.
MALDEF threatened action
and got school districts to create plans for rectification in many cases.
Cisneros
and the Changing Complexion of the Desegregation Struggle
P. 177 In 1970 MALDEF
started being more strategic and hired new leadership. Cisneros v.
The “other white” strategy
sought to have MAs declared as part of the white race. Federal and state documents before 1954
mandated separation of blacks and whites, but did not stipulate that members of
the same race could be segregated. MAs
thus tried to prove they were white.
P. 178 In order to get the
benefit of the Brown decision they had to get legal status as a separate and
distinct minority. That is, “a group
classified as having unalterable congenital traits, political impotence, and
the attachment of a stigma of inferiority.”
In the Cisneros case
MALDEF asked the court to say that MAs could be considered a distinct
minority. Judge Cox said that on the
basis of their physical characteristics, Spanish language, Catholic religion,
distinct culture and Spanish surnames, MAs were a distinct minority.
However this was just
decided at the federal district court level.
Getting higher court level acceptance was the focus until 1973.
In Ross, Cisneros was put
aside. Ross said that
The Supreme Court finally
settled the issue in 1973s Keyes v. School District Number One,
Desegregation
and the Push for Bilingual/Bicultural Education
P. 181 MALDEF started to
argue that not even integrated schools created equal opportunity because Anglo,
English-speaking, middle-class orientated schools deprived MAs of an equal
chance to succeed in schools. Their
inability to identify with the values left them at a grave disadvantage. Only a complete revision of the curriculum
could rectify this.
The Supreme Courts 1971
Swann case had given support to this view.
In this case the Supremes said that neighborhood school plans which
resulted in continued school desegregation had to be overcome no matter how
much inconvenience and extra transportation was needed. Swann’s opinion’s final paragraph said that
compliance would only be complete when “racial discrimination through official
action is eliminated from the [school] system.”
Alan Exelrod, a MALDEF attorney, said this
meant bilingual/bicultural education as a remedy the inherent discrimination in
Anglo-oriented curriculum.
P. 183 This rationale was
accepted by courts that oversaw Keyes implementation.
The Supreme Court also did
Lau v. Nichols at this time.
The 10th
Circuit Court overruled the court supervising the Keyes implementation. This hurt as the Supremes would not here the
same case twice.
MALDEF mourned that the
court didn’t understand that bilingual/bicultural education was not meant to
preserve ethnic or linguistic separateness, but accelerate the integration into
an English speaking educational system.
Rulings were divided. Some said MAs needed to be dispersed for
desegregation and others required concentration for bilingual education
purposes. MALDEF wanted both
simultaneously.
By the late 70s,
desegregation slowed to a near halt. MAs
started to share the disillusionment of breaking up MA schools and busing kids
to Anglo schools that the rest of the country did. They started wanting, not desegregation, but
bilingual programs.
Chapter Eight ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
We Cannot Afford to Rest
P. 192 Myriads of demands
were made by MAs and met. With the
passage of the 1967 bilingual Education Act, MAs began increasingly to support
one special type of ed program over all others -
bilingual education.
Why? It was thought to be
pedagogically sound. It was thought to
educate and motivate MAs. It gives him
pride in his culture.
Second it gave them a way
to wedge in the inclusion of their cultural heritage.
Lastly, it made schools
respond to their cultural background and very special education needs.
To be successful bilingual
needed to include restructuring of the whole approach to curriculum.
Developing
Bilingual Education Policy, 1969 - 1975
After 1967 MA pressured
for bilingual ed a lot. MALDEF and Texas Representatives, Bernal and Truan were at the lead.
First they passed a bill
which made bilingual ed an option. It did not pay for it or demand it, it simply repealed the 1918 prohibition against it.
They got guidelines
approved which said that teaching in dominant and second language should help
the child develop a positive identity with their cultural heritage.
Truan
got a bill passed which mandated first through sixth grade bilingual education
when more than twenty per class had Limited English Speaking Ability
(LESA). When he tried to get
Kindergarten added for the 1975-76 school year, the total hours got reduced
instead. For 1976-77 it got reduced to
Kindergarten through third. Fourth and
fifth became an option, but no money was to be spent on bilingual ed in grades 6 – 12.
MA
Responses to the Reduction of Bilingual Education
This setback came during a
time of general setbacks. Unequal
funding suits had run their course by 1973.
La Raza was fizzling. In 1975 the
Tenth Circuit said bilingual ed was no substitute for
desegregation.
Legislative and legal
challenges were launched. To get into
bilingual programs a child had to score below 40 and to get out, above 40. State officials brought it down to 23.
P. 199 The review of Title
VII programs given in 1977 by the US Office of Ed was critical and this armed
critics.
It found that less than 30
percent of the participating children were actually limited in their English
speaking ability and 86 % of the projects tended to keep children in bilingual
education programs long after they were ready to move into English ones.
It also found the programs
were spending $376 dollars more per student than regular programs and having no
“consistent significant” impact in English Arts or mathematics.
Months later Noel Epstein
asked whether the federal government should promote different languages and
cultures through bilingual education.
Ethnic identity was the job of families and private schools and
such.
Critics also noted that
there was no federal requirement to teach bilingual or bicultural
education.
The newly formed Texas
Association for Bilingual Education still thought they could get a first
through eighth grade bill passed, but then a huge ruling in a lawsuit filed by
MALDEF in 1981 happened.
P. 201 The judge said
there was widespread discrimination in
The judge then laid out
specifics of the plan that had to happen.
It required bilingual education for those who were of Limited English
Proficiency (LEP). The TEA would have to
recruit and train bilingual teachers according to a timeline. And the LEPs would
have to be identified and allowed to stay in these special programs for as long
as necessary. Failure to comply would
result in sanctions and loss of accreditation.
Gov. Clements condemned
the decision.
Taking
the Lead: Introduction and Defeat of S.B. 477
MALDEF decided to
introduce legislation that would assure that there was compliance with the
court order and order bilingual education from K – 12th.
It also sought to make the
definition of LEP those who could not speak, read and write English fluently It had no
limit in time and was required whenever 2 students needed it. It required on-site inspections ever three
years and would cost $23 million.
The lone opponent said it
would cause divisiveness in society.
In the Senate Education
Committee they worried that it would increase illegal immigration. They through it would also add to segregation
k – 12.
It was sent to
subcommittee (the graveyard for bills).
Task
Force on Bilingual Education
The governor called for a
task force on Bilingual Ed before the court ordered plan submission
deadline. They wanted to show good faith
while they appealed the decision by implementing improvements in their current
bilingual program.
The task force’s main
disagreements were over what grade to extend the program until. They said, finally, there should be bilingual
in the elementary grades and a special language program in the secondary
grades.
Politics
of the Enactment of S.B. 477
Truan
said you may not like bilingual ed, but it is better
you do it yourself than to have the court do it to you. Conservatives didn’t buy this. The bill was to cost $30 million.
It passed with the moneys
reduced and the stipulation that local district could try different programs on
those that failed to transfer out after four years. Truan told Senators
if they did not remove these provisions, he’d withdraw the bill and they’d have
to do what the court said.
The house tried to put the
four year limit before transferring to intensive English courses, but TRUAN
said no. [Is Truan
not for learning English? What is his
real agenda?] He got the qualifications
taken off. Kids were safe to be in
bilingual programs through their entire k – 12 careers. Their
success was even more remarkable since opposition was at an all time high. The courts work better than democracy.
Chapter Nine :::::::::::::::::::::::
Conclusion
This book covers 70 years
of battles. They were aimed at getting
government action and educating the MA community about the import of
education. In the heat of the battle
they expended little energy on promoting an intellectual tradition or
developing the virtue of self-education among the MAs. The emphasis has been political
instead.
From 1910 to 1940 the
emphasis was on equality and desegregation in elementary schools.
From 1940 to 1965 the WW
II generation created the Little Schools of the 400. They went to and got support from the
state. They also worked on getting their
language and culture into the curriculum.
During the final period
1965 – 1981 the battle became more professional and until the mid-1970s it
focused on desegregation. After 1975 it
switched to a quest for bilingual ed.
This was to reverse the English
only language policies and encourage cultural pride [no assimilation
wanted].
The
Campaign for Educational Equality: An Assessment
The no Spanish rule,
racist remarks by school personnel, rigid cultural dress codes and outright
exclusion of MAs cultural heritage were eliminated. They also fought discrimination and
segregation on national origin.
The curriculum had to
officially recognize a non-English language and culture. MA history and culture classes were
created. The special needs and “negative
aspects of assimilation” were recognized.
All discrimination was
not, however, eliminated. In the 1980s
MAs were still placed in inferior and segregated schools and remedial
programs. They were also denied access
to special education programs like English, mathematics and computers.
“Further, the curriculum
in most schools continues to be assimilationists in theory and fact.” This has resulted in continuing poor
performance by MAs.
MAs have made three
fundamental errors n their attempts to get what they want. 1) they focused on
changing policy rather than changing policy makers. 2) they focused on administrative
policies too much 3) they failed to identify the root problem: resistance by
local officials. But the real problem
was the continuing impotence of the MA community.
As a result MAs have been
unsuccessful in getting rid of dual instruction systems and segregation. They have failed to modify the assimilationist
character of the curriculum. Pressure
for assimilation may reverse some of the bilingual gains. But, as this study has shown, they will
continue to fight for their rightful place in society.