NABE

ISSN: 0888-1685 (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ubrj18

Nabe Talks to the Office of Civil Rights, about Lau

Mr. Lloyd Henderson

To cite this article: Mr. Lloyd Henderson (1978) Nabe Talks to the Office of Civil Rights, about
Lau, NABE, 2:1, 31-34, DOI: 10.1080/08881685.1978.10668324

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/08881685.1978.10668324

Published online: 12 May 2013.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 8

View related articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ubrj20
 NABE TALKS TO
THE OFFICE
OF CIVIL RIGHTS,
ABOUT LAU
The Office for Civil Rights of the Departement of Health Education and Welfare is the
agency of the federal government which enforces many of the civil rights laws and regulations
affecting language-minority students. It has responsibility for enforcing Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color or national
origin in federally-assisted programs and activities. As part of this charge, the Office for
Civil Rights (OCR) enforces compliance with the Lau v. Nichols decision of1974.
Mr. Lloyd Henderson, Director of the Division of Elementary and Secondary Education
within OCR, was recently interviewed by a member of the NABE Journal editorial board.
The topic was the current status o/Lau compliance activity at OCR. The composite responses
and explanation below are attributed to OCR rather than Mr. Henderson, since they in­
corporate clarifications and additions made to NABE by other OCR staff members.

NABE: Why is it that the "Lau remedies" were NABE: Do you have a projected date for its
never published in the Federal Register in publication?
the same way that the May 25 memoran­ OCR: No, I don't, but it should not be very long.
dum was? Are you planning to do so? NABE: In April of 1976, your office put out a
OCR: It has been our intention all along to memo to the effect that the "Lau Reme­
publish the Lau Remedies in the Federal dies" were guidelines only, i.e., not man­
Register. That document was written to datory. This raised doubts as to the degree
serve as an internal document for use by to which OCR saw bilingual education as
OCR staff. Under the Freedom of Infor­ a viable response to the Lau decision. Is
mation Act, it became available to the there some trepidation on the part of
public. Once we gave it to a few persons OCR in pushing for a bilingual Lau res­
we decided to distribute it widely. We've ponse?
been trying since then to re-write it to OCR: The "Lau Remedies" document was de­
make it easier to understand and to veloped by a group of bilingual consul­
publish it. It is still our intent to do that. tants that OCR brought together to give
us the best advice they could give as to the
kind of education children needed given
Note: Task Force Findings Specifying Remedies for Elimi­
nating Past Educational Practices Ruled Unlawful Under Lau v. various levels of proficiency in the English
Nichols. language. We constantly reminded the

31
NABE TALKS TO THE OFFICE OF CIVIL NABE: Is this document available to us from your
RIGHTS, ABOUT LAU office?
OCR: Yes, we make that available.
Task Force of our reading of the Supreme NABE: Other than filing a formal complaint,
Court decision in Lau. That was that we what other ways are there for someone to
could only require of school districts one bring to your attention the fact that a
thing; that they teach children the aca­ district may be out of compliance with
demic subjects in a language which they Laul
understand while they were learning Eng­ OCR: The complaint is the proper procedure for
lish. At such time as these children are the public to follow. The only other way to
able to compete equally with Anglo chil­ initiate a review is through our own pro­
dren in English, then the school district's cess of analyzing school district data, as I
obligation (to offer a special instructional explained a minute ago. (In the case of the
program), is ended. original 334 districts which we contacted,
When the "Lau Remedies" were distri­ we ran a computer analysis using certain
buted, some people (in and out of gov­ criteria.) From here we can go on our
ernment) sought to apply the remedies to own, although we are restricted in this by
judge whether a district was in compliance the Adams decision and by the limited
or not. Our intention was to apply them nature of our personnel resources.
only after a district had been found in NABE: What did the Adams decision say?
violation of Title VI. The memo which OCR: The Adams case was ruled on in 1976.
you mentioned was intended to commu­ What it does is order OCR to concentrate
nicate two things: (1) these are remedies, on the prompt investigation of specific
not standards for compliance, and (2) our complaints which are lodged with us. We
remedies are not exclusive, even thought have just recently gone to court to seek
we think they represent the best advice we some flexibility on this so we can initiate
can give. If a school system can show us investigations on our own. We have not
that another method can be used which succeeded in convincing the court about
enables children to learn the academic this.
subjects as well as Anglo children, then we NABE: The Office for Civil Rights recently issued
could accept that method too. It is a its annual operating plan for FY 1978.
school district's responsibility, however, to That document states that you will allo­
produce evidence that their alternatives cate the resources of your office to com­
would work. In cases where a close ques­ plaint investigations on the basis of the
tion existed about the suitability of a proportion of complaints which are pending
district's response, it was our intention to as of October 1,1977. My question is, what
have members of our Task Force (of happens to those complaints that come in
educational advisors) review the plan. after that date? Will they be put on the
NABE: If the "Lau Remedies" are used only after back burner, or is there some other me­
a finding of non-compliance, where are chanism for handling these new com­
the non-compliance criteria themselves plaints?
spelled out? Do you have another docu­ OCR: The way we would like to approach it is
ment which tells your staff how to judge this: that for each old complaint that we
the status of a school district vis-a-vis Laut investigate, we would investigate a new
OCR: As you know, we request through our one. That is one that came in after Octo­
questionaire a great deal of data from ber 1, 1977. In this way, we hope to eli­
school districts. We have a staff manual minate our backlog and also keep current
which gives the criteria for analyzing the with the new complaints. Given our limi­
data which we receive from districts. That ted resources however, I don't know
manual explains the circumstances under whether this will be possible.
which the data can reflect non­ NABE: This same document — your annual ope­
compliance. rating plan for FY '78 - states that you
will be conducting forty-four compliance
reviews for Lau this year. Since there are
Note: Analysis for Compliance Report on Institutional
Services for Students Whose Primary Language is Other Than over 16,000 school districts in the U.S., do
English (Form OS 53-74). you consider that forty-four Lau reviews

32
 are enough to convince the country that
NABE TALKS TO THE OFFICE OF CIVIL
you're serious about this issue?
RIGHTS, ABOUT LAU
OCR: No, I don't think that's enough. The dif-
ficulty we have is that there is more dis-
crimination than we have staff to deal of that initial group of three hundred and
with it. We have had to go to court to seek thirty-four districts. Last June we reported
to consolidate all of the court orders to the Congress that questionaires from
against us so we can develop a more bal- two hundred and seventy-five of these
anced program. Right now (October, districts have been analyzed, and deter-
1977) we are absolutely required by the minations of compliance or non-
Adams court order to investigate com- compliance have been made in two hun-
plaints only, and we get very few Lau dred and twenty-two cases. One hundred
complaints. Forty-four reviews are not and fifty-one districts have submitted cor-
enough but right now, the court will de- rective plans, and one hundred and
termine whether we can even do those twenty-six of these have been accepted.
forty-four. I suspect that we will be limited NABE: Your plan also states that OCR "will limit
by Adams to those which are already in the scope of all complaint investigations to
progress. the specific allegations and issues raised
NABE: In your listing of projected OCR activity by the complaint." This seems to be a
for FY '78, if one compares Lau reviews departure from OCR's past practices of
with the other problems which your Office investigating a wide variety of allegations
investigates, one may be led to conclude and issues as they were uncovered in the
that Lau has a very low priority at OCR, course of the investigation. Is this a policy
since you are planning to œmmit very few change in the workings of your agency?
resources to this activity. Would you OCR: Yes, this is a change. The Adams court
comment as to why this is so? order mandates us to investigate all com-
OCR: Well, the main problems have already plaints, and make us to investigate all
been mentioned: (1) inadequate number complaints, and make a decision on com-
of staff people, (2) the restrictions placed pliance, within ninety days of receipt of
on us by the Adams decision, and (3) the that complaint. This necessitates a very
small number of Lau complaints which narrow focus on the issues which we exa-
we have received. On the positive side, mine. We have a backlog of complaints'of
there are two things: One, by relying on roughly three thousand. If we are to make
the questionaire data we don't have ac- any real progress, we simply can't expand
tually to be in the field as much to make a the issues that we look at. We must go on
determination on compliance. Second, the narrowest grounds possible. For pur-
while we are reviewing a small number of poses of Lau, however, it should be speci-
districts, they are very large ones: New fic enough for us to receive a complaint
York, Chicago, Philadelphia and Los An- that alleges that children "are not partici-
geles. We are about to finish negotiating pating effectively in the schools' pro-
plans in New York and Chicago. We are grams." The Lau decision itself says that,
beginning in Los Angeles. When all of so we could investigate all ramifications of
these are completed we shall have ac- such a complaint.
counted for a very large number of Lau- NABE: Your Office here in Washington has
service children. about two hundred professional staff
NABE: Originally your office sent out over three people. How many of these are specifica-
hundred and thirty letters to school dis- lly assigned to work on Z^w-related mat-
tricts which potentially, might have Lau ters in public school districts?
compliance problems. What can you tell OCR: Right now there are only two. We are
us in a general way about the compliance trying to recruit several others. Our policy
status of these districts with regard to Laut office within OCR will eventually have
OCR: All but a handful of those three hunderd other staff members working on Lau
and thirty-four districts were found to be matters.
out of compliance on the basis of the in- NABE: What is the monitoring mechanism that
formation they gave us in their question- your office uses once the comphance plan
aire. Most of the forty-four reviews is accepted, to ensure that its provisions
which we have been talking about are part are indeed carried out by school districts?

33
NABE TALKS TO THE OFFICE OF CIVIL NABE: Do you expect that by the end of this year
RIGHTS, ABOUT LAU you will have looked at all of those three
hundred and thirty-four districts which
you contacted originally in 1975?
OCR: The remedies call for periodic reports to OCR: Yes, we expect so.
us; however, for the œming year we have
not allocated any staff time specifically for NABE: Does a plan have to be submitted to the
that purpose. Monitoring will occur only Washington office before it becomes fi-
to the extent that plans call for it. Other- nal?
wise there will be no monitoring of the OCR: No, it is submitted to the regional office
plan unless someone complains that a and is usually negotiated and accepted
district is not living up to a plan which has there. Only in unusual circumstances will
been accepted or that it has no plan at all. it have to come here.

34