Current Impact of Otero vs. Mesa County Valley SD on Education
In this case the plaintiffs accused the defendant of not implementing a bilingual program suitable for Mexican-American students. The plaintiffs also held that the defendant used discriminatory hiring practices by not hiring more Mexican-Americans in the school. As with many civil social rights issues with regards to education. Mexican-Americans historically have been discriminated against and in many cases, due to language barriers, been placed in less than optimal educational environments.
In this particular case the plaintiffs claimed there was an incompatibility between the cultural and linguistic makeup of the Chicano students and District 51’s educational program. The plaintiffs believed that this incompatibility was inconsistent with effective learning for the Chicano students and that the district disproportionately served Anglo middle class educational interests while disregarding their own. The plaintiffs attempted to link Chicano student’s poor school performance due to their being culturally different than the majority of their teachers whom served Anglo interests and to inherent language barriers.
However less than 3% of the students could speak read or write Spanish and the court also found through intensive inquiry that there was no evidence of discriminatory hiring practices. It was in fact shown that the district had been making concerted efforts to hire qualified personnel of Hispanic descent. Ultimately, the case was found in favor of the defendant due mostly to the weakness of the plaintiff case, and the court inevitably held that the plaintiffs' attempt to link the 14th amendment to bilingual-bicultural education did not apply. It can be inferred from this case that ultimately the success or failure of the student to learn was not fully the responsibility of the teacher or the district but that the burden lay at least in part on the shoulder of the student and parent within the school district community. The results of this case give precedence and some legal cushioning from overzealous suits against schools and educators alike.
Unfortunately, due to the decision the call and necessity in some cases for bilingual education suffered a setback. There are times when children who speak other languages will need to learn in their mother tongue. This results and implications for this case make that necessity more difficult to achieve.
