DR. VERONICA C. GARCIA SECRETARY OF EDUCATION May 29, 2009 STATE OF NEW PUBLIC EDUCATION DEPARTMENT. 300 DON GASPAR SANTA FE, NEW MEXICO 87501-2786 Telephone (50S) 827-8800 www.pedstatenmus BILL RICHARDSON Governor Mr. Winston Brooks Superintendent ‘Albuquerque Public Schools P.O. Box 25704 Allbuquerque, NM 87125 Mr. Eddie Soto ‘Associate Superintendent Albuquerque Public Schools P.O. Box 25704 Albuquerque, NM 87125 Ms. Linda Sink Chief Academic Officer ‘Albuquerque Public Schools P.O. Box 25704 “Albuquerque, NM 87125 Mr. Frank Trujillo ‘Albuquerque, NM 87105 Ms. Esther Rivera ‘Albuquerque, NM 87102 Ms. Linda Torres Principal Rio Grande High School 2300 Arenal Road, SW ‘Albuquerque, NM 87105 RE: Trujillo & Rivera v, Albuquerque Publie Schools NMPED Case No.: Title 1/0809-01 School: Rio Grande High School Ladies and Gentlemen: Enclosed please find the Complaint Resolution Report for in the above-referenced matter. Please note that the report ‘requires corrective actions. I look forward to your cooperation in addressing the necessary corrective actions and reaching @ ‘conclusion to this matter. Veronica C, Garefa, Ed.D. Secretary of EducationNEW MEXICO PUBLIC EDUCATION DEPARTMENT TITLE I BUREAU Complaint Resolution Report Case No. Title 1/0809-01 May 29, 2009 This report requires corrective action. See pages 8 to 10. ‘Scope of NMPED Review and Authority ‘The New Mexico Public Education Department (NMPED) received this complaint in the form of correspondence from the complainants dated February 17 and March 6, 2009, under statutes and federal regulations related to parental involvement in Title I programs of the federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). The New Mexico Public Education Department (NMPED) has jurisdiction and responsibility to investigate and resolve a complaint alleging a violation of federal statute or regulation that applies to an applicable program and issues this report.’ The NMPED has investigated this complaint from within this legal framework. Thus, the complainants’ issues are only discussed below to the extent that they relate to this agency’s concern with enforcement of those laws.” Case Status The school is a public high school in New Mexico that has been identified for restructuring.’ The complaint was filed by several parents and alleged the following regulatory concer: [This high school and other feeder schools] “have been designated for restructure without parental notification or “meaningful” parental involvement.” Post-Complaint Developments On April 13, 2009, the district sent a notice was sent to the school’s Parent Teacher Organization notifying it of a meeting to take place at the school on April 20, 2009, at 6:00 pm at which time the district would present its redesign plan for the school. ' General Statutory Authority: 20 USC 6316 et. seq; 20 USC 6318 et seq; Federal Regulations implementing NCLB requirements: 34 CFR § 200 et seq. ® ‘State Regulations Governing Complaint Procedure: 6.10.3.1 et seq, NMAC; Federal Requirements : 20 USC 7844; 34 CFR §299 * Allegations regarding the conduct of the elected school board member and the selection of the principal for school are not within the purview of this complaint procedure and will not be addressed. A complaint yas directed to Governor Richardson on February 17, 2009, that contained the same regulatory concern. “See 34 CFR §200.43‘Complaint Resolution Report Title /0809-01, May 29, 2009 Page 2 of 10 Conduct of Complaint Investigation The NMPED’s complaint investigation process in this matter involved the following: * A review of documentation submitted by the complainants * A review of documentation submitted by the district, which includes and are designated as follows®: © A copy of the district’s written parental involvement policy under Title I, Part A © Copies of any NCLB or Title I required correspondence and/or meeting notices to parents for the 2008-09 school year that notify them of the school’s restructuring status © Copies of any documents that demonstrate parental involvement in the school’s restructuring status and determination of Title I funds The Issue The complainants allege that the district failed to provide required parental notice(s) and provide for meaningful parental involvement in the development of the restructuring/redesign plan for a certain high school. Discussion The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001(NCLB Act) reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA). The parental involvement provisions are found in Title I, Part A of the ESEA.® A Local Education Agency (LEA) may receive funding under the Act only if, in planning and implementing programs, activities, and * The NMPED requested , but the district declined to submit, the following information: ‘© Signed narrative responses with supporting documentation from individuals with knowledge that address the allegations (bulleted items) on page | of the complaint dated March 6, 2009 ‘+ Signed narrative responses with supporting documentation from individuals with knowledge that address the fol allegations in the February 17 portion of the complaint: (© The district has disregarded mechanisms in place for parental involvement in the restructuring of a certain high school. © The district has actively prevented parental involvement in determining allocations for federal, state, and local funds, and will not publish data detailing the allocations. © The results of the distrct’s internal investigation into this matter and a proposed ‘corrective action plan ifthe allegations were confirmed, © Anarrative response describing any issues in the complaint that have since been resolved ‘or acted upon since the complaint was filed © Any other information thatthe district believes is relevant to a proper understanding of this complaint © See 20 USC 6318.