Fisher, et al v. Tucson Unified, et al

Filing 1520

ORDER ADOPTING 1519 Report and Recommendation - Special Master - RE: UHS Admission Process Revision, filed by Willis Hawley. By January 15, 2014, the District shall develop student essay questions and non-cognitive measures. the District shall comply with the Special Masters recommendations. The Districts Request for Authorization to Respond to the R&R of the Special Master Re: UHS Admissions and for Oral Argument (Doc. 1504) is DENIED. Objection and Response to Special Masters Report and Recommendations Regarding University High School (Doc. 1518), which exceeds, without leave, the 17-page limit for memorandum is STRICKEN.. Signed by Senior Judge David C Bury on 12/16/13. (SMBE)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) v. ) ) United States of America, ) ) Plaintiff-Intervenor, ) ) v. ) ) Anita Lohr, et al., ) ) Defendants, ) ) and ) ) Sidney L. Sutton, et al., ) ) Defendants-Intervenors, ______________________________________ ) ) ) Maria Mendoza, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) United States of America, ) ) Plaintiff-Intervenor, ) ) v. ) Tucson Unified School District No. One, et al., ) ) ) Defendants. _______________________________________ ) Roy and Josie Fisher, et al., CV 74-90 TUC DCB (lead case) ORDER CV 74-204 TUC DCB (consolidated case) 1 On November 22, 2013, the Special Master provided a Report and Recommendation 2 (R&R) to the Court regarding the University High School Admissions Process Revision 3 (UHS Admissions Process), due pursuant to the Unitary Status Report (USP) § V(5)(a) on 4 October 1, 2013. (R&R (Doc. 1519), See also (Order (Doc. 1510) (clarifying expedited 5 review procedures for Special Master Report and Recommendation)). 6 He is concerned regarding the District’s proposal to use an untested student test of 7 motivation, the Children’s Academic Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (CAIMI), as an 8 admission tool for University High School (UHS). The Special Master charges that the 9 District ignored the opinions of experts from other “exam” schools, like UHS, who said that 10 it is important to take a holistic approach to foretelling student success, rather than basing 11 admission solely on test scores. In addition to test scores, the exam schools surveyed by the 12 District used non-cognitive measures such as a student’s participation in exceptional 13 activities, evidence of extra effort, leadership and personal qualities, student essays, teacher 14 recommendations, pre-selection committee reviews, and school advocacy tools. (R&R (Doc. 15 1519 ), Ex. A: UHS Admissions Process Revision, Attachments A and K.) The goal of the 16 non-cognitive measurements is “to surface non-traditional students,” including minority 17 students, who may not perform on standardized testing in accordance with their abilities to 18 perform well as students. Id., Attachment K: Franklin Memo at 1. The UHS Admissions 19 Internal Working Group, responsible for revising the UHS Admissions Process, believed 20 “that the use of interviews, personal essays and/or staff recommendations could inject 21 subjectivity into the process, and could reduce the transparency and consistency of the 22 admissions.” (R&R (Doc. 1519), Ex. A: UHS Admissions Process Revision at 4.) 23 The District has intentionally decided to not use the methodologies suggested by the 24 experts because they are subjective, whereas the CAIMI is an objective cognitive 25 measurement. This cognitive “motivational” test would be used as an additive score to the 26 standardized entrance exam, Cognitive Abilities Test (CogAT), and student Grade Point 27 28 2 1 Average (GPA). Both the student’s GPA and the CogAT, which is an IQ-like test, scores 2 translate to a single weighted score. A student must score 50 points to qualify for admission. 3 The CAIMI entrance exam could add an additional 5 points. The idea is that more students 4 could qualify for admission to UHS by obtaining 5 more points. This is an across the board 5 increase in eligibility.1 The District estimates that over three schools years, 2010-11, 2011- 6 12, and 2012-13, the 5 points would have increased qualified students as follows: Anglo 7 students by 35%; Black Students by 5%, and Hispanic students by 53%. By its own 8 admission any increase resulting from CAIMI for Black students is negligible. 9 The Court notes that the information regarding CAIMI contained in the UHS 10 Admissions Process Revision, is limited to interview notes for Dr. Lannie Kanevsky, as 11 follows: What are we trying to measure? Resilience definition: a) “persistency” “adapt” to challenging situation; “stick to itness”; “support” b) “resourcefulness. 12 13 Explained that split in the literature between “positive” vs. “clinical” – identifying positive strengths within teachers vs. using it to identify at-risk students for interventions. Such measures have been used to analyze medical school applicants in Canada. 14 15 16 Resources: Ordinary Magic: Resiliency practices in development – Marsten; Mind Set Currently studies “character”; mentioned Andrew work. 17 Measure: Measure of Academic Intrinsic Motivation – Godfried/Godfried: Children’s Academic Intrinsic Motivation Inventory– Mind Set 18 19 The District represents that the general consensus among the experts they surveyed 20 regarding analysis of current “Exam School” best practices reflects the “general consensus” 21 that the use of multiple and varied methods of analyzing students for the basis of admissions 22 yields a more complete picture of the students and is deemed a best practice. (R&R (Doc. 23 1519), Ex. A: UHS Admissions Process Revision at 6). The District’s UHS Admissions 24 25 26 1 27 The admission provisions will not change the rigorous UHS curriculum, but will make the rigorous curriculum available to a more diverse student body. 28 3 1 Process Revision does not meet the best practices, which are readily available from the 2 survey schools for implementation in the District as recommended by the Special Master. 3 The Special Master recommends that the District not rely on the CAIMI until the 4 District can discern that it will result in identifying Black and Hispanic students, who fall 5 just below the eligibility cut-off based solely on test scores, but will be successful students 6 at UHS. In the mean time, the District should implement the use of student essays and non- 7 cognitive measures being used by the survey schools to “surface” non-traditional students. 8 The Court agrees. Nothing in the Special Master’s recommendation precludes the District 9 from pursuing CAIMI, as an objective measurement of success that will perform equal to 10 the non-cognitive devices currently in use by exam schools like UHS. Nothing precludes the 11 District from using the CAIMI if future study reflects its merit to measure student success. 12 The Court finds that the recommendations of the Special Master can be implemented by the 13 District by January 15, 2014.2 14 Importantly, the Court notes the District’s suggestion that factors having the most 15 impact on diversity of schools, were expanding the school, improving recruitment, and 16 improving feeder pattern educational practices. Id. This cannot be an excuse to ignore 17 improvements in student diversity which can be achieved pursuant to the UHS Admissions 18 Process Revision. Additionally, the Court will look closely at the District’s recruitment plans 19 and whether the district improves feeder patterns relative to feeding them into UHS. The 20 Plaintiffs may reurge any concerns regarding the District’s commitment to recruitment. 21 The Court agrees with the District proposal for a multi-year process “for 22 implementation and analysis of UHS admissions, in collaboration with the Plaintiffs and the 23 Court.” The Special Master’s recommendations do not prevent the District from conducting 24 a two-year pilot program to establish the merits of CAIMI, but ensure that in the mean time, 25 2 27 Any timing problems for the District are of its own making. (R&R (Doc. 1519) at 46.) The District cannot on one hand argue timing constraints and on the other seek further briefing and oral argument on the subject. 28 4 26 1 the best practices known today will be implemented for the students seeking admission at 2 UHS today. 3 Accordingly, 4 IT IS ORDERED that the Special Master’s Report and Recommendation Re: UHS 5 Admission Process Revision, USP § V(5)(a), (Doc. 1519), is adopted by the Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that by January 15, 2014, the District shall develop 6 7 student essay questions and non-cognitive measures for the UHS Admission Process. 8 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the District shall comply with the Special 9 Master’s recommendations by choosing any of his proposed alternatives as a course of 10 action. 11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the District’s Request for Authorization to 12 Respond to the R&R of the Special Master Re: UHS Admissions and for Oral Argument 13 (Doc. 1504) is DENIED. 14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Objection and Response to Special Master’s 15 Report and Recommendations Regarding University High School (Doc. 1518), which 16 exceeds, without leave, the 17-page limit for memorandum is STRICKEN. 17 DATED this 16th day of December, 2013. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?