Fisher, et al v. Tucson Unified, et al

Filing 1894

ORDER ADOPTING IN PART REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 1845 as stated in Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the docket shall reflect that R&R 1836 is not pending because it was replaced by R&R 1845 . TUSD shall undertake further review and evaluation of t he adequacy of these weights. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying TUSD's request to strike portions of the Special Master's R&R, and therefore, the Motion to Strike 1855 filed by the Plaintiffs Mendoza is DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Senior Judge David C Bury on 1/26/2016. (SEE ORDER FOR COMPLETE DETAILS) (DPS)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

7
8

Roy and Josie Fisher, et al.,

No. CV-74-00090-TUC-DCB

Plaintiffs

9
10

and

11

United States of America,
Plaintiff-Intervenor,

12
13

v.

14

Tucson Unified School District, et al.,
Defendants,

15
16

and

17

Sidney L. Sutton, et al.,
Defendants-Intervenors,

18
19
20

Maria Mendoza, et al.,

No. CV-74-0204-TUC-DCB

Plaintiffs,

21
22

and

23

United States of America,
Plaintiff-Intervenor,

24
25

v.

26

Tucson Unified School District, et al.

27
28

Defendants.

ORDER

1
2

Teacher and Principal Evaluations (TPE)

3

On August 28, 2014, at the request of the Mendoza Plaintiffs, the Special Master

4

filed a Report and Recommendation (R&R) related to TUSD’s Teacher and Principal

5

Evaluations (TPE). He recommended that the Court direct TUSD to submit Action Plans

6

for dealing with the procedures for evaluating teachers and principals. (Doc. 1659.)

7

Correspondingly, the Special Master had reported in his 2014 Annual Report, that the

8

development of teacher and principal evaluation procedures was delayed. (Doc. 1641.)

9

TUSD took the position that it had developed such procedures and would begin

10

training to implement them in SY 2013-2014, and the USP did not require the

11

development of an Action Plan for this task, which would trigger USP review and

12

comment by the Plaintiffs and Special Master. The Court found: “The teacher and

13

principal evaluation procedures at issue in this R&R are new and will involve significant

14

changes contemplated to implement the USP, such as basing evaluations on effective

15

efforts to include, engage, and support students from diverse racial, ethnic, cultural, and

16

linguistic backgrounds using culturally responsive pedagogy.” (Order (Doc. 1760) at 3.)

17

The Court found the express and unambiguous terms of the USP § I.D.1,1 therefore,

18

required the Special Master and the Plaintiffs to have an opportunity to review and

19

provide input regarding Teacher Evaluation Procedures and Principal Evaluation

20

Procedures. The Court ordered TUSD to prepare an Action Plan and afford the Special

21

Master and the Plaintiffs an opportunity to review and provide input prior to final

22

scheduled approval by the Board of the teacher and principal evaluation procedures. Id. at

23

3-4, 6.2

24
1

25

See USP (Doc. 1713), edited for typographical errors.

2

26
27
28

The Special Master set this procedural posture out in his R&R to frame the
context for the current issue involving TPEs. The Court denies TUSD’s request to strike
the “Context” portion of the Special Master’s R&R because it accurately reflects the
context of TUSD’s objection, which specifically includes TUSD’s assertion that it is
overreaching and beyond the scope of authority for the Special Master and/or this Court
to address the adequacy of the weights applied by TUSD in the rubric. Accordingly, the
Mendoza Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike is moot.
-2-

1

A year to the day after the first R&R related to teacher and principal evaluations,

2

on August 28, 2015, the Special Master filed a second R&R, again at the urging of the

3

Mendoza Plaintiffs. The section of the USP at issue is § IV.H, which provides, with

4

emphasis added as follows:

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

By July 1, 2013,3 the District shall review, amend as appropriate, and adopt
teacher and principal evaluation instruments to ensure that such
evaluations, in addition to requirements of State law and other measures the
District deems appropriate, give adequate weight to: (i) an assessment of (I)
teacher efforts to include, engage, and support students from diverse racial,
ethnic, cultural, and linguistic backgrounds using culturally responsive
pedagogy and (II) efforts by principals to create school conditions,
processes, and practices that support learning for racially, ethnically,
culturally and linguistically diverse students; (ii) teacher and principal use
of classroom and school-level data to improve student outcomes, target
interventions, and perform self-monitoring; and (iii) aggregated responses
from student and teacher surveys to be developed by the District, protecting
the anonymity of survey respondents. These elements shall be included in
any future teacher and principal evaluation instruments that may be
implemented. All teachers and principals shall be evaluated using the same
instruments, as appropriate to their position.
By September 25, 2015, the parties had resolved all but two of the

15

Mendoza Plaintiffs’ concerns that prompted their request for the R&R.

16

Special Master filed a revised R&R addressing only those two issues: 1) whether

17

TUSD agrees to reassess the effectiveness of the teacher evaluation process, if the

18

Mendoza Plaintiffs agree to accept 10 percent, as proposed by TUSD, instead of

19

17 percent, as proposed by the Special Master, for weighting student surveys in

20

teacher evaluations; and 2) whether teacher and student surveys should be

21

weighted, aggregately, as proposed by TUSD at 10 percent in principal

22

evaluations or at 17 percent as proposed by the Mendoza Plaintiffs and Special

23

Master. (R&R (Doc. 1845)).

The

24

As noted by the Special Master: “[T]he two most important in-school

25

influences on student outcomes are teacher and principal effectiveness. Moreover,

26

these are interrelated. Any district’s ability to foster improvement of teacher and

27
3

28

On June 23, 2015, the TUSD Board approved a rubric for site administrator
evaluations. (R&R (Doc. 1845) at Ex. A4.) On July 14, 2015, the Board approved a
teaching evaluation instrument. (R&R (Doc. 1845) at Ex. A2.)
-3-

1

principal performance depends on having good knowledge of the level of effective

2

practice. Thus, teacher and principal evaluation plans are critically important to

3

achieving the goals of the USP.” (R&R (Doc. 1845) at 3.) This explains the

4

context for the Mendoza Plaintiff’s request for the R&R.

5

In the context of TUSD’s objections to the Special Master’s recommended

6

17 percent, TUSD refuses to “consider the weights assigned to surveys of teachers

7

and students despite analysis of its own staff concluding that the impact of the

8

[10%] weights identified in both plans will be negligible.” Id. at 3, see also

9

(TUSD Objection (Doc. 1853) at 1-3, 4-6.)

10

In its Objection to the R&R, TUSD informs the Court that it “agrees to

11

review the efficacy of the weight assigned to student surveys as they inform

12

teacher evaluation and does not address that issue further.” (TUSD Objection

13

(Doc. 1853) at 2.) This agreement resolves the first issue addressed in the R&R,

14

but TUSD has agreed to do no more than it is required to do under the law, the

15

USP, and the Court’s January 6, 2012, Order. Cf., Fisher v. TUSD, 652 F.3d

16

1131, 1141-42 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing this Court’s findings that TUSD failed to

17

make the most basic inquiries necessary to assess the ongoing effectiveness of

18

student assignment plans and failed to assess program effectiveness to address

19

racial imbalances as impossible to reconcile with a finding that TUSD acted in

20

good faith to cure vestiges of segregation to extent practicable); see Order (Doc.

21

1350) at 7-8, § III: Ongoing Oversight (requiring Special Master’s oversite to

22

include annual reports to include evaluation of the effectiveness of programs and

23

provisions established in the USP and recommendations for further review or

24

revisions to these programs and provisions); USP § X: Accountability and

25

Transparency (requiring evidence-based accountability and incorporating the

26

oversight role of the special master as described in the January 6, 2012, Order).

27

Like all the USP provisions, TUSD must review them on an on-going basis for

28

efficacy and, therefore, TUSD must review both the teacher and principal

-4-

1

evaluation procedures and instruments especially given the arbitrary nature of the

2

weights set here.

3

According to TUSD: “The parties are before this Court, incurring

4

thousands of taxpayer dollars for the Special Master, TUSD and Plaintiffs to

5

litigate a 7% weight allocation in principal evaluation instruments, when this

6

decision should be left with TUSD.” (TUSD Objection (Doc. 1853) at 2.)

7

TUSD asks the Court to review this issue de novo, Fed. R. Civ. P. 53, and uphold

8

the District’s evaluation instruments if it “‘conforms to the consent decree entered

9

into by the parties and … is compatible with the Constitution.’” (TUSD Objection

10

(Doc. 1853) at 4 (quoting United States v. South Bend Community School Corp.,

11

511 F. Supp. 1352, 1360 (N.D. Ind. 1981)). Here, the Mendoza Plaintiffs and the

12

Special Master assert the Teacher Principal Evaluation (TPE) procedures do not

13

conform to the USP.

14

TUSD argues that if the Court sets the weight for student and teacher

15

surveys for principal evaluations, it will be acting as a ‘super school board’ by

16

micro-managing a programmatic decision which should rightfully be left to the

17

District. Id. at 4 (citing Anderson v. Canton Mun. Separate School Dist., 232 F.3d

18

450, 454 (5th Cir. 2000); Richmond Welfare Rights Org. v. Snodgrass, 525 F.2d

19

197, 207 (9th Cir. 1975); Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Ed., 402 U.S. 1,

20

12 (1971) (citing Brown v. Bd. of Ed., Brown II, 349 U.S. 249, 299 (1955)

21

(“School authorities have the primary responsibility for elucidating, assessing, and

22

solving these problems; courts [] have to consider whether the action of school

23

authorities constitutes good faith implementation of the governing constitutional

24

principles.”)) TUSD asserts that “the USP expressly affords TUSD discretion in

25

this instance”: to determine what is “adequate” weight to afford the teacher and

26

student surveys in principal evaluations. Id. at 5.

27
28

The Court does not agree. The concept of adequacy, i.e., “being good
enough,” is not wholly discretionary.

It is used in the context of principal

-5-

1

evaluations, required pursuant to the USP, which provides that TUSD adopt a

2

principal evaluation instrument using a rubric which gives weight to three things:

3

1) the efforts by principals to create school conditions, processes, and practices

4

that support learning for racially, ethnically, culturally and linguistically diverse

5

students; 2) the use of classroom and school-level data to improve student

6

outcomes, target interventions, and perform self-monitoring; and 3) aggregated

7

responses from student and teacher surveys which protect the anonymity of survey

8

respondents.

9

requirements and other appropriate measures. (USP (Doc. 1713) § IV.H.) TUSD

10

proposes the following weighting rubric: 1) Principal Performance (57%); Student

11

Academic Progress (33%); SAI (the Arizona Department of Education Teacher

12

Survey on Leadership (2%); TUSD Teacher Survey (4%), and TUSD Student

13

Survey (4%). The rubric provides for 100 total points.

Of course, TUSD may consider other things such as state law

14

The Special Master explains that the State guidelines constrain the number

15

of points that can be assigned to teacher and student surveys to 17% and that the

16

parties agreed to attribute 10 points to student surveys in teacher evaluations.

17

Plaintiffs Mendoza and the Special Master believe 10% is too low, but as noted

18

above they agreed to it for this year contingent on TUSD’s review of its efficacy

19

to evaluate principal performance required pursuant to the USP.

20

the 10-points are “negligible” in assessing a teacher’s overall score. This is

21

because the results of the Danielson observations, Principal Performance) are

22

weighted the most heavily and at 57% will have the greatest impact on a teacher’s

23

overall score. Academic Growth represents 33% of the total model so that it can

24

impact a teacher’s overall score, but not necessarily determine the outcome.

25

Attributing 10 points to the teacher survey will be negligible in assessing a

26

principal’s overall performance score. (Teacher Evaluation Scaling 2015 Model at

27

4.)

28

-6-

TUSD admits

1

The same weights are proposed for principal evaluations, but here TUSD

2

combines student surveys (4%) and teacher surveys (6%) to reach 10 percent.

3

This is to account for the differing interactions between students, teachers, and

4

principals.

5

principal’s performance the same as a student weighs in on a teacher’s

6

performance at 10 percent, with student surveys regarding a principal’s

7

performance being an additional weight.

TUSD does not explain why teachers should not weigh in on a

8

Instead, TUSD challenges the Special Master’s proposal that student

9

surveys be given 7 points in addition to the 10 points for teacher surveys as a

10

recommendation pulled out of “thin air” and unsupported and lacking any research

11

basis. (TUSD Objection (Doc. 1853) at 6-7.) TUSD presents an affidavit from

12

Dr. Leah Lavigne, Ph.D. which reflects that there is a lack of research suggesting

13

any specific weight, higher or lower, would be an adequate measure of principal

14

performance. Id., Ex. 1: Decl. ¶ 6.)

15

The Mendoza Plaintiffs object to the introduction of this new evidence and

16

argument in what is essentially a reply brief. (Mendoza Plaintiffs’ Motion to

17

Strike (Doc. 1855) at 1-2 (describing procedural posture of TUSD’s Objection to

18

the Special Master’s R&R which does not allow any response without further

19

leave of the Court); cf. Lentini v. Cal. Ctr. For the Arts, 370 F.3d 837, 843 n. 6 (9th

20

Cir. 2004) (well established rule that courts will not consider arguments raised for

21

the first time in a reply); Gadda v. State Bar of Cal., 511 F.3d 933, 937 n.2 (9th

22

Cir. 2007) (same). The Court finds that either weight, 10 or 17 percent, is not

23

research based. (TUSD Objection (Doc. 1853), Ex. 1: Lavigne Decl. ¶ 6.)

24

The evidence reflects that “these [10%] weights were deliberately

25

determined through the ELI meet and confer agreement that resulted from an

26

approximate three month process of collaboration and negotiation with TUSD

27

regarding the evaluation of principals.” (TUSD Objection (Doc. 1853), Ex. 2:

28

Daniel Erickson Decl. ¶ 3.) The ELI (Education Leaders, Inc.) is the collective

-7-

1

bargaining voice for school principals, assistant principals, psychologists, and

2

research project managers. As such, the ELI is concerned with the impact of these

3

evaluations on a principal’s livelihood, including eligibility for multi-year

4

contracts and other employment benefits. Id. ¶ 10. While compensation for

5

principals is a legitimate concern for ELI and, correspondingly, administrative-

6

union relations is a concern for TUSD, employee compensation is not a factor for

7

assessing the adequacy of the weight for teacher surveys in the context of the USP.

8

Here, the weight afforded the survey data must be adequate to meet the student

9

achievement and integration goals of the USP, i.e., adequate to improve teacher

10

and principal effectiveness.

11

The Court, therefore, turns to TUSD’s assertions that teacher and student

12

surveys will not serve the purpose of improving the effectiveness of principals.

13

The Special Master makes a strong argument when he asks: How, [without the

14

surveys], will TUSD complete the “School Behaviors” portion of the Principal

15

Performance evaluation, which requires the evaluator to determine what teachers

16

and students believe and experience? But, TUSD responds that any increase in

17

weight given to teacher/student surveys will necessarily reduce the 57% weight it

18

gives to the Principal Performance Measure, which is an objective measure of

19

principal performance as compared to evaluating principals based on subjective

20

surveys. The Court has looked at the Principal Performance measures. It includes

21

criteria which are equally subjective, such as two found in the very first rubric:

22

whether the principal promotes the development of an inclusive school climate

23

characterized by culturally responsive strategies or whether staff members do not

24

see the principal as lead learner in the school. (R&R (Doc. 1845-4), Administrator

25

Evaluation Rubric at CM/ECF page 3.) Depending on the type of evidence the

26

evaluator chooses to rely on—the Principal Performance Measure will be more or

27

less objective than subjective.

28

-8-

1

The Court understands an “objective test” to be one where the subjective

2

judgment by the grader is eliminated, Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary

3

(1973), i.e., relating to, or based on externally verifiable phenomena, Black’s Law

4

Dictionary 1103 (8th ed. 1999). In comparison, a subjective test is based on an

5

individual’s perceptions, feelings, or intentions, as opposed to externally verifiable

6

phenomena. Black’s Law Dictionary 1465 (8th ed. 1999). So, if the evaluator

7

relies on his or her personal perception of a principal’s attitude it will be subjective

8

versus reliance on verifiable data such as counting the number of teacher

9

workshops or student activities promoting cultural-diversity. Based on the record

10

before the Court, TUSD does not prevail on its assertion that the Principal

11

Performance measure is more objective and, therefore, more reliable than the

12

Survey measures. The issue appears to be who should be making the subjective

13

evaluations: teachers or the principal evaluators.4

14

The issue of whether principals should be responsible for preparing teacher

15

evaluations is no longer in dispute, but the ELI complains that it is an inherent

16

contradiction between the Special Master’s determination that principals are not

17

well-suited to perform teacher evaluations because principals have a desire to be

18

“liked” by their teachers and his position that teachers be allowed to weigh-in

19

regarding principal evaluations. The ELI argues that for the Special Master to be

20

consistent, he should recommend that teachers should not evaluate principals.

21

The two evaluations are not analogous. The better analogy is the role of the

22

principal evaluators, who directly supervise the principals, and their having

23

responsibility for conducting the Principal Performance evaluations in the same

24

way principals are responsible for the Teacher Performance evaluations. In the

25

same way that principals want to be liked by the teachers they supervise, which

26

can cause principals to be overly generous in their teacher evaluations, TUSD’s

27
28

4

The Court assumes the principal evaluators will be the principals’ direct
supervisors in the administrative chain of command.
-9-

1

Elementary and Secondary School Directors, who supervise principals, may be

2

compromised in the role of evaluator to critique principals. This argument only

3

suggests the importance of the student and teacher surveys, which are anonymous,

4

and provide a double-check to the Principal Performance measurement completed

5

by the Directors. Students and Teacher surveys are not interchangeable given the

6

differing nature of the relationships they hold with principals.

7

In conclusion, the Court finds that given the importance of evaluating the

8

efforts by principals to create school conditions, processes, and practices that

9

support learning for racially, ethnically, culturally and linguistically diverse

10

students, there must be adequate weight given to the opinions of students and

11

teachers regarding these conditions, processes, and practices. The Court cannot

12

find that 10 percent, a weight which is admittedly negligible in the overall

13

evaluation of a principal’s performance, is adequate. The Court must, however,

14

consider TUSD’s question: “When the USP specifies no specific percentage and

15

there is agreement to the 10% weight afforded student surveys in teacher

16

evaluations, how in the world can the 10% weight assigned in the principal

17

evaluation instrument to student/teacher surveys amount to a ‘clear’ violation of

18

the USP?” (Objection (Doc. 1853) at 5.) The answer is that it is an arbitrary

19

weight. The evidence reflects that it was arrived at in large part because the ELI

20

would not agree to more. (R&R (Doc. 1845-10) at Ex. G: TUSD’s Alignment

21

Response at 2.) Additionally, the State Teacher Survey (SAI), which accounts for

22

2 of the 10 points, is generic and its questions are not aimed at identifying efforts

23

by principals to create school conditions, processes, and practices that support

24

learning for racially, ethnically, culturally and linguistically diverse students.

25

(R&R (Doc. 1845-9) at CM/ECF 314-316.)

26

The Court accepts the 10 percent for the limited purpose of this year,

27

pending further review and evaluation for efficacy related to accomplishing the

28

goals of the USP. Because of the findings outlined above, the Court will not adopt

- 10 -

1

TUSD’s proposal to aggregate the weight of the teacher and student surveys. By

2

TUSD’s own suggestion: if 10 points are given to student surveys in respect to

3

teacher evaluations, the same should apply to principal evaluations. For now,

4

teacher surveys shall be 10% of the principal evaluation, with student surveys

5

weighing at least half that, i.e., an additional 5% of the principal evaluation.

6

Accordingly,

7

IT IS ORDERED that the R&R (Doc. 1845) is adopted in part by the

8

Court as follows: Teacher surveys shall be 10% of the principal evaluation, with

9

student surveys weighing at least an additional 5% of the principal evaluation.

10

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall correct the

11

case docket to reflect that the R&R (Doc. 1836) is not pending because it was

12

replaced by the R&R (Doc. 1845).

13

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that TUSD shall undertake further review

14

and evaluation of the adequacy of these weights to effectively measure teacher and

15

principal performance in the context of USP.

16

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying TUSD’s request to strike portions

17

of the Special Master’s R&R, and therefore, the Motion to Strike (Doc. 1855) filed

18

by the Plaintiffs Mendoza is DENIED AS MOOT.

19

Dated this 26th day of January, 2016.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

- 11 -