Fisher, et al v. Tucson Unified, et al

Filing 1982

ORDERED that the Special Master's Report and Recommendations 1925 and supplemental R&R 1941 is adopted by the Court and for those reasons stated in the R&Rs, the Court rejects the Mendoza Plaintiffs request for a finding of non-compliance regarding implementation of CRC. Signed by Senior Judge David C Bury on 12/27/2016. (SEE ORDER FOR COMPLETE DETAILS.)(BAR)

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

Maria Mendoza, et al.,

20

No. CV-74-0204-TUC-DCB

Plaintiffs,

21

and

22

United States of America,

23
24
25
26

Plaintiff-Intervenor,

ORDER

v.
Tucson Unified School District, et al.
Defendants.

27
28

Culturally Relevant Courses (CRC): R&R Re: Intervention Plan 2015

1

On February 12, 2015, this Court issued an Order approving a stipulated

2

Intervention Plan to begin the 2015 Spring Semester and carry through the 2015-16

3

School Year (SY). The stipulation resolved allegations of noncompliance brought in

4

August 2014 by the Special Master on behalf of the Mendoza Plaintiffs. On April 20,

5

2016, the Special Master filed a Report and Recommendation (R&R) (Doc. 1925)

6

reporting that there had not been full compliance with the 2015 Intervention Plan for

7

Implementing TUSD’s Culturally Relevant Courses,(R&R (Doc. 1925), but nevertheless,

8

recommending that a finding of noncompliance is not warranted, (R&R (Doc. 1941)).

9

On May 11, 2016, the Mendoza Plaintiffs called for the Special Master to update

10

his R&R based on additional budgetary information which was forthcoming in May, and

11

narrowed the focus of their charge against the District to be that it allegedly failed to

12

comply with provisions of the Intervention Plan for hiring itinerant CRC teachers. TUSD

13

responded to the Mendoza Plaintiff’s allegations, and the Special Master filed a

14

supplemental R&R (Doc. 1941) on June 8, 2016. He continues to believe that a finding

15

of noncompliance is not warranted. The Court agrees, but finds the Special Master

16

should monitor the Intervention Plan to ensure the District continues its efforts to

17

implement and expand the CRC program.

18

The Court is not inclined to find noncompliance when there has been a 300%

19

increase in CRC enrollment between the 2015 and 2016 spring semesters and a 73%

20

increase in CRC enrollment (1,841 to 3,198 students) between the spring and fall

21

semesters in SY 2015-2016. TUSD had 39 CR teachers in SY 2015-2016; in SY 2016-

22

17, it will have about 70 CRC teachers. TUSD will offer CR courses in all but one high

23

school and in all middle schools. (SM R&R (Doc. 1941) at 4, 6.)

24

In the face of this seeming success, the Mendoza Plaintiffs complain that TUSD

25

should not have decreased the CRC budget for hiring 12 itinerant teachers to hiring six.

26

The Intervention Plan calls for mentor/itinerant teachers to develop CRC curriculum and

27

provide CRC teacher support regarding effective CRC instruction. They will teach 3 CR

28

courses at two high or middle school sites and while at those sites they will engage in

-2-

1

CRC teacher and student recruitment, parent engagement, and community outreach;

2

provide district-wide models for CRC instruction for non-CRC teachers; develop

3

curriculum to be available district-wide and designed especially for new CRC teachers;

4

mentor new CRC teachers by providing instructional support; observe, document and

5

provide feedback to CRC teachers they are mentoring, including conducting classroom

6

observations once every two weeks, with feedback focusing on effective implementation

7

of culturally relevant and responsive pedagogy, critical thinking and questioning skills,

8

dialogical techniques that elicit student voice, and coaching to new CRC teachers. (2015-

9

16 Intervention Plan at 6, 7, 17-18.)

10

In short, TUSD is using an intensive Itinerant Teacher Model, which it describes

11

as a capacity building model meant to be transitional. “That is, the intent of the design is

12

to ensure that we develop CR Teachers at every site over the next two years and move

13

away from having itinerant staff at this level.” It appears that as the scope of the program

14

becomes a larger part of the district curriculum, TUSD intends to grow its central staff to

15

mentor CRC teachers and correspondingly reduce itinerant staff over time. Id. at 18.

16

With the adoption of the Intervention Plan, TUSD estimated it needed 12 itinerant

17

teachers, but it subsequently and without any explanation reduced the budget to provide

18

for six itinerant teachers. Like the Mendoza Plaintiffs, the Court is concerned that the

19

reduction in itinerant staff may correspond to a reduction in their duties and,

20

correspondingly, a dilution of the planned intensity of the Itinerant Teacher Model.

21

Whether or not the six itinerant staff can meet the needs of the newly recruited CR

22

teachers remains to be seen, especially given the obvious success they had in expanding

23

the number of students flowing into new CR courses. The Court is not prepared to say

24

that six versus 12 is enough. The Special Master notes that TUSD offers no program-

25

based rational for estimating that it needs one itinerant teacher for every ten CRC

26

teachers, except to say that this ratio is within the 15 to 1 ratio generally recommended

27

for peer assistance and review programs. Assuming there was a rational basis for the

28

original estimate that the program needed 12 itinerant teachers and the large unexplained

-3-

1

disparity between that planned number of itinerant teachers and the actual number hired,

2

the Court finds monitoring is warranted. The Special Master shall review the District’s

3

use of itinerant staff to ensure full compliance with the Intervention Plan’s Itinerant

4

Teacher Model. Given the success of the Intervention Plan to bring in new CRC students

5

and teachers, it is imperative that TUSD develop a meaningful itinerant teacher-CRC

6

teacher ratio sufficient to meet the needs of the Itinerant Teacher Model agreed to by the

7

parties pursuant to the stipulated Intervention Plan. This ratio shall be developed and

8

used for the 2017-2018 USP-budget, with the Special Master to subsequently gather data

9

and review the ratio for effectiveness in his 2016-2017 Special Master’s Annual Report

10

(SMAR).

11

The Court does not address the Mendoza Plaintiffs’ charge that TUSD failed to

12

expend the SY 2015-2016 CRC allocated funding. It appears that by June, 2016, when

13

the Special Master filed his supplemental R&R, TUSD was committed to spending all the

14

budgeted CRC funds, and has now done so.

15

Accordingly,

16

IT IS ORDERED that the Special Master’s Report and Recommendation (Doc.

17

1925) and supplemental R&R (Doc. 1941) is adopted by the Court and for those reasons

18

stated in the R&Rs, the Court rejects the Mendoza Plaintiffs’ request for a finding of non-

19

compliance regarding implementation of CRC.

20

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Special Master shall review the District’s

21

use of itinerant staff to ensure full compliance with the Intervention Plan’s Itinerant

22

Teacher Model.

23

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that TUSD shall develop a meaningful itinerant

24

teacher-CRC teacher ratio sufficient to meet the needs of the Itinerant Teacher Model

25

agreed to by the parties pursuant to the stipulated Intervention Plan, and this ratio shall be

26

developed and used for the 2017-2018 USP budget. The Special Master shall develop a

27

data gathering and review plan, both substantive and procedural, to monitor the

28

-4-

1

effectiveness of TUSD’s itinerant teacher-CRC teacher ratio for use in the 2016-2017

2

Special Master’s Annual Report (SMAR).

3

Dated this 27th day of December, 2016.

4
5
6

Honorable David C. Bury
United States District Judge

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-5-