Fisher, et al v. Tucson Unified, et al

Filing 1996

ORDERED that the Report and Recommendations 1987 , 1988 are adopted by the Court. Signed by Senior Judge David C Bury on 3/10/2017. (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,
v.
Tucson Unified School District, et al.
Defendants.

27
28

Transition Plans: - Approved

ORDER

1

The Court approves the transition plans for Ochoa Elementary School; Robison

2

Elementary School; Safford K-8 School; Utterback Middle School; Cholla High School,

3

and Pueblo High School. (Notice: Transition Plans (Doc. 1984)). On December 27,

4

2016, the Court withdrew magnet status from these schools based on their inability to

5

meet magnet criteria for inclusion in the District’s Comprehensive Magnet Plan. (Order

6

(Doc. 1983)).

7

On January 17, 2017, the Defendant, Tucson Unified School District (TUSD/the

8

District), filed plans which were developed to ensure that post-magnet transitions at these

9

schools “shall not have a negative impact on their students.” Id. at 4.

Immediate

10

approval and implementation of these transition plans is important because the District is

11

preparing the budget for SY 2017-2018. The Court anticipates that the SY 2017-2018

12

budget will more fully detail the adequacy of the transition plans. For example, Plaintiffs

13

and the Special Master express concerns regarding the adequacy of training and

14

professional development, of efforts to improve academic achievement of African

15

American students, and family engagement efforts. The adequacy of these provisions

16

contained in the transition plans will depend on the levels of funding they receive in the

17

SY 2017-2018 budget.

18

development and approval, the Court approves the transition plans but affords Plaintiffs

19

and the Special Master an opportunity to reurge objections related to adequacy, if any

20

remain after the line-item budget is released.

Because the line-item budget is trailing the transition plan

21

The Court takes this opportunity to provide some direction regarding how it will

22

assess the adequacy of the transition plans once budgetary information is available. The

23

two primary goals of the USP are integration and student achievement. Because the

24

number of white students at these schools is not large enough to constitute a

25

representative sample for measuring the achievement gap, the Court will measure student

26

achievement by looking at performance district-wide. The Court agrees with the Special

27

Master that improving the academic achievement of students in these schools is one

28

effective means of promoting integration. Because these schools are no longer magnet

-2-

1

schools, the integration goals for magnet schools no longer apply. Nevertheless, like all

2

the schools in the District, these schools are subject to the USP goal to improve

3

integration.

4

Each of the transition plans includes strategies to improve student achievement,

5

including: Tier 1 (classroom) instruction; culturally relevant curricula, and family

6

engagement. The Court is discouraged by the Special Master’s report that the District

7

lags behind in the number one strategy for improving student achievement, which is

8

ensuring quality teaching.

9

teachers as practiced in TUSD does not appear to provide information that would allow

10

for the identification of teachers who are especially effective teach[ers].” R&R (Doc.

11

1987) at 5.) The Special Master focuses on effective teachers for African American

12

students because they are achieving at lower levels than any ethnic group other than

13

Native Americans. This is a special concern because the basis for judicial oversight in

14

large part flows from a finding of de jure discrimination against African American

15

students. The Court has not seen any recent report regarding professional development,

16

but expects the Special Master’s observations apply across the board regarding teacher

17

evaluations and TUSD’s ability to identify teachers who in particular need help

18

improving their teaching. Likewise, the Court is discouraged that at this late date, “there

19

is no ongoing evaluation of the various approaches to introducing culturally relevant

20

curricula or variations in family engagement efforts.” Have these approaches not been

21

implemented long enough here to reflect either some or no successes?

The Special Master reports in reality “the evaluation of

22

The Court is concerned that to facilitate these transition plans TUSD intends to

23

create new positions and hire consultants. As implementation of the USP winds down,

24

TUSD risks being top-heavy and without sufficient staff who provide direct instruction in

25

their schools. Direct delivery of a quality education is of course the key to improving the

26

achievement gap in TUSD. For example, the transition plans for Ochoa Elementary

27

School and Utterback Middle School do not include hiring permanent principals to ensure

28

consistent and sustained instructional leadership there; Ochoa and Utterback have had

-3-

1

interim principals since SY 2016-17 and there is even an interim assistant principal at

2

Utterback. Without these boots on the ground, the Court imagines that the District’s

3

“new hires” and/or consultants will find it difficult to facilitate transition at Ochoa and

4

Utterback.

5

The Court did not intend for it to take three years to implement transition plans in

6

these schools. Implementation of these transition plans shall be completed in SY 2017-

7

2018 and, correspondingly, staff positions and expenditures to “facilitate transition” shall

8

be phased out no later than SY 2018-2019. It makes sense to delay introducing dual

9

language programs at Ochoa Elementary School and Pueblo High School during this

10

coming year of transition.

11

The timelines for carrying out the essential steps for implementing the transition

12

plans shall be revised to accommodate the Court’s directive above for implementation of

13

the transition plans in SY 2017-2018, and as soon as possible the implementation

14

timelines shall be provided to the Plaintiffs and the Special Master.

15

Last, the Court notes that approval of the transition plans is based on TUSD’s

16

agreement to follow the Special Master’s recommended “research based” criteria for

17

introducing new programs in the transitioning schools. The District agrees to work with

18

the Special Master to monitor and report implementation of the transition plans, with the

19

Special Master reporting to the Court regarding the status of the transition plans for SY

20

2017-2018, and he may make recommendations for SY 2018-2019, if necessary.

21

Accordingly,

22

IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendations (Docs. 1987, 1988) are

23

adopted by the Court.

24

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court approves the transition plans but

25

affords Plaintiffs and the Special Master an opportunity to reurge objections related to

26

adequacy, if any remain after the line-item budget is released.

27

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that implementation of these transition plans shall

28

be completed in SY 2017-2018 and, correspondingly, staff positions and expenditures to

-4-

1

“facilitate transition” shall be phased out no later than SY 2018-2019.

2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that TUSD may delay introducing dual language

3

programs at Ochoa Elementary School and Pueblo High School during implementation of

4

the transition plans in SY 2017-2018.

5

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the timelines for carrying out the essential

6

steps for implementing the transition plans shall be revised to accommodate the Court’s

7

directive above for implementation of the transition plans in SY 2017-2018, and as soon

8

as possible the implementation timelines shall be provided to the Plaintiffs and the

9

Special Master.

10

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court’s approval of the transition plans is

11

based on TUSD’s agreements as follows: to use “research based” criteria for introducing

12

new programs in the transitioning schools; to work with the Special Master to monitor

13

and report implementation of the transition plans, with the Special Master reporting to the

14

Court regarding the status of the transition plans for SY 2017-2018, and for the Special

15

Master to make recommendations for SY 2018-2019, if necessary.

16

Dated this 10th day of March, 2017.

17
18
19

Honorable David C. Bury
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-5-