Fisher, et al v. Tucson Unified, et al
Filing
2580
ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation Re: 2020-21 Reallocations 2574 Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED, approving the District's reallocation of the 2020-21 910G funding. It is further ordered in any circumstances relevant to the summe r programs there is a shortage of resources, including any offered academic programs, materials, or transportation, the District shall prioritize delivery of summer school services to and the needs of students attending Racially Concentrated schools. Signed by Senior Judge David C Bury on 5/10/2021. (ARC)
1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
Roy and Josie Fisher, et al.,
Plaintiffs
10
11
and
12
No. CV-74-00090-TUC-DCB
(Lead Case)
United States of America,
Plaintiff-Intervenor,
13
14
v.
15
Tucson Unified School District, et al.,
Defendants,
16
17
Maria Mendoza, et al.,
18
No. CV-74-0204-TUC-DCB
(Consolidated Case)
Plaintiffs,
19
and
20
United States of America,
21
22
23
24
Plaintiff-Intervenor,
ORDER
v.
Tucson Unified School District, et al.
Defendants.
25
26
27
28
Report & Recommendation Re: Reallocation of 2020-20 910G Funding- APPROVED
1
Pending before the Court is the District’s request to reallocate 910G funds originally
2
budgeted in SY2020-21 for costs of transporting students that were not spent because the
3
District closed its brick and mortar schools this past year due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
4
The District proposes to reallocate these 910G funds, previously allocated for
5
transportation, towards a massive summer education program it is undertaking to help
6
students regain lost ground this past year during the pandemic.
7
The District proposes to reallocate approximately $5,000,000, with $3,000,000
8
reallocated for a Summer Program which will cost a total of approximately $9,000,000.
9
Oversimplified, it appears that the District plans to reopen its schools this summer. The
10
remainder of the $5,000,000 910G reallocation is as follows: $1,000,000 for Enhanced
11
Learning Spaces at Targeted Improvement Magnet Schools, $300,000 Professional
12
Learning, $466,000 for Minibus purchases, and $544,000 for Accelerated Technology,
13
Supplies, and Material Purchases.
14
The Special Master and budget expert worked extensively with the District, made
15
suggestions for substantial changes to the District’s initial request, afforded the plaintiffs
16
the opportunity to comment and object, and considered objections raised by the Plaintiffs,
17
including those reasserted here. The Special Master reports that the reallocation now
18
proposed by the District addresses the important objections of the Plaintiffs which were
19
made during the review process, and that both he and the budget expert assisting him
20
approve the reallocation in its entirety. He recommends the Court act quickly to approve
21
the reallocation because summer school begins soon and reallocations of 2020-21 910G
22
funding can’t be made as of July. (R&R (Doc. 2574)).
23
The Mendoza Plaintiffs object, generally, to the proposed reallocation as maybe not
24
being sufficient to address the needs of the summer program and not sufficiently supported
25
by direct links to the USP.
26
Specifically, the Mendoza Plaintiffs oppose the reallocation of the $466,000 to
27
purchase six minibuses. The Plaintiffs argue that the District fails to link the minibus
28
purchase to the USP. The Court has understood past allocations of 910G funding for
-2-
1
transportation to be generally linked to the USP because of the important role played by
2
transportation in attaining integration. In this way, purchasing busses including minibuses,
3
is generally linked to the USP. Specifically, purchasing six minibuses to improve
4
transportation for extracurricular activities is linked to the USP because equity in
5
extracurricular activities for African American and Latino students, who are also low-
6
income students with limited access to personal means of transportation to after school
7
activities, is dependent on transportation.
8
The general objection fishtails into the specific minibus objection because Plaintiffs
9
argue that perhaps the $446,000 minibus reallocation should be, instead, to the summer
10
school program, but who knows because “[t]he District has provided insufficient
11
information to permit an informed assessment of many of the other expenditures that it
12
proposes.” (Mendoza Objection (Doc. 2575) at 2, 4.)
13
The Mendoza Plaintiffs underscore that “they support reallocations of unspent
14
2020-21 transportation sums to fund needed summer programs for both students and
15
District employees and the accelerated purchase of technology, supplies, and material
16
purchases.” Id. at 3. They simply suggest that “more 910(G) money (including that which
17
had been proposed to be spent on the mini-bus purchase) should be allocated to these
18
areas,” id.at 4, instead of to the minibuses. For example, they complain it is unclear whether
19
the reallocated $3,000,000 covers transportation for the summer program to elementary
20
and middle school sites or the cost of free meals, etc.
21
The District responds that the reallocated $3,000,000 will make up a part of the
22
approximately $9,000,000 summer program. It appears that the District’s summer program
23
is equitably available to all students at every elementary and middle school (Reply, Ex. A
24
(Doc. 2579-1)) and high school, id., Ex. B (Doc. 2579-2)). The only evidence to the
25
contrary arises from the Mendoza Plaintiffs’ complaint that the District refused to respond
26
to its inquiry regarding transportation priorities for summer programs, which it asked in
27
response to the District’s report to its Governing Board that “it might not be able to provide
28
transportation to all elementary and middle school summer school sites because of a
-3-
1
shortage of bus drivers.” (Mendoza Objection (Doc. 2575) at 4-5.) Notably, this is the
2
problem addressed by the purchase of the minibuses because they do not require
3
commercial-licensed drivers, which enables the District to stretch their transportation
4
resources by using regularly licensed drivers to drive minibuses when ridership does not
5
require regular buses and commercially-licensed drivers. (Reply (Doc. 2579) at 4-5.)
6
In response to the Mendoza Plaintiffs’ concerns that it may not be adequately
7
prioritizing the needs of Latino and African American students for reallocating the 910G
8
funding, the District responds: “If, as plaintiffs contend, the impact of learning through the
9
pandemic has disproportionately affected African American and Hispanic students, then
10
the summer education program will disproportionately benefit them, and it is truly
11
appropriate to use § 910(G) funds for this purpose.” (Reply (Doc. 2579) at 3).
12
The District’s clever response sweeps to broadly in painting its priorities if it means
13
to suggest that student programs, like the summer program, that benefit students
14
disproportionately benefit Latino and African American students simply because these
15
students make up the majority of the District’s students. The disproportionate disadvantage
16
experienced by Latino and African American students during the COVID-19 pandemic
17
was because of a lack of resources, which does not correlate to any advantage for these
18
students from the summer school program. Unlike the disproportionate disadvantage these
19
students experienced during the pandemic, these students will not experience a
20
disproportionate advantage from the summer programs, unless the District is simply
21
considering their disproportionate numbers in the student population attending the summer
22
program. Then, this would only be true for Latino students, not African American students
23
which make up less than 10% of the District’s students.
24
There is no reason, however, to delay the 2020-21 910G funding reallocation
25
decision as suggested by the Mendoza Plaintiffs for further inquiry. Without further delay,
26
the Court addresses the Mendoza Plaintiffs’ concerns by finding that the District shall
27
ensure that in any circumstances relevant to the summer programs where there is a shortage
28
of resources, including any offered academic programs, materials, or transportation, the
-4-
1
District shall prioritize delivery of summer school services to and for meeting the needs of
2
students attending Racially Concentrated schools.
3
Accordingly,
4
IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation Re: 2020-21 Reallocations
5
(Doc. 2574) is ADOPTED, approving the District’s reallocation of the 2020-21 910G
6
funding.
7
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED in any circumstances relevant to the summer
8
programs there is a shortage of resources, including any offered academic programs,
9
materials, or transportation, the District shall prioritize delivery of summer school services
10
11
to and the needs of students attending Racially Concentrated schools.
Dated this 10th day of May, 2021.
12
13
14
15
16
17
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?