United States District Court, D. Arizona
ORDER
HONORABLE DAVID C. BURY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
AASSD
and MASSD Operating Plans
When
the Court last reviewed the African American Student Support
Department (AASSD) and Mexican American Student Support
Department (MASSD) Plans, it noted the continued disagreement
between the parties and the Special Master over the continued
existence of these expensive departments, which in part
duplicate student support services being delivered on-site at
individual schools. The Court instructed the District to
revise the plans with an eye towards addressing the Special
Master's concerns and to eliminate duplication and ensure
effective delivery of services, with the presumption being
that student-support services are most effectively delivered
on-site at the schools. The Court hoped that the parties
would take the opportunity to create new and improved Student
Support Departments, responsive to the many departmental and
program changes that have arisen from the implementation of
the USP.
Again,
the District files AASSD and MASSD plans, the Plaintiffs
object, and the Special Master reasserts that the departments
unnecessarily waste money. The Court adopts the opinion of
the Special Master that any further revisions based on
directives for the parties to work together would pointlessly
result in more of the same. Therefore, the Court changes its
approach and asks the Special Master to develop the AASSD and
MASSD Plans. The Court agrees with the Special Master that if
the departments remain post-unitary status, their roles and
responsibilities must change and be more limited. A
successful Unitary Status Plan (USP) requires this because as
TUSD's core capacity grows, the responsibility for
improved academic achievement for Plaintiffs no longer sits
with AASSD and MASSD.
The
District hired Traben and Associates to report on academic
achievement for African American students in TUSD. The
Trayben Report reflects: “it has always been its
position that AASSD supplement educational services that
should be provided by the District, not supplant them.”
(Trayben and Associates' report, Draft Plan for
Restructuring AASSD for School Year 2018-2020, (Doc. 2276) at
36.) The Traben Report reflects that the District should
revise the Plans to “shift[] direction for 100% direct
services to a balance between direct services to students and
direct support for departments and schools by building
institutional capacity of teachers and other support
staff..” Id. at 27-39. Unfortunately, Traben
and Associates were not asked to “determine whether
[AASSD] is needed, cost efficient, effective in improving
student achievement, and/or closing the gap between white and
African American students.” Id. 26. Instead,
Trayben was “specifically directed to evaluate the
current plan, ” which it did. Id.
The
Trayben Report helps to set priorities AASSD. The Objections
also help to identify departmental roles and
responsibilities, which in Plaintiffs' opinions, should
be the priority of the AASSD and MASSD departments. The
Mendoza Objections are especially helpful in identifying
specific student support services which they believe should
be directly delivered by MASSD, including student support
services, family outreach, to ELL students, because they
cannot be secured at the school-site level.
Putting
all this together, the Special Master should be able to
develop the AASSD and MASSD Plans. As pointed out by the
Fisher Plaintiffs, these departments have been in operation
for a long time, operating more or less similarly to the
proposed plans. See (Fisher Objection (Doc. 2276) at
7 (describing latest plan as “not significantly
different from the program that has been in place for at
least the last five (5) years.”) There is no need for
further study or data acquisition. The Court rejects the
Special Master's recommendation for an evaluation plan to
determine the effectiveness of both departments. What remains
is the question of: when and how do AASSD and MASSD move from
the recently filed 2018-19 plans, which seem stuck in the
past, to the future. For this answer, the Court looks to the
Special Master.
First,
the Court finds that there is a role for both AASSD and MASSD
post-unitary status. Next, the Court directs the Special
Master to review the Trayben report and the Plaintiffs'
Objections and identify student-support service priorities
for each department. The Special Master shall work with the
District to develop future plans for AASSD and MASSD
departments that provide core-departments of TUSD with expert
support to teachers and administrators to meet their
responsibilities to enhance student learning and administer
discipline in fair and equitable ways. The structure and
relationship between AASSD and MASSD and core TUSD
departments, including top administrators and/or
administrative departments, shall be such that AASSD and
MASSD have meaningful lines of communication for effective
collaboration and to ensure that recommendations flowing from
AASSD and MASSD are seriously considered and addressed by the
District. The Special Master shall identify, with
specificity, any direct student support services to be
provided by AASSD and MASSD staff There shall be no
duplication of student support services, with AASSD and MASSD
providing direct student services only when such services
cannot not be more effectively provided by school staff All
AASSD and MASSD staff shall be at least equally qualified in
comparison to their on-site professional peers.
Accordingly,
IT
IS ORDERED that the Special Master's Report and
Recommendation (Doc. 2347) is adopted in part and denied in
part.
IT
IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 30 days of the filing
date of this Order, the District shall file the AASSD and
MASSD plans, developed pursuant to this Order. The parties
may file Objections within 14 days. The Special Master may
...