United States District Court, D. Arizona
ORDER
HONARABLE DAVID C. BURY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Family
and Community Engagement (FACE): USP § VII
On
September 6, 2018, the Court considered the District's
request for unitary status for the USP § VII, Family and
Community Engagement (FACE). The Court noted that FACE
provisions stretch across the USP, making FACE a
multi-provision and multi-departmental program. After
considering full briefing by the parties and a R&R from
the Special Master, the Court reviewed the FACE Action Plan
(Doc. 2101-2) and found: “the only remaining question
relevant to awarding unitary status for VII, Family and
Community Engagement, is the implementation of a districtwide
strategy for family and community engagement services at
school-sites and an effective data gathering and tracking
program.” (Order (Doc. 2123) at 136.) The Court noted
that the FACE Action Plan reflected heavy reliance on the
African American Student Support Department (AASSD) and the
Mexican American Student Support Department (MASSD), and the
Court asked the District to reassess whether these two
departments were the most effective means of delivering FACE
services. At the time, the District had just engaged an
expert at John Hopkins University, who was tasked with
developing district-wide guidelines for fostering family
engagement at the school level. The Court directed the
District to file an update to the FACE Action Plan,
subsequent to the conclusion of the expert's work and to
cross-reference as appropriate the District's
Post-Unitary Status AASSD and MASSD to make it clear there
was no interdepartmental duplication of FACE efforts.
Id. at 136-37.
On
December 6, 2018, the District filed, what is more accurately
described as, a supplement to the FACE Action Plan. (Update
to FACE (Doc. 2154-1)). Again, on April 10, 2019, the Court
called for further revision to the FACE Action Plan related
to its heavy reliance on AASSD and MASSD for delivery of
services. The Court found that the FACE Action Plan failed to
clearly define the interconnectivity between the FACE
Department and the two student support service departments
and ordered the District to revise the Post-unitary AASSD and
MASSD Plans, FACE Action Plan and the ELL Plan. (Order (Doc.
2213) at 12-20.) The Court called for an executive summary as
a means for the District to present a comprehensive overview
of the interconnectivity of all the USP plan provisions. The
FACE, AASSD and MASSD Plans, and ELL Plan revisions, due
September 1, 2019, have been filed. The executive summary is
due December 1, 2019.
Unfortunately,
the Post-unitary AASSD and MASSD Plans remained unacceptable
to the Special Master as, in his opinion, being wasteful
duplications of effort of tasks more effectively performed by
other core departments. The Court has directed the Special
Master to recommend post-unitary plans for the two
departments. (Order (Doc. 2359)).
As this
Court recognized when it extended the time for the Special
Master to file the R&R in respect to the ELL Plan
revisions, further consideration of these interconnected
departments cannot be made until the roles and
responsibilities of the post-unitary AASSD and MASSD are
clearly defined. The Special Master recommends as much, and
therefore, the Court delays the interconnectivity assessment
for the FACE Plan. The delay will also afford the District an
opportunity to update the FACE Plan to reflect the
implementation of a major new FACE initiative with respect to
school level family engagement. (R&R (Doc. 2366; 2377
amended) at 2.)
The
scope of the post-unitary status AASSD and MASSD has been a
subject pending too long before this Court, and the delay
regarding these departments' roles and responsibilities
is now affecting review of other core USP department plans,
such as the FACE and ELL plans. The Special Master's
R&Rs regarding the post-unitary AASSD and MASSD and the
ELL Plan are due, simultaneously, on December 6, 2019. The
Court will, simultaneously, consider the FACE Action Plan.
The Court continues the deadline for the executive summary to
be after the Court resolves any objections to the Special
Master's recommendations for these plans.
Interconnectivity
While,
as explained above, the Court does not have sufficient
information to address the interconnected relationships
between core departments carrying out FACE responsibilities,
it can provide some direction for the what should be the
final revision. First, the Court accepts the overall
structure for the FACE Department's administration of
FACE services, which are either 1) school-based activities or
2) central district activities. School based activities are
provided on-site by school staff, with primary responsibility
placed on school principals. Central district activities are
provided either directly by the FACE Department or by
“other departments.” The interconnectivity issue
involves the FACE activities provided by other departments.
The Court accepts the District's reference in the FACE
Plan to the “other departments, ” with
“[e]ach of these departments [being] primarily
responsible for the specific family engagement activities
identified in those plans.” (FACE Plan (Doc. 2262-1) at
13.) The District identifies these other departments'
plans as AASSD and MASSD Operating Plans, the ELL Dropout
Prevention Plan, the Magnet and ALE Departments. Id.
at 13. The Court believes that this is not a complete list.
The FACE Plan shall be revised to expressly identify
each USP Plan being relied on by the District for the purpose
of identifying primary FACE activity responsibilities, where
the FACE Department plays a supporting role. The FACE Plan
provides for the FACE Department to provide “guidance
and support for events and needs, event coordination, use of
Family Resource Centers, child care and transportation
services.” Id. at 12.
The
District's FACE Plan, likewise, reflects that the FACE
Department plays a supportive role for the following
departments: language acquisition, health services,
counseling, and curriculum and instruction. Id. at
12. The District shall clarify where these other
departments' FACE activities fit into the USP and revise
as necessary the related USP Plans to reflect the context of
the primary FACE responsibilities being performed by these
departments.
For the
purpose of this review, the District shall attach the
excerpted portions of all referenced USP Plans identified in
the FACE Plan.
Once
clearly identified in the FACE Plan, the Court is willing to
rely on those other departments' plans to “detail
the [FACE] activities undertaken by each of those
departments, ” id. 13, but the District
must ensure that each of these “other department”
USP Plans do in fact include a FACE section detailing the
activities undertaken by that department. For example,
as this Court has repeatedly noted, the District's FACE
Plan fails to include ELL FACE activities. The FACE Plan only
once references ELL FACE activities, by referencing the ELL
Dropout Prevention Plan. Id. at 13. The Supplemental
Notice of Compliance, Goals for ELL Dropout and Graduation
Rates does not include a FACE provision (Doc. 2310-1); it
does not include any reference whatsoever to FACE activities.
Assuming the ELL Supplement is considered in conjunction with
the ELL Action Plan: Graduation and Dropout Prevention (Doc.
2261-1), the plan includes a FACE section, § D, Family
Engagement Strategies. Accordingly, both documents are
relevant to the inquiry regarding the sufficiency of FACE
activities for ELL students and should have been referenced
by the District.[1] Both shall be considered in the context of
the ELL R&R due December 6, 2019. Likewise, the Special
Master shall include a FACE section in the AASSD and MASSD,
due December 6, 2019.
The
Court's review of the ELL Plan, FACE section, reflects
that the FACE Department works with the Language Acquisition
Department, which as noted above the FACE Plan identified as
an “other department” providing FACE services to
ELL students. More accurately described the FACE Department
in part uses the Language Acquisition Department to identify
FACE-service needs and to provide FACE activities to ELL
students and families. This should be reflected in the FACE
Plan, District FACE Activities for both School-based
Activities and Central-district activities for providing FACE
to ELL students and families. Clarity is especially important
in the FACE Plan for any “other departments, ”
like the Language Acquisition Department, if there is no USP
Plan expressly referenced for details.
The
District shall also revise the cross-departmental FACE
activity chart, Exhibit 4. First, it shall be in large enough
print, at least 10-point font, to be read, and include a key
defining the various abbreviations and explain any chart
categories that are not self-evident. The District in some
instances identifies multiple departments as the primary
department responsible for an activity. There may only be one
Primary Department, and the District's definition of
“Primary Department' shall coincide with the FACE
Plan's identification of District FACE activities or some
“other department” by reference to a USP Plan for
details of those FACE activities. Finally, the FACE Plan
needs to be updated to ...