On January 16, 2015 federal Judge David Bury issued a scathing indictment of Tucson Unified School District and its handling of the magnet school program. Judge Bury found, “…. the Court is concerned that unitary status may be difficult to attain when the USP’s key component for integration, a Magnet Plan, exists in name only.
“It is not as if TUSD does not know what needs to be done,” continued the judge. “Each of the existing 20 magnet schools/programs have been critiqued regarding their deficiencies since 2011, with detailed annual recommendations spelled out for improvements.”
In 2011, former TUSD administrator Dr. Lupita Garcia first revealed the failings of the District’s magnet program, as detailed in the Comprehensive Magnet Program Review, conducted by Education Consulting Services. The report offered specific criticisms and recommendations of the magnet program.
Under the direction of the Governing Board controlled by Adelita Grijalva, the District ignored the report and according to sources, District officials ordered that it be “round filed.” The District proceeded to fight any changes to the woefully un-magnetic magnet schools.
As the judge noted in his ruling:
“Integration and student achievement are linked together because the goal of a magnet school is by definition “to attract a racially diverse student body by creating a school so distinctive and appealing – so magnetic – that it will draw a diverse range of families from throughout the community eager to enroll their children, even if it means having them bused to a different, and perhaps, distant neighborhood. To do so, the magnet schools must offer educational programs of high caliber that are not available in other area schools.” (2011 Magnet Study (Doc. 1738) at 3.) In the best magnet schools, the magnet components, many of which are associated with effective schools, add up to higher student achievement.
In other words, high academic standards will draw students to a magnet school, and an effective magnet program will improve student achievement.”
Finally, on July 15, 2014, the Comprehensive Magnet Plan (CMP) was adopted by the TUSD Governing Board. However, because an integrated District is not the goal of Grijalva and her camp, the District has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in advertising to sell a magnet school product that appeals to few. As a result, the magnet schools remain segregated and offer an inferior educational product according to the Court’s finding and the Comprehensive Magnet Program Review.
The District has claimed that the USP prevents or otherwise hinders the closure of segregated and or failing magnet schools. However Judge Bury writes, “It makes little sense to interpret USP § II.E.2 as precluding the timely elimination of non-functioning magnet schools or programs, which would be contrary to the purposes and goals of the USP that all students to be afforded an opportunity to attend an integrated school….”
Bury writes:
Pursuant to the Revised CMP, TUSD also revised the Magnet Plan of Action 2014-15, which reflects that Dodge MS and Palo Verde High School meet both tests, integration and student achievement. Dodge MS and Palo Verde HS will proceed pursuant to a Sustainability Plan.
The following schools are “A” or “B” schools: Carrillo ES, Davis ES, Drachman ES, Ochoa ES, Roskruge K-8, Mansfeld MS, and Cholla and Tucson high schools. All of these schools are racially concentrated and must become integrated, pursuant to an Improvement Plan.
The remainder of the schools currently designated as magnet schools do not meet the student achievement standards. They are C or D schools, and only three of them, Booth-Ficket K-8, Borton ES and Cragin ES, are NOT racially concentrated.
Racially concentrated means a school “in which any racial or ethnic group exceeds 70% of the school’s total enrollment.” (USP (Doc. 1713) § II.B.1. These schools need Improvement Plans to become A or B schools and to attain integration.
Only two schools in the Magnet Plan meet the definition of a magnet school or magnet program by way of having strong academic standards and having integrated student bodies. The CMP allows ineffective magnet schools and programs to exist until after SY 2018-19. The Revised CMP allows deficient magnet schools and programs to exist until after SY 2016-17. Importantly, the schedule proposed by TUSD does not reflect a deadline for elimination, but only a date when elimination will be “considered” by the District.
The judge ruled against the District’s scheme: “The period for improvement begins at the close of this school year (SY 2014-15) through SY 2015-16 and ends in June after SY 2016-17.”
Ruling:
On July 15, 2014, the Comprehensive Magnet Plan (CMP) was adopted by the TUSD Governing Board. Both Plaintiffs Fisher and Mendoza objected and requested a Report and Recommendation (R&R) be prepared by the Special Master.
On November 26, 2014, the Special Master filed a R&R relating to TUSD’s CMP. On December 9, 2014, at the request of the District, he filed the same R&R again, but revised the chronology by adding a couple of paragraphs in the Background section of the R&R and adding exhibits. There were no substantive changes to his R&R.
On December 3, 2014, Plaintiffs Mendoza filed on Objection to the R&R , and filed it again on December 23, 2014, (Doc. 1740) after the Special Master refiled the R&R. TUSD filed its Objection to the R&R on December 19, 2014.
Neither the Fisher Plaintiffs nor the United States filed any Objection to the R&R.
For over 30 years, TUSD has supported magnet schools as the cornerstone for integration efforts, without ever conducting a review of the TUSD magnet plan. In 2009, when this Court found TUSD had attained unitary status, it did so conditionally on a Post Unitary Status Plan (PUSP), which called for TUSD to conduct a comprehensive review of its magnet schools.
In December 2011, subsequent to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal’s reversal of this Court’s finding of unitary status and remand of the case for continued judicial oversight, TUSD contracted with Education Consulting Services to complete a Comprehensive Magnet Program Review.
On January 6, 2012, after ordering the appointment of a Special Master to oversee the case, the Court directed the Special Master to work with the parties on a plan “‘containing specific substantive programs and provisions to be implemented by the TUSD to address all outstanding Green factors and all other ancillary factors.’
On February 20, 2013, the Court approved the plan prepared by the parties and the Special Master: the Unitary Status Plan (USP). The USP includes a magnet component.
The USP affords all students an opportunity to attend an integrated school by using four student assignment strategies to be developed by the District in consultation with the Plaintiffs and the Special Master: attendance boundaries; pairing and clustering of schools; magnet schools and programs, and open enrollment. The District is required to develop and implement a coordinated process of student assignment incorporating all of these strategies as appropriate.
The USP has a target date of SY 2016-17 for the District to attain unitary status.
As of the drafting of the USP, the parties agreed that “[t]he District shall continue to implement magnet schools and programs as a strategy for assigning students to schools and to provide students with the opportunity to attend an integrated school. A magnet school or program is one that: focuses on a magnet theme, such as a specific academic area, a particular career or a specialized learning environment; attracts students of diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds; and encourages students to choose a school other than their attendance boundary school to participate in the magnet theme offered at that program or school.”
“Traditionally, magnet schools are distinct from other public schools because they offer a specialized academic focus, theme, or pedagogy known as the magnet program. The term ‘magnet’ refers to how the program is supposed to attract students from across the boundaries of the district to attend the magnet school in addition to providing enriched programs for neighborhood students.”
“The student assignment goal for all magnet schools and programs shall be to achieve the definition of an integrated school, set forth [] [in] Section (II)(B)(2)).” (USP § II.E.2), which is: “any school in which no racial or ethnic group varies from the district average for that grade level (Elementary School, Middle School, K-8, High School) by more than +/- 15 percentage points, and in which no single racial or ethnic group exceeds 70% of the school’s enrollment.”
The USP required the District, by April 1, 2013, “to develop and provide to the Plaintiffs and the Special Master a Magnet School Plan, taking into account the findings of the 2011 Magnet School Study and ensuring that this Plan aligns with its other student assignment strategies and recruitment efforts.” (USP § II.E.2.) “In creating the Plan, the District shall, at a minimum: (i) consider how, whether, and where to add new sites to replicate successful programs and/or add new magnet themes and additional dual language programs, focusing on which geographic area(s) of the District are best suited for new programs to assist the District in meeting its desegregation obligations; (ii) improve existing magnet schools and programs that are not promoting integration and/or educational quality; (iii) consider changes to magnet schools or programs, including withdrawal of magnet status; (iv) determine if each magnet school or school with a magnet program shall have an attendance boundary; (v) determine admissions priorities/criteria for each magnet school or program and a process for review of those criteria; and (vi) ensure that administrators and certificated staff in magnet schools and programs have the expertise and training necessary to ensure successful implementation of the magnet.” (USP (Doc. 1713) § II.E.3) (emphasis added).
“Pursuant to these considerations, the Magnet School Plan shall, at a minimum, set forth a process and schedule to: (vii) make changes to the theme(s), programs, boundaries, and admissions criteria for existing magnet schools and programs in conformity with the Plan’s findings, including developing a process and criteria for significantly changing, withdrawing magnet status from, or closing magnet schools or programs, that are not promoting integration or educational quality; (viii) add additional magnet schools and/or programs for the 2013-2014 school year as feasible and for the 2014-2015 school year that will promote integration and educational quality within the District, including increasing the number of dual language programs; (ix) provide necessary training and resources to magnet school and program administrators and certificated staff; (x) include strategies to specifically engage African American and Latino families, including the families of English language learner (“ELL”) students; and, (xi) identify goals to further the integration of each magnet school which shall be used to assess the effectiveness of efforts to enhance integration.” Id. (emphasis added).
Since adopting the USP, TUSD hired a Magnet Director to develop and implement its Magnet Plan for school years 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, and adopted a 2013-2015Magnet Plan. It adopted the CMP on July 15, 2014.
These plans, like the 2011 Magnet Study, recognize that many of the existing magnet programs/schools need improvement or to be changed and/or eliminated. All the annual plans have included recommendations for very specific improvements for each school.
According to the CMP, the existing magnet schools are: Elementary Schools (Borton, Bonillas, Carrillo, Drachman, Davis, Holladay, Ochoa, Tully, and Robison); K-8 Schools (Booth-Fickett, Roskruge, and Safford); Middle Schools (Dodge and Utterback), and High Schools (Catalina, Tucson, Palo Verde, Cholla).1 In 2013-14,TUSD added Cragin Elementary School and Mansfeld Middle School as magnet schools.
According to the CMP, the magnet schools were evaluated in 2013-14 by the Magnet Department and ranked as follows: EXCELLING magnet is Dodge MS; MEETS magnets are Borton ES; Booth-Fickett K-8, Cragin ES, Drachman ES, and Palo Verde High-STEAM and Tucson High-Science; IMPROVEMENT magnets are Tully ES, Holladay ES, Safford K-8, Bonillas ES, Roskruge K-8, Davis ES, Carrillo ES, Mansfeld MS, and Tucson High Fine Arts and Cholla High School; FALLS FAR BELOW magnet schools include Ochoa ES, Robison ES, Utterback MS, and Pueblo High School. (CMP (Doc. 1730-2), 2014-15 Magnet Plan of Action, at 48-53.)
The District explains that EXCELLING is a new category designed to create exemplar programs, which will operate pursuant to a Sustainability Plan. MEETS schools will develop Magnet Improvement Plans targeting specific measures that will move the school to EXCELLING status, but there are no time limitations for attaining this status.
IMPROVEMENT schools will have two enrollment cycles to move to MEETS, pursuant to a Magnet Improvement Plan. FALLS FAR BELOW schools will have one enrollment cycle to move to IMPROVEMENT. If a school fails to advance from FALLS FAR BELOW to IMPROVEMENT or from IMPROVEMENT to MEETS, it will be considered for withdrawal of magnet status. A school may only fall into FALLS FAR BELOW status once in a three year cycle and if it does not attain MEETS status within that three year cycle, it will be considered for withdrawal of magnet status. (CMP (Doc. 1730-2), 2014 Magnet Plan of Action, at 47-48.)
According to the CMP, in SY 2013-14, schools were placed into either two or three enrollment cycle improvement plans, and “starting in SY 2015-16,” the District will implement a continuous cycle of improvement using the EXCELLING, MEETS, IMPROVEMENT or FALLS FAR BELOW classifications for improvement. If after completing three enrollment cycles the school has not demonstrated progress toward integration as measured by ethnic composition of accepted application in incoming grades, the school will be considered for elimination.
The Court admits to being confused regarding the interplay between the 3-year improvement allowance and the one and two year enrollment cycle improvement provisions, but does not need clarification because it rejects both. Generally, the Court understands that the CMP provides for TUSD to track the existing magnet schools and programs beginning in SY 2015-16, and after three years or in SY 2018-19, schools that are not “demonstrating progress” toward integration will be considered for elimination. And, TUSD believes that if and when magnet status is withdrawn, the District must continue funding a discontinued magnet school for up to five more years, pursuant to USP § II.E.1.
The Court does not agree that the USP § 11.E.1 requires a magnet improvement schedule precluding timely withdrawal of magnet status where a school or program does not serve the purpose of integration. The USP provides: “Subject to its decisions, if any, to withdraw or relocate magnet school status or programs, the District shall allow all students currently enrolled in a magnet school or program to remain in that program until they complete the highest grade offered by that school.”
The Court considers this section in conjunction with the general, Overview, provision: “Subject to possible school consolidations or closures or to any other changes contemplated herein, students may continue at the school in which they are currently enrolled from the effective date of this Order through the completion of the highest grade offered at that school.”
These provisions apply only to students enrolled in magnet schools or plans at the time the USP was adopted, February 2012. Therefore, the longest limitation applies to a student enrolled in kindergarten in SY 2011-12 at a K-8 school and would apply through 2019-2020, or five years from now. In 2011-12, like now, there were only three K-8 magnet schools and it is unknown how many students, if any, this provision would affect. The Court finds that until an existing magnet program is targeted for elimination, it is premature to determine whether its elimination would affect any student protected under USP § II.E.1.
It makes little sense to base the schedule for improving magnet schools on a provision that may not even be relevant. It makes little sense to interpret USP § II.E.2 as precluding the timely elimination of non-functioning magnet schools or programs, which would be contrary to the purposes and goals of the USP that all students to be afforded an opportunity to attend an integrated school…”
In the R&R the Special Master recommends schools be withdrawn as magnets if they fail to integrate their student bodies this next time around: SY 2015-16. The Mendoza Plaintiffs argue that the schools need more time to improve, given the historic lack of support, fiscal and administrative, the District has provided for magnet schools. Otherwise, the Mendoza Plaintiffs agree with the Special Master’s criticism of the CMP: 1) the criteria for evaluating the magnet schools and programs is ambiguous and does not place sufficient emphasis on integration and academic achievement; 2) the provisions for removing magnet status are cumbersome and will be difficult to implement, and 3) the plan does not identify the investments, financial and programmatic, necessary for a failed magnet school to become a successful magnet school, both academically and to be integrated.
In its Objection, TUSD informs the Court that it revised the CMP on November 7, 2014, to simplify its classifications of magnet schools to EXCELLING, STRATEGIC, and INTENSIVE and distilled its test, as recommended by the Special Master, to be outcome determinative based.
The District does not suggest any unique provision in the 11/14/2014 revision warranting separate scrutiny. As it was, the Court was forced to consider multiple documents to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the CMP, which included reviewing the following: the 2011 Magnet Study, the 2013-2015 Magnet Plan attached to the 2012-13 Annual Report, the CMP adopted by the Board 7/15/2014, inclusive of the Magnet Plan of Action for 2013-14 (approved October 2013) and the Magnet Plan of Action 2014-15, and the Revised CMP of 7/7/14, inclusive of the approved Magnet Plan of Action for 2013-14 and a revised Magnet Plan of Action 2014-15.
The CMP does not define or explain the term “cohort,” but the Court assumes this means integration must be maintained as students enter the school at grade K and move through grades 6 and 9.
In other words, a school must show progress towards achieving the USP definition of an integrated school and towards enhancing the educational quality of its magnet programs. (Revised CMP (Doc. 1721-19 at 6), see also (USP § II.E.3 (Doc. 1713) (requiring TUSD adopt Magnet Plan that promotes integration and educational quality). Integration exists, pursuant to the definition in the USP § II.E.2, based on the number of accepted magnet applications for entry grades K, 6, 9 and which is maintained at the cohort grade levels.4 Id. at 6-7. Student Achievement for magnet status is reached based on the magnet school receiving a letter grade of “A” or “B” as designated by the Arizona Department of Education, and student achievement is tested pursuant to the following standards: students score higher than the state median in reading and math on the state assessment; the academic growth of all students at the school is higher than the state median growth in reading and math, and growth at the bottom 25% of students at the school is higher than the state median growth. I
TUSD does not object to adding the Mendoza Plaintiffs’ proposed standard: “the achievement gaps between the racial groups participating in magnet programs are less than the achievement gaps between racial groups not participating in magnet programs.”
Integration and student achievement are linked together because the goal of a magnet school is by definition “to attract a racially diverse student body by creating a school so distinctive and appealing – so magnetic – that it will draw a diverse range of families from throughout the community eager to enroll their children, even if it means having them bused to a different, and perhaps, distant neighborhood. To do so, the magnet schools must offer educational programs of high caliber that are not available in other area schools.” (2011 Magnet Study (Doc. 1738) at 3.) In the best magnet schools, the magnet components, many of which are associated with effective schools, add up to higher student achievement. Id.
In other words, high academic standards will draw students to a magnet school, and an effective magnet program will improve student achievement.
Pursuant to the Revised CMP, TUSD also revised the Magnet Plan of Action 2014-15, which reflects that Dodge MS and Palo Verde High School meet both tests, integration and student achievement. Dodge MS and Palo Verde HS will proceed pursuant to a Sustainability Plan.
The following schools are “A” or “B” schools: Carrillo ES, Davis ES, Drachman ES, Ochoa ES, Roskruge K-8, Mansfeld MS, and Cholla and Tucson high schools. All of these schools are racially concentrated and must become integrated, pursuant to an Improvement Plan. The remainder of the schools currently designated as magnet schools do not meet the student achievement standards. They are C or D schools, and only three of them, Booth -Ficket K-8, Borton ES and Cragin ES, are NOT racially concentrated.
Racially concentrated means a school “in which any racial or ethnic group exceeds 70% of the school’s total enrollment.” (USP (Doc. 1713) § II.B.1. These schools need Improvement Plans to become A or B schools and to attain integration. In other words, the period for improvement begins at the close of this school year (SY 2014-15) through SY 2015-16 and ends in June after SY 2016-17.
In the Revised CMP, TUSD designates schools as STRATEGIC, if they meet one of the two tests, called tiers, and INTENSIVE if they meet neither tier. TUSD proposes to evaluate each school every year in June, beginning June 2015. Under the Revised CMP, schools labeled STRATEGIC have two years to move to EXCELLING, and if not moved to EXCELLING by the end of SY 2016-17,6 the school “may be” considered for magnet status elimination. Schools labeled INTENSIVE must move to STRATEGIC by the end of SY 2015-16 or be considered for magnet status elimination. (Revised CMP (Doc. 1721-19) at 23-24.)
The Court is satisfied that the outcome determinative criteria proposed in the Revised CMP addresses the Special Master’s concerns for clarity, which is also a concern for this Court. The criteria for evaluating the magnet plan in the CMP were ambiguous, and the Court believes for the reasons explained by the Special Master for why they would have been difficult to implement, the criteria would also have made judicial oversight and monitoring difficult. The Court turns to the process and schedule proposed by TUSD for withdrawing magnet status from the District’s existing magnet schools. The parties are at odds regarding the time frame for closing ineffective magnet schools and programs.
Only two schools in the Magnet Plan meet the definition of a magnet school or magnet program by way of having strong academic standards and having integrated student bodies. The CMP allows ineffective magnet schools and programs to exist until after SY 2018-19. The Revised CMP allows deficient magnet schools and programs to exist until after SY 2016-17. Importantly, the schedule proposed by TUSD does not reflect a deadline for elimination, but only a date when elimination will be “considered” by the District.
Additionally, TUSD has added new magnet schools with “C” ratings, Cragin and Mansfeld.
The addition of new magnet schools lacking strong academic programs will perpetuate cycles of deficiency beyond the time allocated to improve the existing problem schools.
While the question has not been briefed by the parties, the Court is concerned that unitary status may be difficult to attain when the USP’s key component for integration, a Magnet Plan, exists in name only. The CMP must reflect the ultimate operational Magnet School Plan envisioned for TUSD and the process and schedule for how and when TUSD will implement this Magnet School Plan, including how and when each school destined to be included in the Magnet School Plan becomes an operative magnet school and/or program.
It is not as if TUSD does not know what needs to be done. Each of the existing 20 magnet schools/programs have been critiqued regarding their deficiencies since 2011, with detailed annual recommendations spelled out for improvements.
For example, Tully’s magnet designation is based on “Opening Minds through the Arts” program (OMA). The 2011 Magnet Study recommended that Tully ES should not be designated as a magnet because OMA was not a unique program. At least 20 other schools in TUSD had the OMA program. (2011 Magnet Study (Doc. 1738) at 32.)
In January 2013, the Magnet Program Director prepared a Comprehensive District Evaluation of Magnet Programs. She applied similar indicators as those used in the 2011 Magnet Study and found similar problems. Tully was still a magnet school based on the nonunique OMA program, with 17 other elementary schools having OMA programs and 3 middle schools also having OMA programs. (2013 District Evaluation (Doc. 1738) at 20.)
TUSD’s responsive strategy for SY 2013-14 was for Tully to “revision” its OMA magnet theme and implement a Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) theme; magnet staff to work with Tully to create curriculum and provide professional development resources, and forming community partnerships, with funding to be allocated for a Magnet Coordinator.
The 2014-15 Magnet Action Plan, reflects Tully will “develop a STEM theme,” with Tully having significant potential to improve student achievement by using resources that are dedicated to implementing STEM.
Tully ES is a racially concentrated C school, which according to the CMP is still continuing to develop a STEM theme. According to the Revised CMP, even if Tully has not developed a STEM theme by the June 2015 annual review, another school year, SY 2015-16, will pass before Tully is even “considered” for elimination from the Magnet Plan. Pursuant to the CMP and the Revised CMP, Tully is not on a trajectory to be an operational magnet school before the target date for unitary status: SY 2016-17.
The Court has not looked at each school, but finds a plan to wait two or three years, or longer, is not a comprehensive magnet plan for implementing an operational Magnet School Plan in TUSD, especially since TUSD has been on this road towards improvement since 2011 and has a wealth of detailed information regarding what is necessary to improve the District’s magnet schools and programs, now.
The District has been studying the viability of these schools and programs to be magnets since 2011. Every Magnet Plan and Magnet Action Plan since 2012 has specified measures each school has taken or needs to take towards improvement. More importantly, the District knows the components which must exist for it to have an effective Magnet School Plan. For example, it must strategically place magnet schools in central locations, generally, within an eight mile radius of the center of the District, because parents will not send their children where travel time exceeds approximately 20 minutes. Students are hesitant to cross perceived social/economical boundaries making the central corridor especially appealing.
The CMP does not inform the Court as to whether the existing magnet schools are even located in relevant areas of the District or identify other schools which are strategically located so as to be candidates for the Magnet School Plan.
The District has developed criteria for assessing the viability of adding a new magnet school, revising an existing magnet program, and/or relocating a magnet program. They look at four key criteria: racial/ethnic composition; academic achievement; facility condition/capacity; and geographic location. TUSD has devised a rubric for applying these criteria, yet the CMP does not provide this rubric information for the existing magnet schools.
Importantly, there are undisputed effective mechanism for improving academic achievement, such as reduction of class size in a targeted way, incentives to draw excellent teachers and school administrators to serve in a school, restructuring of the school day to foster collaboration and professional development. (R&R (Doc. 1730) at 5.) The CMP does not address how the District will improve academic achievement in approximately half of the existing schools currently labeled magnets, which are C and D schools.
The District does not explain why magnet programs have been eliminated already at some of its schools and other magnet program themes have been or are being entirely changed, without waiting two or three enrollment cycles, or longer.
For example, the Magnet Plan of Action for 2013-14 reported that Catalina Magnet High was currently phasing out its former magnet strands: Aviation, Health Care and, to a lesser extent, the Terra Firm and adding an International and Dual Language theme, which has had “proven success in other districts and should be replicated in TUSD.”
Tucson High School (Math and Technology Strand) was approved for elimination in October 2014. It is revising its Science strand to reflect a Natural Science focus. Pueblo High School is revising its Communications Arts theme to Dual Language.
The Court refers here to: 1) the need for a strong marketing and recruitment program; 2) ongoing and continuous teacher development to remain cutting edge in the magnet content area; 3) recruitment and retention of specialized teaching staff; 4) community support and participation; and 5) data gathering, annual and 3-year reviews of student achievement to ensure academic relevancy of the magnet theme.
The Court sees little difference in changing a magnet theme entirely as was done at Catalina and Pueblo high schools and is being done at Tully ES and eliminating a magnet program or school, except for funding. In the former circumstance magnet funding continues to flow to the school and in the latter circumstances it ends. But, a Magnet Plan is not a funding mechanism; it is a mechanism to improve integration. Other funding sources are available to schools for capital improvements, operations, and to improve academic achievement. Nothing prevents TUSD from continuing existing funding levels for two or three enrollment cycles, the next five years, or any other length of time, for schools being disfranchised of their magnet programs. Especially, where money might well be wasted on developing themes at a school with little potential to integrate its student body, a school could better use funding unencumbered by the burdens7 of trying to become a magnet school.
The Court does not disregard the Mendoza Plaintiffs point that existing magnet schools have been starved of leadership and adequate resources for over 30 years, making it difficult to assess which magnet plans might succeed with proper support. The Special Master notes “there is no certain way to know what the outcome of the District’s plans for magnet programs and schools will be . . . because parent options for where they send their children to school are greater in Arizona than any other state.”
He is prepared, therefore, to give the District the “benefit of the doubt” in regard to its proposals, except for District decisions which undermine the chances that magnet schools will serve the role they are intended to serve in the USP.
The Court does the same, but cannot approve the CMP, adopted by the School Board on July 15, 2014, or the Revised CMP. Neither is a comprehensive plan as required by the USP. The Court has had to piece together information from the 2011 Magnet Study and multiple magnet plans and magnet plans of action. The CMP does operate within the time frame for attaining unitary status to create schools that function as magnet schools. The USP, Section II.A.1, mandates: “Students of all racial and ethnic backgrounds shall have the opportunity to attend an integrated school.”
The CMP fails to present for easy comparison and evaluation the basic rubric information for the current magnet schools and programs or identify the strength of the various magnet themes operating in these schools. The Court does not know how each school fits into an overall magnet feeder school plan. In short, the CMP fails to reflect the District’s vision for a meaningful operational Magnet School Plan, with it can support long term. Within the context of implementing such a plan, the CMP fails to identify the specific activities which must be undertaken by each school to attain magnet status. There is no budgetary assessment as to how much money it will take to make the requisite improvements or even how many schools it can maintain as magnets long term. There is no transportation component in the CMP, which is the most expensive factor in operating a magnet school system. School boundaries have not yet been factored into the plan. The CMP speaks to developing Improvement Plans, but until detailed plans, complete with budget and resource estimates, are prepared for a school, it is impossible to ascertain what actions, if any, a school can undertake to attain true magnet status by the USP target date for attaining unitary status:SY 2016-17.
By April 1, 2013, the District was required to develop the Magnet School Plan and in creating the Plan the District was required to “consider changes to magnet schools or programs that are not promoting integration and/or educational quality, including withdrawal of magnet status.” (USP § E.3.) The District has identified which schools are failing to operate as magnet schools. Because the CMP has been delayed does not necessitate further delay in deciding what changes are necessary to attain a fully functioning Magnet School Plan, including which, if any schools, should be eliminated. There is no reason to treat eliminating magnet status differently from other types of program improvements such as adding, revising, or transferring magnet programs. In short, the CMP must assess the viability and desirability of the existing “name only” magnet schools to become operational magnet schools. And for such schools, Improvement Plans must be prepared to identify the specific measures necessary to address each deficiency precluding the school or program from being a magnet, and must include a time line, with annual bench marks, for attaining magnet status.
Given there has been extensive studying, reviewing, and reporting on TUSD’s magnet schools since 2011, the Court is confident that the District has all the information needed, but simply failed to present it in a comprehensive fashion which is the purpose of the CMP. Accordingly, the CMP must be revised so it reflects an operational Magnet School Plan, using the 2016-17 target date for reaching unitary status. Once operational, the regular three-year review cycle proposed by the District is approved by the Court.
The District, in consultation with the Special Master, shall work with its schools to prepare the Improvement Plans over the next three months, which shall identify clear and specific annual bench marks for attaining magnet status by SY 2016-17. The Special Master shall monitor compliance by each school regarding its Improvement Plan. The Special Master shall file reports as necessary with the Court identifying any failure to attain a requisite benchmark, and may accordingly recommend eliminating a magnet school or program, or recommend that the school should be given more time and how much more time should be allowed for the school to reach the missed improvement bench mark. The parties will be afforded an opportunity to object to any recommendation by the Special Master that magnet status be withdrawn from a school.
The Special Master may work with the Magnet Department to ensure any Monthly Magnet Report covers the data he will need for overseeing the Improvement Plans. (CMP (Doc. 1730-2) at 20.)
The Special Master, in consultation with TUSD, shall consult prepare a logical schedule for data gathering and reporting by TUSD necessary to enable him to monitor the Implementation Plans and report to the Court.8 In four months, TUSD shall file a Revised CMP, which shall be a comprehensive gathering together of the relevant information, including the Improvement Plans. The CMP should be a one-stop, road map for future review by the Parties, the Special Master, the TUSD schools, this Court, and the public.
The District shall file a Revised CMP, including Improvement Plans, within 4 months of the filing date of this Order.
The District, in consultation with the Special Master, shall work with its schools to prepare the Improvement Plans over the next three months, which shall identify clear and specific annual bench marks for attaining magnet status by SY 2016-17. The Special Master shall monitor compliance by each school regarding its Improvement Plan. The Special Master shall file reports as necessary with the Court identifying any failure to attain a requisite benchmark, and may accordingly recommend eliminating a magnet school or program, or recommend that the school should be given more time and how much more time should be allowed for the school to reach the missed improvement bench mark