In a scathing indictment of Tucson Unified School District’s Superintendent H.T. Sanchez, the Fischer plaintiffs filed in court today, a pleading in which they allege that Sanchez has “undermined the credibility of the desegregation process by knowingly feeding TUSD parents and staff inaccurate information about the SM’s initial proposal to withdraw magnet status at several TUSD schools.”
In response to the filing, Governing Board Michael Hicks stated, “I hope the Court listens to all parties and recognizes that both groups of plaintiffs have worked hard to bring equity to the District. At the last Board meeting, parent Betts Putnam Hidalgo likened the current situation to a case of domestic violence. She rightly stated that while the adults are fighting the kids are ‘not being fed and put to bed.’ I implore the Court to bring about a resolution that will only serve the students’ interests, and that will necessarily serve everyone’s interests.”
The Fischer plaintiffs note in the filing: “The SM has confirmed that on Friday 09/04/15, he met in person with TUSD Superintendent Sanchez in Tucson, Arizona and summarized the contents of his forthcoming report regarding the withdrawal of magnet status (see attached Hawley 11/09/15 email). The SM confirmed that, at that meeting, he explicitly stated that defunding was not feasible or desirable, and therefore, not at issue . The SM confirmed that he even went so far as to explore, for the Superintendent’s benefit, possible arguments for the maintenance of current funding levels at schools that might lose their magnet status (such as maintaining current desegregation funding levels for Cholla’s popular IB program, because it increases equitable acfcess to ALEs). Despite this, Superintendent Sanchez rallied the principals of impacted magnet schools at a specially convened TUSD GB meeting on 09/08/15, where he effectively asked the GB for their approval to appeal the SM’s initial recommendation (made in his attached report of the same date) to withdraw magnetstatus at some schools.
The pleading reads:
COME NOW, Plaintiffs Roy and Josie Fisher (hereinafter the Fisher Plaintiffs), by and through counsel undersigned, Rubin Salter, Jr. to submit the instant opposition to the Special Master’s 11/05/15 “recommendations related to whether schools that have not met their goals for integration should retain magnet status” (document number 1864 filed 11/05/15). In his 11/05/15 report, the Special Master (SM) recommends that “that decisions about removing magnet status should be deferred until the 2016-17 school year” (at page 2 of document number 1864 filed 11/05/15). Additionally, the SM asks this Court to “approve the District’s [subsequently filed] proposed court order that […] defers removal of magnet status from schools and programs that did not meet their integration benchmarks this year but may do so next fall” (idem at 5). The proposed order endorsed by the SM was only entered into record in this case on 11/06/15 as document number 1865-1. The proposed order 1 accompanied a stipulation entered into by the District and the Mendoza Plaintiffs and filed on the same date (as document number 1865). The Fisher Plaintiffs have already lodged their objection to the earlier version of the stipulation. Because the concerns raised in the Fisher Plaintiffs’ 11/02/15 objection to the District’s first magnet stipulation document number 1858 filed (10/23/15) apply equally to the second magnet stipulation (document number 1865 filed 11/06/15), the Fisher Plaintiffs present those concerns again here. The Fisher Plaintiffs object to the SM’s recommendation where it fails to resolve their concerns that:
1.1. THE PROPOSED ORDER WOULD IMPROPERLY REVISE THE USP
The District’s second 11/06/15 stipulation improperly seeks to resolve, between two parties, a matter directly implicating the interests of all four parties to this case. The Fisher Plaintiffs had no input into either the first or the second stipulation, nor would they be contractually bound by the terms of either stipulation. If adopted by this Court, the proposed order endorsed in the SM’s R&R would lead to a legal quagmire insofar as it rests on a stipulation entered into by two parties in this multiparty Civil Rights proceeding that would revise the terms of the Unitary Status Plan (hereinafter USP) approved by order of this Court and agreed to by all four parties in this case.
1.2. THE PROPOSED ORDER WOULD EVISCERATE THE DISTRICT’S COMPREHENSIVE MAGNET PLAN
The District’s second 11/06/15 stipulation improperly seeks to defer withdrawal of magnet status until the 2016-17 school year (hereinafter SY). It would be irrational and counter to the intent of the USP and this Court’s prior orders to delay withdrawal of magnet status at schools that have already proven ineffective as magnets. Doing so would delay the establishment of new and potentially effective magnet programs at other schools beyond the impending timeline to unitary status and in so doing would excuse the District of its obligation to integrate its schools.
1.3. THE PROPOSED ORDER WOULD INVITE FURTHER ATTACKS ON THE ROLE OF THE SM AND PLAINTIFFS IN THE REMEDIAL DESEGREGATION PROCESS
The District’s second 11/06/15 stipulation and proposed order , if adopted by this Court, would further encourage the District in its evidenced willingness to undermine the credibility and viability of the collaborative desegregation process by systematically agitating parents and staff at affected schools with a campaign of misleading information about the fiscal and programmatic consequences of the SM’s recommended withdrawal of magnet status. The Fisher Plaintiffs are concerned lest this Court – in its understandable desire to reassure magnet parents and staff – issue an order that would in any way encourage the District to resort to similar behavior in the future.
1.3.1. THE PROPOSED ORDER WOULD TACITLY APPROVE THE DISTRICT ADMINISTRATION’S KNOWING DISSEMINATION OF MISINFORMATION TO MAGNET PARENTS AND STAFF
At 03:17:52 in the video of the TUSD GB’s 09/29/15 special meeting, TUSD GB member Michael Hicks asked TUSD General Counsel Julie Tolleson whether “the information that the principals are disseminating to the parent groups and to everyone [went] through [the District’s] Legal [Services Department]” (see http://tusd1.org/contents/govboard/gbvideo092915.html ). Continuing, Hicks explained that:
“It’s my understanding that Ochoa and another school, I think two other schools have petitions that the principals are disseminating to the parent groups and asking the parent groups to sign it and then it basically takes away […]. It’s saying that they want to be added to the process, because they’re here now and the Mendozas and Fishers are, basically, have no stand[ing] in TUSD anymore. Did this information come through [the District’s] Legal [Services Department]? […]. I’m trying to figure out if it’s been appropriate for TUSD staff to be pushing individuals to sign petitions for this” (idem emphasis added). And then in response to TUSD General Counsel Tolleson’s admission that “I don’t think our people should ever push people to sign petitions, period” (idem), Hicks observed that “Okay, well, they’re doing it […].
My problem with some of this is we’re now, again, we’re feeding into this, and we’re […]. I think we’re heading for a fight we’re going to end up losing. And, it’s, we’re going to be losing, because of our arrogance ” (idem emphasis added). Continuing at 03:27:40 in the video, TUSD GB member Mark Stegeman expresses his concern that it is the District, and not the plaintiffs or the Special Master, that is driving litigation in this case: “over the past seven years when we’ve been in conflict with the Special Master, on various points, how often do we win that debate, in this court? […] I feel that it doesn’t take much reading between the lines to understand how the court feels about this issue and it’s a fair question to ask at this point: who is running up the litigation costs in this case, honestly? And I’m thinking that we are […]. I understand that formally speaking every time the Special Master wants something, he is initiating it, um, but I, I don’t know, I’m, I’m concerned and I think the court expressed a similar concern a few months ago about the, where the litigiousness is coming from here in practice […] (idem emphasis added). At 03:32:17 in the video, TUSD GB member Stegeman asked District staff to confirm that: “on Wednesday, September 16th, parent-teacher conferences were held at Ochoa […]. During the conference parents were presented with two documents and one petition to sign. Parents were asked to review the documents and follow up as requested. Parents were also asked to sign a petition which was placed before them during the parent-teacher conference, which requests that MALDEF provide legal representation to parents” (idem).
1.3.2. THE DISTRICT HAS INCITED PARENTS AND STAFF AGAINST THE SM
At an earlier GB meeting, TUSD GB member Stegeman expressed his concerns with what he characterized as the “counterproductive” and confrontational tone” of TUSD Superintendent Sanchez’s opposition to any withdrawal of magnet status, specifically explaining that he had “concerns about how we as a district have managed the relationship with the plaintiffs and the Special Master over the last couple of years. I think we’re in this place partly because we have mismanaged that relationship. I’m very concerned about the comments I’ve heard tonight, here and there, which seem to be personal comments about the Special Master. I think that’s counterproductive. I’ve heard, I’m concerned about the confrontational tone that has occasionally appeared in these presentations. I think that’s counterproductive” (at 02:50:40 in the video footage of the 09/08/15 TUSD GB meeting accessible at http://livestream.com/tucsonunifiedlive/events/3048767 emphasis added). These concerns, raised by two TUSD GB members, were echoed by the SM in an early draft of his report to the Court. Unfortunately, the SM, in the face of the confusion and hostility created by the District’s actions, decided to remove from his final report his concerns with the District’s dissemination of misinformation. While the Fisher Plaintiffs respect and share the SM’s concern to alleviate the atmosphere of mistrust and hostility generated in the magnet community towards the desegregation process generally and the plaintiffs and Special Master specifically, they are nevertheless compelled to object to the lack of good faith evidenced in the District’s actions, lest their silence encourage the District to resort to such divisive and counterproductive tactics in the future negotiations with the plaintiffs and Special Master.
1.3.3. THE SUPERINTENDENT MISREPRESENTED SM’S RECOMMENDATIONS
As the Fisher Plaintiffs explained in their 06/18/15 objection to the District’s comprehensive magnet plan, “[w] hatever political considerations may have given rise to this planned inaction, the current iteration of the Plan must fall in the face of federal law here it would delay the much-needed and long-awaited overhaul of the District’s magnet programs. Justice delayed is justice denied and where – as here – a District operates under the jurisdiction of a federal desegregation order, it must implement its remedial desegregation plan with all due speed ” (at page 10 of document number 1815 filed 06/18/15 emphasis added). TUSD Superintendent H.T. Sanchez has undermined the credibility of the desegregation process by knowingly feeding TUSD parents and staff inaccurate information about the SM’s initial proposal to withdraw magnet status at several TUSD schools. The SM has confirmed that on Friday 09/04/15, he met in person with TUSD Superintendent Sanchez in Tucson, Arizona and summarized the contents of his forthcoming report regarding the withdrawal of magnet status (see attached Hawley 11/09/15 email). The SM confirmed that, at that meeting, he explicitly stated that defunding was not feasible or desirable, and therefore, not at issue . The SM confirmed that he even went so far as to explore, for the Superintendent’s benefit, possible arguments for the maintenance of current funding levels at schools that might lose their magnet status (such as maintaining current desegregation funding levels for Cholla’s popular IB program, because it increases equitable access to ALEs).
Despite this, Superintendent Sanchez rallied the principals of impacted magnet schools at a specially convened TUSD GB meeting on 09/08/15, where he effectively asked the GB for their approval to appeal the SM’s initial recommendation (made in his attached report of the same date) to withdraw magnet status at some schools.
1.3.4. MAGNET PRINCIPALS MISREPRESENTED SM’S RECOMMENDATIONS
The SM confirmed that he also met individually with each of the principals at ten magnet schools in first week of September. According to the SM, in his meetings with the principals, he never equated withdrawal of magnet status with defunding or the elimination of successful and popular programs . To the contrary, the SM reports that he explained that it would not be feasible or desirable to reduce desegregation funding at the impacted schools because the District’s practice of using the magnet funds to supplant M&O funds had made it impossible to withdraw desegregation funding without leaving schools without basic services. The SM also explained that the predominantly minority student populations served by the impacted schools were especially deserving of supplemental desegregation funding. The meeting Superintendent Sanchez convened with his principals at District headquarters is described by an anonymous TUSD whistleblower (see http://tinyurl.com/ncdonn3 ). Although the Fisher Plaintiffs have no way to verify the anonymous account, the account has appeared in local online media and gives some indication of the District’s loss of credibility in the eyes of one local online news outlet. On that basis, the Fisher Plaintiffs believe the account offers a relevant illustration of the media coverage of the District’s recent actions. The anonymous source reports that, “[o]n Friday September 4th [TUSD Superintendent H.T. Sanchez] met with [the] principals [of Safford M K-8, Bonillas MES, Cholla MHS, Ochoa MES, Utterback MMS and Pueblo MHS, respectively Steve Gabaldon, Jennifer Ambrosia, Frank Armenta, Julio Moreno, Robin Dunbar and Auggie Romero] and told them that he had met with the Special Master who had informed him that he would be recommending that about half a dozen magnet schools lose their magnet standing and that they would be stripped of their desegregation funding […]. HT informed the principals listed above that he and the Board majority were looking for each of them to show total support for their schools and the District and instructed them on what they were to do and say – in detail, beginning with that they were to go before the Board (on September 8th) and attest to the desperate need for desegregation dollars at their schools and state that they have been fully supported by him and the administration. Other instructions that they received from HT during the following days included the followingz […] [1] They were to rally their staffs and parents and explain that [it] is the Special Master and the Mendoza Plaintiffs – who are responsible for the situation of each of their schools potentially losing their magnet standing – all due to the USP and the mandate to integrate magnet schools [2] They were to immediately plan for meetings – first with their staffs and then with their parents – which HT and his staff would attend to rally them in protest of the Special Master and Plaintiffs […] [3] They were to use the form letters (written by HT) to have parents sign and send to the court and the Plaintiffs […] [4] Ochoa was to work with the political operatives from Casa Maria (Brian Flagg and Cesar Aguirre) to win over the politicos in South Tucson and to initiate petitions for parents to sign” (idem). The magnet principals took their marching orders from the Superintendent and – wittingly or unwittingly – alarmed the staff and parents at their schools by disseminating the inaccurate information.
1.3.5. CHOLLA STAFF MISREPRESENTED THE SM’S RECOMMENDATIONS
The Fisher Plaintiffs have attached a letter dated 09/21/15 appealing to parents of Cholla students to contact class counsel in Fisher v TUSD to express their opposition to the withdrawal of Cholla’s magnet status and funding. The letter is signed by Cholla Principal Frank Armenta and claims that the loss of magnet status would result in a loss of $1.1 million in funding (see attached Armenta 09/21/15 correspondence).
1.3.6. SAFFORD STAFF MISREPRESENTED THE SM’S RECOMMENDATIONS
The principal of Safford sent out a similarly misleading letter to the parents of Safford students. The Fisher Plaintiffs have attached a photograph of a letter sent to Safford K-8 parents signed by Safford Principal Steven Gabaldon and Safford’s IB/Magnet Coordinator.
The letter claimed that Safford was in danger of losing over 800 thousand dollars in funding and asked parents to attend a family and staff event at the school on 10/02/15 to help TUSD staff put a stop to the SM’s “alarming proposal.” The letter asks Safford parents to “help sound the alarm” and goes on to explain that the principal “need[s] [their] help with saving [their] child’s school. Safford K-8 is in danger of losing $897,000 […]. Safford magnet families will no longer get transportation for their children, we no longer will be able to offer after school tutoring or enrichment activities […]. Friday, October 2, we will have a special Safford family and staff event in our court yard area […]. We are asking that you come to your child’s school […] to help us with putting a stop to this alarming proposal from the special master. If you wish for the court to represent you as a TUSD/Safford parent we will have a petition for you to sign. You can also choose to write a letter to the representative of the plaintiffs saying that you wish for Safford to keep its magnet status and funding. We will provide you with some light refreshments […]. [signed by] Mr. Steven Gabaldon, Principal & Ms. Ilse Billings (IB/Magnet Coordinator)” (see attached Gabaldon correspondence).
Similarly inaccurate information appears on Safford’s offical website at (http://edweb.tusd1.org/Safford/ ). The school’s homepage explains that it needs the help of the Safford community, because “Dr. Willis Hawley is the court-appointed special master of the TUSD Desegregation Lawsuit and is recommending that Safford K-8 Magnet School be demagnetized and stripped of its funding. This would cut over $878,000 to our school’s funding […]. “Our IB program is the strongest card in our hand. It has become, more than anything else, what makes our school unique, attractive to families, academically rigorous, and relevant […]. Why would someone want to take that away from us? This effort can only backfire […].” — Mr. Erik Yoder, Safford K-8 teacher of 22 years […] Please help us maintain our magnet status and keep the funding that belongs to our students. We all believe in the Safford K-8 Magnet School International Baccalaureate Program. Please call, write, and email the plaintiffs and court below expressing your support for Safford K-8 Magnet School to remain a Magnet Community School and maintain its funding. Your voice makes a difference! Thank you!” (emphasis added).
1.3.7. OCHOA STAFF MISREPRESENTED THE SM’S RECOMMENDATIONS
Perhaps most disturbing is the Superintendent’s micromanagement of the petition and letter-writing campaign conducted at Ochoa EMS. The Fisher Plaintiffs have attached the affidavit of Lourdes Molina, a member of the Ochoa site council and the grandmother of an Ochoa student. In her affidavit, Ms. Molina states that she “was asked to participate as the parent member for the Site Council at Ochoa and […] attended [her] first Site Council meeting on September 15, 2015. In addition to other Site Council members, Superintendent H.T. Sanchez and Julie Tollison [sic] were present for this meeting at Ochoa. Dr. Sanchez advised the Council that it was imperative for all involved to maintain the Magnet status and accompanying Magnet funding for Ochoa. He advised the Council that should Ochoa lose its Magnet status, it would also lose funding in the amount of $211,000.00. Consequently, the Council voted unanimously to support the Magnet plan and not support the Report and Recommendation by the Special Master” (see attached Molina 11/09/15 affidavit). Ms. Molina states further that “[i]mmediately following the Site Council meeting, [she] attended the parent meeting located at the Ochoa library. Dr. Sanchez addressed those in attendance and […] told the audience that Ochoa would be losing $211,000.00 should it lose its Magnet status […]. The following day, September 16, 2015, I went to Ochoa to volunteer in my granddaughter’s class. As classes were coming to an end, I was asked by Jeanette Gabaldon, the Magnet Coordinator, to review a petition that was going to be distributed to parents that evening during the Parent/Teacher conferences. I made suggestions about the Spanish translation and suggestions about the grammar. I [also] took notes for the Site Council meeting on September 15, 2015” (idem). The Fisher Plaintiffs have attached hereto full and true copies of the Ochoa petition and a “Sample Letter to be read or written to the plaintiffs and court” (see attached Ochoa sample letter). The Ochoa petition repeats the Superintendent’s false claims where it states in relevant part that “Dr. Hawley is the court appointed special master and is recommending Ochoa and other TUSD magnet schools be stripped of funding. This would mean a cut of over $211,000 to Ochoa […]. If you would like […] MALDEF to represent you and your child/children please sign this petition asking for representation” (see attached Ochoa petition). In an 11/10/15 media interview, TUSD GB member Hicks described the Superintendent’s actions as a “scare tactic to get parents and everybody in an uproar […] a well orchestrated manipulation by district administration. I find it despicable and I find it very disheartening” ( http://tinyurl.com/p9m223q ).
1.3.7. SAFFORD STAFF UNWITTINGLY MISREPRESENT SM’S RECOMMENDATIONS
A particularly striking example of the corrosive effect the Superintendent’s actions have had on community and staff support for the desegregation process is found in an article written by Mr. Sandy Merz, a teacher at Safford K-8 magnet school (see http://tinyurl.com/pdstwxq). A link to the article appears on Safford’s official homepage (http://edweb.tusd1.org/Safford/). The Fisher Plaintiffs believe discussion of the article is warranted here, because the article’s serious inaccuracies demonstrate how effective the Superintendent’s campaign of misinformation has been in generating misunderstanding of and hostility to the desegregation process among TUSD parents and staff. The author of the article is not, however, completely misinformed.
He does acknowledge that the purpose of seeking and maintaining magnet status under the USP is to increase classroom-level integration (and academic achievement) and that Safford K-8 has not succeeded in meeting even the very modest goals it set for itself last year for increasing classroom-level integration. Where the article departs from the truth is when it claims the Special Master sought to strip Safford of its funding. The record in this case shows that no one – not the Special Master, not the Mendoza Plaintiffs, not the DOJ, not the Fisher Plaintiffs, not this Court – has ever suggested that withdrawal of magnet status should result in “stripping funding” or the elimination of popular or promising programs, such as Safford’s IB program. To the contrary, the Special Master and counsel and representatives for the Fisher and Mendoza Plaintiff classes have all – unanimously, repeatedly and clearly – emphasized the need to continue funding successful programs at schools where magnet status is withdrawn at or above current funding levels. TUSD Superintendent H.T. Sanchez and TUSD General Counsel Julie Tolleson were well aware of this fact well prior to the TUSD GB meeting held on 09/08/15 where several TUSD magnet principals were rallied by Superintendent Sanchez to oppose withdrawal of magnet status. In early October, Fisher counsel received correspondence from Safford staff opposed to the withdrawal of magnet status at their school (see attached 10/04/15 Billeci and 10/06/15 Chavez emails). A cursory review of the correspondence shows that the Safford educators were seriously misinformed about what the proposed withdrawal of magnet status would entail for their school’s funding and programs.
Safford curriculum facilitator and literacy specialist, Kathryn Chavez wrote that “[t]he upheaval set forth by the Special Master’s recommendation made shortly before 40th day of school has taken focus away from instruction and learning and instead created a chaotic setting in which students are trying to make sense of a situation taken out of context” (see attached 10/06/15 Chavez email). In a separate email, Safford teacher Nancy Billeci wrote that she was “already starting to budget and make cuts in my expenses in case [she] lose[s] [her] job. I am very sad for myself and my students that my program will be cut if we lose magnet status. We are 60 minutes from the border, so, of course, we are going to have a higher percentage of Mexican students. I love my job and my students. Please consider having Safford K 8 Magnet International Baccalaureate World School keep our Magnet status” (see attached 10/04/15 Billeci email). The Fisher Plaintiffs have attached evidence showing that TUSD Superintendent Sanchez conducted a systematic campaign of misinformation at school-site meetings to agitate TUSD staff and parents to attack the role of the Special Master, the Plaintiffs and their counsel and class representatives in the desegregation process. If the hard-working and well-intentioned staff at Safford K-8 were informed that withdrawal of magnet status would not result in the defunding of Safford’s IB program, but rather would allow the school to redirect funding from its unsuccessful efforts to market a majority-minority school to parents of Anglo students to simply increasing the quality of programming offered at the school, then they might not oppose the withdrawal of magnet status at all. In fact, given their reasonable frustration with the challenges of attempting to desegregate a minority-majority school system, they might actually support withdrawal of magnet status. In this context, it is evident that the frustration Mr. Merz directs at the Special Master in his article is entirely misplaced. If he had received accurate information about the actual positions taken by the parties in this case (instead of the misinformation disseminated by District administration), then Mr. Merz might well redirect his frustration at his employer for knowingly misinforming him and the rest of the TUSD community about the consequences of withdrawal of magnet status. The article echoes a sentiment frequently expressed by Superintendent Sanchez and the TUSD GB majority where it implies that the Special Master’s Maryland residence makes him somehow less qualified to serve as the Special Master in this desegregation case. The suggestion makes little sense. Dr. Hawley has spent much of his long career working to help increase the educational opportunities available to minority students around the nation, most recently with the Southern Poverty Law Center. There is no one of his stature or with his degree of experience in the field of school desegregation residing in Tucson. The Fisher Plaintiffs, while certainly not always in full agreement with Dr. Hawley’s recommendations, recognize nonetheless that our community is extremely fortunate that he has agreed to serve as Special Master in this case and undertake the significant commute between Tucson and Baltimore. He is appropriately compensated for his time, as are Mr. Merz and TUSD Superintendent Sanchez. Whether or not the Court ultimately approves the Special Master’s recommendation to give the District’s magnet schools another year to try to meet their integration and achievement goals, the Fisher Plaintiffs believe it is essential to mitigate the very harmful effect of the District’s misinformation campaign by directly addressing and rejecting the Superintendent’s misconduct in its ruling. Nothing less is likely to dissuade the District – through the office of its Superintendent – from continuing its campaign to discredit the desegregation process and avoid the accountability contained in the District’s remedial desegregation plan. Left unchecked, the Superintendent’s efforts will continue to erode public confidence in the desegregation process. The Fisher Plaintiffs are concerned that District’s second stipulation, endorsed in the Special Master’s report and recommendation to this Court, left unopposed, would tend to encourage the District in what can only be characterized as a deliberate and hostile campaign of misinformation (idem). It is clear that the District has resorted to agitating seriously misinformed staff and parents to avoid accountability and further delay a necessary, if politically unpopular, decision, the withdrawal of magnet status.
1.2. CONCLUSION
Under the terms of the proposed order endorsed by the SM in his report to this Court, any of the District’s remaining magnets finding themselves in similar situation in the 2016-17 SY could reasonably expect to receive yet another school year to attempt to retain their magnet status. Such delay in the withdrawal of magnet status would encroach upon (or likely extend beyond) the current 2017 timeline to a unitary status determination. The proposed order would provide special treatment for one school, to wit, Holladay, while failing to address the needs of similarly situated schools in danger of losing their magnet status because of their lack of academic progress. It is unfair and divisive to play favorites amongst the District’s magnets. The approach (reluctantly) endorsed by the SM is neither systematic nor likely to be perceived as equitable and should, therefore, be rejected by this Court. The precious few months remaining before the District is authorized to move for unitary status will be needlessly wasted and millions of desegregation dollars will be misspent in a futile effort to market racially and ethnically concentrated magnet schools to the parents of Anglo students. That time and money would be better spent improving the quality of education offered to the predominantly minority students attending those racially isolated schools and – looking strategically to the future – attracting both Anglo and minority students into more centrally located (and therefore more readily integrated) magnet sites. The faculty and staff at Safford, for example, have expressed their belief that their programs, while not successful in attracting significant numbers of Anglo students into their minority-majority school, are nevertheless academically successful programs that serve the very population the vestiges of past segregation so greatly harmed. The Fisher Plaintiffs wholeheartedly support their desire to maintain or increase current desegregation funding levels, where they can show that the funding is supporting excellent and exceptional programming .
That said, the Fisher Plaintiffs see no reason to link such funding to the continuance of clearly unsuccessful efforts to market of desegregation funding or the loss of successful programs. The criteria for the withdrawal of magnet status are unambiguous, they were reached by agreement between all of the parties to this case and by order of this Court and they should not be ignored because the District Superintendent has acted in bad faith by systematically cultivating public and institutional misunderstanding of and resistance to the remedial desegregation process. The Fisher Plaintiffs respectfully ask this Court to direct the SM to apply the already established criteria for withdrawing magnet status and closely monitor and report to the Court on the sufficiency of the District’s transitional budgets and plans for each impacted school. Anything less would be a disservice both to the worthy goals of the remedial desegregation process and to the seriously misinformed and understandably concerned families and staff of the impacted magnet schools.
Respectfully submitted this 13th day of November, 2015