Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_74-cv-00090/USCOURTS-azd-4_74-cv-00090-18/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Roy and Josie Fisher, et al., 

Plaintiffs,

v.

United States of America, 

Plaintiff-Intervenor,

v.

Anita Lohr, et al.,

Defendants,

and 

Sidney L. Sutton, et al., 

Defendants-Intervenors, ______________________________________

Maria Mendoza, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

United States of America,

Plaintiff-Intervenor,

v. 

Tucson Unified School District No. One, et al.,

Defendants. _______________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 74-90 TUC DCB

(lead case)

ORDER

CV 74-204 TUC DCB

(consolidated case)

Case 4:74-cv-00090-DCB Document 1809 Filed 06/12/15 Page 1 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

The Fisher Plaintiffs reurge their concern raised in 2013, when the District closed

several schools for fiscal reasons. (Objection (Doc. 1802) at 8-9 (citing Objection (Doc.

1424) at12 (the District should not close middle schools and convert elementary schools to

K-8 schools until it can show that such a shift will not result in more students attending less

diverse schools for the 6th through 8th grades). Now, the District is in better position to assess

school closures and consolidations than it was in 2013. As the Court understands it, there

are currently no plans for future school closures so the District has a set number of schools

making up a system of school services ranging from elementary K-6, K-8, middle and high

schools The District now has a Boundary Plan, a school specific Magnet Plan, and an array

2

On May 8, 2015, the Defendant Tucson Unified School District (the District)

submitted a Notice and Request for Approval (NARA) of Portable Classrooms at Dietz K-8

School. The Government does not object, but both Fisher and Mendoza Plaintiffs oppose the

proposal. The District filed a Reply to the Fisher and Mendoza Objections. On May 27,

2015, the Special Master filed a Report and Recommendation (R&R). (Doc. 1805.) He

recommends the Court approve the District’s proposal to put two double-portable buildings

(four classrooms) at Dietz K-8 School. The Special Master also reports problems with the

consultation process because it allows Board action to be taken on a proposal governed by

the USP prior to the parties having an opportunity to review the proposal and provide input

and comment. He asks the Court to once again direct the parties to develop a viable

procedure for addressing the comment and review provisions in the USP, including

discussions of whether specific timelines should be shortened.

The Dietz k-8 School was initially planned as a self-contained K-8 model, with

students in grades 6-8 staying with a single teacher throughout the year. A new principal at

Dietz, however, developed a middle school model, with students transitioning between

teachers while maintaining a “smallschool” community and culture. TUSD explains: “Many

parents are attracted to this model for the social and academic benefits it provides. Research

supports the social and academic benefits of the K-8 model, generally, but particularly in

urban school districts” (NARA (Doc1798), Desegregation Impact Analysis (DIA) (Doc.

1798-1) at 33.)1

Case 4:74-cv-00090-DCB Document 1809 Filed 06/12/15 Page 2 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

of other plans developed to move the District forward toward the most practicable unitary

plan it believes it can attain under the USP. The District should in the future, in respect to

proposed grade changes, include in the DIA an analysis which reflects whether

improvements in the quality of education for students at one school might dis-serve

desegregation of the District as a whole. See e.g. (Order (Doc. 1799) at 4-6 (explaining lack

of comprehensive information as part of the reason for denying Fruchthendler-Sabino

NARA).

3

The District wants to use some of the portable building space to offer a 6th grade

CORE enrichment class to increase access to 7th and 8th grade electives.

The remainder of portable building space will be used for support services for its

Exceptional Education (ExEd) students, such as IEP meetings and other meetings between

staff with families and students, for small group instruction, for testing space, and to serve

as a “home base” for ExEd CCS teachers. (NARA (Doc. 1798 at 5.)

None of the space in the portable buildings will be used as home-room type class

rooms for housing a specific group of students all day or even for a significant portion of the

day. Id. The DIA reflects that the District considered enrollment projections, capacity

changes, impacts to the racial and ethnic make-up of Dietz, and concluded that the impact

from the portable buildings would cause “‘virtually no change to the racial-ethnic

composition of Dietz.” (Reply (Doc. 1804) (citing and quoting DIA (Doc. 1798-1) at 26.)

The Fisher Plaintiffs are concerned that the estimate for needed future space will not

materialize because Dietz is a C school. The Mendoza Plaintiffs complain the District fails

to explain why the alleged benefits of a K-8 program should be offered at Dietz and not some

other school. (Mendoza Objection (Doc. 1801) at 7 (noting Roberts-Naylor and Secrist have

16% African American students and Drachman, Roberts-Naylor and Utterback have higher

concentrations of Latino students)). The Mendoza Plaintiffs are concerned with the increase

in the number of ExEd students at Dietz and question whether minority students are

improvidently funneled there. 

Case 4:74-cv-00090-DCB Document 1809 Filed 06/12/15 Page 3 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 4

There is no dispute that CORE enrichment classes should improve the academic

standing of the school and enhance the quality of education at Dietz, which is a school with

a 50% Latino student population and a 14% African American student population. (Reply

(1804) at 6.) The question of whether additional portables will or will not be needed in the

future at Dietz remains to be answered another day. Whether there are racial disparities in

ExEd in TUSD is being monitored and tracked pursuant to the USP § V.D.1. 

The Court approves the NARA for the two portable buildings to be added at Dietz

K-8 School. The Court turns to the harder question of whether this Court should “order the

District to not implement any future NARA proposal before obtaining the required approval,

and direct the District to clearly indicate in publicly available documents that any item

approved by its Governing Board in preparation of implementation of pending NARA

proposals are subject to Court approval.” (Mendoza Objection (Doc. 1801) at 2.)

Alternatively, the Court considers whether it should, as recommended by the Special Master,

direct the parties “to, once again, develop a viable procedure for addressing the comment and

review provisions of the USP and to make a report to the Court about the results of this

effort.” (R&R (Doc. m1805) at 7.) The concern is that the USP calls for the parties to work

together to implement the USP, with the District having the benefit of input from the

Plaintiffs before it acts. The Special Master put it best: “The fact that the Board takes action

signals to the community its intent to go forward . . . The purposes of review under NARA

include providing the District with input with respect to its decisions, not simply to allow for

a veto. The District includes the Board.” (Fisher Objection (Doc. 1802) at 4 (quoting

Special Master 5/8/15 email)). 

This is true. In both this proposal and the Fruchthendler-Sabino Honors program

proposal, “the Board [did] not have the benefit of any perspective that the plaintiffs and the

Special Master might offer.” Id. There is, however, nothing wrong with the Board leading

in the implementation of the USP. In fact the Board is responsible for leadership in respect

Case 4:74-cv-00090-DCB Document 1809 Filed 06/12/15 Page 4 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 5

to all the District’s efforts, including those undertaken to implement the USP. But, when

the Board acts without considering input from the Plaintiffs and the Special Master,

especially if it acts even before the preparation of the DIA, the Board has not acted

consistently with the USP requirement that it consider the impact of its proposals in respect

to its obligations under the USP. 

The Court refers to the USP NARA provision which requires “the District to provide

the Special Master with notice and seek approval of certain actions regarding changes to the

District’s assignment of students and its physical plant, . . . [and to] also provide notice and

a request for approval regarding the closing or opening of magnet schools or programs and

attendance boundary changes . . .. [And,] [i]n order to assess the District’s plans in these

regards, the District shall submit with each request for approval, a Desegregation Impact

Analysis, (“DIA”), that will assess the impact of the requested action on the District’s

obligation to desegregate and shall specifically address how the proposed change will impact

the District’s obligations under [the USP.] ” (USP (Doc. 1713) , § X.2.C) (emphasis added).

Without the DIA, the Board cannot assess the impact of an action on its obligation to

desegregate nor address how its proposed change will impact its obligations under the USP.

The Court agrees with the Special Master that the Board should have the advantage of the

information contained in the DIA when considering an action that will require a NARA. 

The Court turns to the expedited nature of most of the NARA proposals. This

NARA is a good example. On April 14, 2015, without the benefit of the DIA, the Board

moved to add two portable buildings at Dietz K-8 School by approving a procurement

contract for $225,000 to Kitttle Design & Construction to move the portables. (NARA (Doc.

1798-1), Ex. 2: Board agenda action item)). May 1, 2015, the District submitted the proposal,

including the DIA, to the Plaintiffs and Special Master and requested their approval to avoid

a contested NARA. Here, within 17 days of the Board’s action, the DIA had been prepared

and the NARA was submitted to the parties and Special Master for review and comment.

Case 4:74-cv-00090-DCB Document 1809 Filed 06/12/15 Page 5 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 6

Preparing the DIA was not overly burdensome nor time consuming. The Special Master

recommends: “When a significant proposal for new or revised District-wide policies and

practices that would fall under provisions for comment and review provided for in the USP

is being seriously considered by the District, the District should share these ideas with the

Plaintiffs and ask for a one week turnaround for comments.” (R&R (Doc. 1805) at 7.) 

In this case, it would have taken approximate 24 days for staff to prepare the DIA,

submit the proposal and DIA to Plaintiffs and the Special Master for a one-week turn-around

review and comment period, before the Board considered the matter. In this way, the Board

has the proposal with the DIA and a general idea of the parties and Special Master’s positions

and/or concerns. The Court finds this is in keeping with the USP’s mandate that the DIA

be used to assess the District’s plans in regard to it’s obligations under the USP. It creates

an informational imbalance if only the parties and the Special Master have the benefit of the

DIA to assess a proposed plan. The Court has found the DIAs to be extremely helpful. The

Board is at a disadvantage if it must assess and commit to a project prior to preparation of

the DIA. After-the-fact preparation of the DIA delays meaningful discussions and is contrary

to the usual expedited nature of NARAs. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the NARA (Doc. 1798) to add two portable buildings at

Dietz K-8 School is APPROVED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Special Master’s R&R (Doc. 1805) is

ADOPTED as described below.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the District shall prepare a DIA and allow a oneweek turnaround review and comment period and for both the DIA and comments to be

presented to the Board when it is assessing whether or not to approve a proposal governed

by NARA provisions.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 30 days of the filing date of this Order

the Special Master and the parties shall work together to develop viable procedure(s) for the

Case 4:74-cv-00090-DCB Document 1809 Filed 06/12/15 Page 6 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 7

comment and review provisions which are required under the USP when a significant

proposal for new or revised District-wide policies and practices are seriously being

considered by the District, with the goal being to improve communications and expedited

decision-making, including judicial determinations. Within 45 days of the filing date of this

Order, the Special Master shall file a status report, including any recommendations.

DATED this 11th day of June, 2015.

Case 4:74-cv-00090-DCB Document 1809 Filed 06/12/15 Page 7 of 7