Source: https://www.arkansaslearns.org/blogpost/896464/Arkansas-Learns
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 07:10:20+00:00

Document:
The following is an analysis of the NWEA MAP growth/decline in Reading from Fall to Winter in the Little Rock School District’s K through 8 schools. Growth percentiles are nationally normed against all students taking NWEA MAP. The formative test is given three times a year to formulate individual student learning plans, make necessary adjustments, and track success.
None of these data were referenced during the December 20, 2018 meeting of the State Board of Education, where the superintendent, under oath, reported "basically flat" ACT Aspire and ACT results.
For proof, let's go to the video tape. 1:59:38 to be exact (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If_VZNQ3PVg&feature=youtu.be).
Michael Poore: "As you look at this data, though, I do want you to think about, that basically, it’s pretty easy to see flat results.
FACT: The Little Rock School District declined in all areas of the ACT Aspire (Grades 3-10) and in two of five areas of the ACT (Grade 11)."
Michael Poore: "Being upfront and honest, you see flat results right now in fall to winter."
Flat results, though untrue, in regard to performance is bad enough. Flat results, though also untrue, in regard to growth is a gross dereliction of duty.
Not knowing or not telling the "truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" is grounds for dismissal.
What follows measures individual student growth (Winter) over their previous scores (Fall).
"(c) (1) If the public school district has not demonstrated to the state board and the Department of Education that the public school district meets the criteria to exit Level 5 - Intensive support within five (5) years of the assumption of authority, the state board shall annex, consolidate, or reconstitute the public school district under § 6-13-1401 et seq. and this subchapter."
By any measure, the Little Rock School District is performing worse academically than when the State intervened four years ago. Those longtime resistors of the State's leadership crying loudest for local control had better light a fire under the current leadership, or - under current law - the Little Rock School District as we've known it will cease to exist.
NWEA MAP measures two areas of growth - Reading and Math. While Reading is the greatest indicator of overall student growth, performance, here are the district's Math results.
Here's how Arkansas's colleges and universities rank in preparing teachers to teach, based on results of the licensure test. Passing percentages are only listed for those with 10 or more test takers.
Act 328, sponsored by Senator Alan Clark in 2017's 91st General Assembly, requires that teaching candidates entering an educator preparation program beginning in the 2017-18 academic year or thereafter for a first-time elementary level K-6 license or special education K-12 license shall take and pass a stand-alone assessment that examines the acquisition of knowledge of essential components of beginning reading instruction based on the science of reading.
In an age when many choose to focus on the messengers instead of the message, it's important to know the major Arkansas education advocacy organizations and their primary constituencies.
Mission: "The Arkansas Association of Educational Administrators is a united alliance of diverse school leaders and an effective force for the highest quality public education for all children. Our mission is to insure high standards of leadership by providing quality professional development, influencing education legislation and policy, stimulating and fostering support and building successful coalitions."
Mission: "To advocate for education professionals and to unite our members and the state to fulfill the promise of public education to prepare every student to succeed in a diverse and interdependent world."
Mission: "Arkansas Learns is the Voice of Business for excellent education options - including industry-relevant career pathways - for all students, no matter their culture, economic status or ZIP Code, to ensure the talent necessary for Arkansas and Arkansans to successfully compete economically."
Mission: "The mission of the Arkansas Public School Resource Center is to support the improvement of public education by providing advocacy services on behalf of public schools with a special emphasis on charter schools and rural districts."
Mission: "The mission of ASBA is to promote student focused leadership in public education through training, advocacy and service for local board members."
Sometimes these groups are aligned. More often they are not. It behooves all - if only for the students all purport to prioritize - to vigorously debate issues on merits and facts and avoid demonizing those with whom they disagree. Arkansas and her people will be better for it.
While status quo apologists debate the validity of state's accountability measures - ESSA scores, A-F Grades, Reward Schools - here's how the Little Rock School District ranks among its in-state peers.
The district may have reasons for its underperformance, but it has no excuses. In fact, it over-identifies Gifted & Talented (qualifying nearly a quarter of its enrollment for Central High), while under-identifying Special Education, denying essential services to our most vulnerable learners. Thankfully, a state audit of the district's special education and dyslexia services is on the way.
The district's Free and Reduced Lunch percentage, though four points higher than the state average, is among the lowest half in the state.
Its Limited English Proficiency (13%), while five points above the state average, is dwarfed by much higher performing districts such as DeQueen (46%), (Springdale (45%), Rogers (31%), and Fort Smith (25%).
That leaves only its minority percentage, which by the way, is decreasing under the state's watch. If, as apologists claim, percentage of minority students correlates to overall academic performance, then the district's academics should be improving instead of declining or staying the same.
Folks may not like how public school performance is measured, but when all public schools are measured the same, the four-year state-controlled district's performance is not at all acceptable, particularly when factoring its demographics.
Mike Poore, the longest serving superintendent in the Little Rock School District since Linda Watson (Interim August 2007 - July 2008; July 2008 - January 2011), opposed every Act 930 measure proposed at the December 20th Arkansas State Board of Education meeting, though all were supported by his "board," Arkansas Department of Education Commissioner Johnny Key. Mr. Poore, with more authority and autonomy than any superintendent in Arkansas, now wholly owns the district's performance or lack thereof.
The only question is if his "board" and the Arkansas State Board of Education will hold him and themselves accountable for results on the statewide accountability measures. Future Little Rock School District reports to the State Board should be strictly apples-to-apples, data-driven accountability measures of performance and growth, with all anecdotal discussion checked at the door.
And speaking of apples-to-apples, the district's new interim assessments - NWEA MAP (the assessment long used by most of the state's charter schools) - should be available now and will provide quantifiable insight into if the district, as the superintendent claims, is on the right track.
"Intelligence and virtue being the safeguards of liberty and the bulwark of a free and good government, the State shall ever maintain a general, suitable and efficient system of free public schools and shall adopt all suitable means to secure to the people the advantages and opportunities of education."
"The supervision of public schools, and the execution of the laws regulating the same, shall be vested in and confided to, such officers as may be provided for by the General Assembly."
In 2006, after the Arkansas Supreme Court decision in Lake View School District No. 25 v. Huckabee in 2005, the Eighty-fifth General Assembly passed acts upon the recommendation of the House and Senate Interim Committees on Education resulting in a system of education that is "adequate and equitable."
On January 28, 2015, the State Board of Education exercised its Constitutional authority granted by the General Assembly and voted to take over the Little Rock School District and dismiss its local elected board. At the time, one school in Academic Distress (three-year average of less than 49.5% of students proficient) could trigger state takeover. Little Rock had six schools in Academic Distress, including three of its five high schools.
Three full school years later (three years and ten months total), how has the state performed in making the district "adequate and equitable?"
In the Saturday, September 23, 2017 Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Rita Sklar of the Arkansas ACLU, repeated what has become a constant talking point of those opposed to both charter schools and the State's intervention in the Little Rock School District.
"Here in Little Rock, the process of re-segregating our classrooms has accelerated since the state takeover of the Little Rock School District in 2015, and new state-initiated and authorized charter schools are being created at a breakneck pace and with a fervor that is obscene."
And yet, no evidence is ever provided regarding the district's "re-segregation" since State control nor the charters' alleged role as accomplices. In fact, the district's decades-long, locally-controlled history of "re-segregation"- via gerrymandered, non-contiguous attendance zones, preferential magnet admissions, and bussing of Hispanic high school students - is conveniently ignored.
The reason no evidence is ever provided is because none exists. In fact, the truth is just the opposite of the status quo's re-segregation fabrication.
Here are demographic data for the district since the advent of the first charter school in 2004.
* Friendship Public Charter School will open in 2019 at 3615 West 25th Street.
It's now solely up to the State to correct what decades of local control created and perpetuated.
Adequacy (i.e. academic performance, growth) is a different story.
In the school year following the State's intervention in Little Rock, the State changed its summative assessment from PARCC to ACT Aspire (Grades 3-10) and ACT (Grade 11). Three years later, we now have two years of growth, performance data.
Undoubtedly, progress has been made in the Litte Rock School District - in equity, in budget, in infrastructure. However, the district was taken over because of Academic Distress, and its progress (or lack thereof) in academics is woefully inadequate. In fact, rather than improving even incrementally, it is declining in most areas. Immediate, transformational, student-focused actions must be taken to, at the very least, ensure the district consistently improves in all areas by all measures.
That begins and ends with leadership. A school board (or in this case, the Arkansas Department of Education Commissioner acting in place of the board) hires one person to run the district - the superintendent. In Little Rock, the current superintendent and his predecessors have inexplicably chosen to retain (and in one case promote) the two deputies who have long presided over the academic decline of the district.
By simply examining the one and two-year improvement/decline in each of the schools, it is readily evident which building-level leaders are getting the job done on behalf of students and which are not.
The Little Rock School District's challenges and opportunities are all about leadership - in the district, in the buildings, and in the classrooms. At all levels, any adults standing in the way of student success should gracefully step aside or be as swiftly removed as the previous board.
Disclaimer: Because data entered and calculated manually from Arkansas Department of Education, we welcome any correction(s).
The good news: Under the State's leadership, Little Rock School District employee absenteeism is at a five-year low.
The bad news: 52% of LRSD employees still missed ten or more days for Sick, Personal, Vacation, Leave Without Pay (LWOP), Other. Throw in Professional Development, (PD) and it’s 67%.
Over two-thirds of the district's employees are away from their responsibilities - students - ten or more days a year. Even more egregiously, most are on contracts of ten months of less.
The first rule of any job is showing up. So when chronic teacher, staff absenteeism far outpaces that of students, learning cannot take place.
By the way, chronic absenteeism for students is - you guessed it - missing ten of more days in a year.
"Four months into his tenure as the 20th (non-interim) superintendent in 31 years of the Little Rock School District, Dr. Dexter Suggs received a vote of "No Confidence" from the Little Rock Education Association (LREA). The vote came during a stalemate in contract negotiations just months after the union had joined parent, citizen, business and civic leaders in supporting Dr. Suggs' selection by a 6 -1 board vote."
Dr. Suggs was the courageous leader who kicked John Walker out of schools and converted Forest Heights from a failed middle school to a desired 'A' K-8 STEM Academy with a wait list. He was credited by the previous Attorney General as the catalyst for the 2014 Desegregation Settlement Agreement, and he was run out of town by Little Rock's politically motivated status quo, which attempted to destroy his credibility by accusing him of plagiarism on his doctoral dissertation. Note to those purveyors of politics of personal destruction: After investigation by his alma mater, his doctorate was confirmed.
Then and now, when the union doesn't get its way, instead of reasonably negotiating/debating the issue(s), it attacks its opponent(s).
The union not only doesn't want new teachers in D and F schools, it doesn't want them in the district.
Wrap your head around that. Springdale - now the largest school district in Arkansas - starts its teachers $12,151 more per year than far richer Little Rock. LRSD is actually closer to the state's cellar dweller (+$4,275) than to its leader (-$12,151).
Annual dues for the Little Rock Education Association are $724, no matter the teacher's income. $192 of that is sent to the National Education Association (NEA), $360 is sent to the Arkansas Education Association, and only $172 stays local. Because Little Rock has, by far, the most union teachers of any district in the state, it is subsidizing the state's politically active association, which endorses candidates for federal and state office.
Union blaming? Bashing? Try exposing. As long as the union chooses to protect members who have chronically failed students, it requires intervention, just as did the district in 2015.
Having long experienced the union's outsized influence in the district, it would have been our preference that the current administration do what the previous did when it intervened in the Pulaski County Special School District and decertify the union. Instead, Commissioner Key chose to defer to his appointed superintendents' choice of patience and collaboration.
Even now, he chooses to continue recognizing the union, while surgically applying a waiver of "Teacher Fair Dismissal" to only the worst performing schools in the district. His thanks? He and his leadership are repeatedly misrepresented and vilified by those whose standing rests solely in his hands.
Our experience is that the union, oblivious to its current reality, will overplay its hand and leave the Commissioner no choice. Until then and thereafter, may its members, non-union teachers, parents, students and the community find solidarity - not with the self interests of adults, but with the best interests of students.
The author and his wife are decades long members of three unions and keenly aware that if they do not do the jobs they are hired to do they will be immediately removed.
Would You Choose These Schools for Your Students?
If you had a choice, would you send your child to these schools?
It's not just one year of aberrant scores. It’s continued decline of 21 of 22 schools. Of all D and F schools, only Chicot Elementary improved between 2016-17 and 2017-18.
Now look at each school's minority percentage. For over three decades under federal and local control, the most historically significant school district in America - one associated with equal educational opportunity for all - has systemically denied equitable educational opportunity for its most vulnerable students. Even worse, through gerrymandered attendance zones and preferential magnet admissions, it has Balkanized its students between two C high schools - Central and Parkview - and three F high schools - Fair, Hall and McClellan.
The State of Arkansas, which is constitutionally responsible for public education, seeks to finally prioritize the best interests of students over the self interests of adults. But to do that, it must have the flexibility to remove and replace ineffective staff, teachers, principals and central administrators.
For this community and school district to survive and thrive, solidarity must be with long denied students, not with the adults who failed them.
"6 Academic Distress Schools at Takeover; 22 Today."
All defined by different statutes.
The pace of the district's academic turnaround has been unacceptable, and the Commissioner's recommended waiver of "Teacher Fair Dismissal" for D and F schools is three years late. But in 2015, 69% of the district's schools were designated in some form of accountability, including 9 of 11 secondary schools. Today, it's 55% and 7 of 12 secondary schools - nowhere near acceptable, but better than 2015 by every measure.
And if were going straight apples to apples: 22 D or F schools in 2015; 22 D or F schools in 2018.
Monday night, at a public meeting at Pinnacle View Middle School (PVMS), two parents submitted an alternative plan to those proposed by the Little Rock School District for the empty 70,000 sf building on the PVMS campus. The parents' pragmatic approach suggested that the Little Rock School District utilize the building to expand campus capacity to accept rising sixth graders from the Pulaski County Special School District. In turn, the Pulaski County Special School District's Robinson campus would accept rising ninth graders from PVMS. The two campuses are just 3 miles apart on Highway 10.
Collaboration between traditional school districts south of the river. What a concept.
Tuesday morning, Cynthia Howell wrote about it in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette.
Tuesday afternoon, John Walker referenced it in a filing to U.S. District Judge D. Price Marshall, Jr. and mischaracterized the parent initiative by writing: "on information and belief, it appears that the PCSSD and LRSD are engagedIn discussion regarding obligations and possible repurposing the Robinson schools and the Pinnacle View school in the LRSD."
To our knowledge, they are not. But if they are, it's about time.
Little Rock, Central Arkansas and the entire State of Arkansas will not grow or thrive until the best interests of students are prioritized over the self interests of adults, in this case, John Walker's.
His latest, knee-jerk federal court filing embodies everything that's wrong with public education in the county. Unitary status for PCSSD cannot come soon enough.
The only issue is whether or not the adults in charge, who claim they want everyone in traditional public education, will buck the status quo politics and create the capacity to meet immediate overwhelming demand.
Over John Walker's and former LRSD board members' strenuous objections, parents made Pinnacle View Middle School happen. If there's a rematch, we're betting on the parents.
P.S. When the Intervenors' attorney can't even spell "Schoool" correctly, you know he's in a hurry.
Text of filing below. Actual filing attached.
The Court has indicated that it will make further visits to PCSSD schools –College Station, Fuller, Harris and Sylvan Hills. Intervenors counsel suggest that the hearing set for Monday, September 24, 2018 be deferred and reset subsequent to the Court’s visits to said schools.
Further, on information and belief, it appears that the PCSSD and LRSD are engaged In discussion regarding obligations and possible repurposing the Robinson schools and the Pinnacle View school in the LRSD.
Joshua submits that judicial economy would be best served by rescheduling the hearing.
I do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion has been filed utilizing the CM/ECF system wherein a copy will be automatically served upon all counsel of record on this 18th day of September, 2017.
Before the Court is Lafayette County School District’s (“LCSD”) Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. (ECF No. 47). Plaintiffs have filed a response in support of the requested relief.1 (ECF No. 51). The Arkansas Department of Education and the Arkansas State Board of Education (the “ADE and SBE”) have filed a response in opposition. (ECF No. 57). LCSD has filed a reply. (ECF No. 60). On August 1, 2018, the Court held a hearing on the matter. The Court finds this matter ripe for consideration.
1 In their response, Plaintiffs state that they join LCSD in the instant motion, and also independently move for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction enjoining LCSD from participating in school choice. However, Plaintiffs have not briefed the issue and, therefore, the Court cannot consider Plaintiffs’ independent request for preliminary injunctive relief. See Local Rule 7.2(e) (providing that motions for preliminary injunctions shall not be considered unless accompanied by a separate brief). Accordingly, the Court will simply consider the instant motion to be a joint motion for injunctive relief.
wherein all schools are effectively and equitably desegregated and integrated.” (ECF No. 9, ¶ 13; ECF No. 27-1, ¶ 13). The Turner Decree further stated that “[t]he Court shall have continuing jurisdiction of [the decree] in order to insure compliance with the spirit and terms of [the decree]. (ECF No. 9, ¶ 13; ECF No. 27-1, ¶ 13).
On November 23, 2015, the Court ordered the substitution of LCSD for Lewisville School District No. 1 as a party to this matter because Lewisville School District No. 1 had been consolidated with the Stamps School District to form the Lafayette County School District. (ECF No. 26). The Court found that because Lewisville School District No. 1 had ceased to exist and had been succeeded by LCSD, the substitution of LCSD as a party to this matter was proper to facilitate the continuation of the case.
On May 28, 2018, LCSD filed a Motion for Declaratory Judgment, or Alternatively, for Clarification of Previous Orders, or Alternatively, for Modification of Previous Orders (hereinafter “Motion for Declaratory Judgment”). (ECF No. 27). In that motion, LCSD informed the Court that although it believes it is still subject to the Turner Decree—and therefore has a conflict with taking part in school choice—the ADE and SBE have ordered LCSD to participate in school choice for the 2018-19 school year pursuant to the Arkansas Public School Choice Act of 2015, as amended by Act 1066 of the Regular Session of 2017 (hereinafter the “2017 Act”).2 Accordingly, LCSD’s Motion for Declaratory Judgment seeks, by various alternative means, a finding that LCSD is prohibited from taking part in school choice and/or a declaration that portions of the 2017 Act are unconstitutional. (ECF No. 28).
2 The 2017 Act provides, in relevant part, that each Arkansas school district must participate in a school choice program wherein students may apply to attend a school in a nonresident district, subject to certain limitations. Ark. Code Ann. § 6-18-1903. School districts may apply for exemptions from participating in school choice by producing evidence that the district has a genuine conflict under a federal court’s active and enforceable desegregation order or plan that explicitly limits the transfer of students between school districts. Ark. Code Ann. § 6-18-1906(a). The ADE decides a school district’s application for an exemption from participating in school choice and the SBE hears appeals of the ADE’s decisions on the same. See id.
On May 23, 2018, the Court issued an order certifying LCSD’s constitutional challenge and sending notice to the Arkansas Attorney General of the same, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.1(b). (ECF No. 29). On June 21, 2018, the ADE and SBE filed a motion to intervene in this case for the limited purpose of opposing LCSD’s Motion for Declaratory Judgment. (ECF No. 37). On June 22, 2018, the Court held a status conference in which LCSD, Plaintiffs, and counsel from the Arkansas Attorney General’s Office participated. On July 2, 2018, the Court granted the Motion for Limited Intervention filed by the ADE and SBE, thereby allowing those parties to intervene for the limited purpose of opposing LCSD’s Motion for Declaratory Judgment. (ECF No. 44). On July 16, 2018, the ADE and SBE filed their response in opposition to LCSD’s Motion for Declaratory Judgment. (ECF No. 45).
On July 19, 2018, LCSD filed the instant motion. LCSD seeks preliminary injunctive relief “restraining the [ADE] and the [SBE] from enforcing the [SBE’s] March 26, 2018 order requiring LCSD to participate in the Arkansas Public School Choice Act of 2015, as amended by Act 1066 of 2017” or, alternatively, “that the Court enjoin LCSD from participating in school choice pursuant to the [SBE’s] Order.” (ECF No. 47, ¶ 1). LCSD requests that injunctive relief remain in effect until an evidentiary hearing may be held on the issue of whether LCSD’s desegregation obligations conflict with participation in school choice. LCSD also requests that if injunctive relief is granted, that the bond requirement be waived. On July 20, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a response in support of the motion. (ECF No. 51). On July 28, 2018, the ADE and SBE filed a response in opposition. (ECF No. 57).
Co. v. Food Corn, Inc., 729 F.2d 589, 593 (8th Cir. 1984). It is well established that “a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should not be granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.” Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (emphasis in original).
The determination of whether a preliminary injunction is warranted involves consideration of: “(1) the threat of irreparable harm to the movant; (2) the state of balance between this harm and the injury that granting the injunction will inflict on other parties . . . ; (3) the probability that [the] movant will succeed on the merits; and (4) the public interest.” Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. C L Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 114 (8th Cir. 1981). Although no single factor in itself is dispositive, the probability of success on the merits is the most significant. Barrett v. Claycomb, 705 F.3d 315, 320 (8th Cir. 2013). “The burden of proving that a preliminary injunction should be issued rests entirely with the movant.” Goff v. Harper, 60 F.3d 518, 520 (8th Cir. 1995).
The Court will first address whether LCSD will be irreparably harmed absent an injunction, and then will turn to the other Dataphase factors, if necessary.
independently sufficient ground to deny injunctive relief. Watkins Inc. v. Lewis, 346 F.3d 841, 844 (8th Cir. 2003).
LCSD argues that it will suffer irreparable harm if injunctive relief is denied. Specifically, LCSD argues that if students are allowed to transfer, it is unlikely those students will ever return to LCSD. LCSD claims that this will cause irreparable harm in that it will suffer a segregative impact as well as “the financial impact caused by the loss of 42 students.” (ECF No. 48, p. 7). At the preliminary injunction hearing, LCSD also argued that it could suffer irreparable harm by being required to participate in school choice until the Court rules on LCSD’s underlying Motion for Declaratory Judgment, thereby violating the Turner Decree during that period.
In response, the ADE and SBE argue that the harm LCSD cites is “certainly not irreparable.” (ECF No. 57, p. 22). The ADE and SBE assert that if LCSD were to ultimately prevail it is “entirely possible” that the Court would order that students that had transferred must return to LCSD and “order the restitution of the per-student funding that LCSD lost by virtue of the unconstitutional application of the school-choice law.” (ECF No. 57, p. 22). Furthermore, the ADE and SBE assert that the only harm that would result from a denial of preliminary injunctive relief would be the loss of forty-two students and that—if LCSD ultimately prevailed—future losses would be prevented through permanent injunctive relief. Finally, the ADE and SBE argue that the “difference a denial of injunctive relief [and, accordingly, the loss of forty-two students] would make is a less than 5% increase in the black percentage of its student body.” (ECF No. 57, p. 22). According to the ADE and SBE, his change would be de minimis and no student would notice such a change and no parent’s “perception of LCSD’s racial identity would be affected[.]” (ECF No. 57, p. 22).
persuaded that LCSD will suffer imminent financial harm if the approved student transfers leave LCSD. Robert Edwards, superintendent of LCSD, testified at the August 1, 2018 hearing that LCSD’s funding for the 2018-19 school year is already in place and based on LCSD’s average daily membership three quarters ago. Likewise, Mr. Edwards testified that LCSD will receive those funds regardless of the loss of the transferring students. Taken together with the testimony offered by other superintendents in the other school desegregation cases before the Court, it becomes clear that the loss of students will not cause an imminent financial harm to the student’s former district so as to require preliminary injunctive relief. Although Mr. Edwards’ testimony suggests that LCSD might suffer financial harm in several years due to the reduction in students, this potential harm is too far removed from the present to support a finding of irreparable harm. See Rogers, 676 F.2d at 1214 (stating that a preliminary injunction “may not be used simply to eliminate a possibility of a remote future injury”).
Moreover, the Court is not convinced that the loss of certain students, in and of itself, constitutes irreparable harm to LCSD. LCSD cites no authority supporting this proposition, and the Court is unaware of any. Absent any such authority, the Court cannot find that LCSD will suffer irreparable harm solely from the loss of certain students.
Declaratory Judgment, LCSD will not have suffered any harm from participating in school choice, as the Court will have determined that LCSD may do so without violating the Turner Decree. It is well established that irreparable harm must be certain and cannot be speculative. See S.J.W. v. Lee’s Summit R-7 Sch. Dist., 696 F.3d 771, 779 (8th Cir. 2012) (“Speculative harm does not support a preliminary injunction.”). This argument, at this point, is too speculative, as the mere possibility of harm is inadequate to support a finding of irreparable harm.
In sum, the Court finds that LCSD has not satisfied its burden of making a clear showing that it would suffer irreparable harm absent injunctive relief. Mazurek, 520 U.S. at 972. Accordingly, the Court need not proceed to the remaining Dataphase factors, as failure to show irreparable harm is an independently sufficient ground to deny injunctive relief.3 Watkins, 346 F.3d at 844.
3 The Court also finds that LCSD has not satisfied its burden to obtain a temporary restraining order, as the Dataphase factors are also used to determine whether to issue a temporary restraining order. See Williams v. Silvey, No. 4:09-cv-211-FRB, 2009 WL 1920187, at *1 (E.D. Mo. July 1, 2009) (applying the Dataphase factors in denying a motion for a temporary restraining order). Thus, the Court’s analysis for whether to grant a request for a temporary restraining order is the same as for a preliminary injunction.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that Lafayette County School District’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 47) should be and hereby is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 8th day of August, 2018.

References: § 6
 v. 
 § 6
 § 6
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.