Tucson Unified School District wants some relief from court oversight in its decades-long endeavor to achieve racial integration, but the plaintiffs in the court case are fiercely opposed.
The district in March filed for a partial unitary status with the U.S. District Court in the 9th Circuit in the areas of transportation, family and community engagement, technology, facilities, evidence-based accountability system and extracurricular activities.
TUSD did not ask for relief in the areas of student assignment, quality of education and discipline.
The judge in the court case, David Bury, has not yet ruled on the matter.
The district argued in its motion that there are no remaining traces of discrimination linked to violations that occurred more than 40 years ago when the lawsuit was filed. Some schools, including University Heights Elementary and Spring Junior High schools, linked to discrimination findings, don’t even exist anymore, the motion also said.
TUSD outlined some of the efforts put in place to achieve compliance requirements set by the Unitary Status Plan, which the court approved in February 2013. The goal of the requirements is to level the playing field for African American and Hispanic students in the district.
Some of those efforts included establishing an equitable access plan for extracurricular activities, making sure the family resources centers have staff who are bilingual and creating a plan to provide free transportation for every student who is eligible, regardless of racial background.
“The very nature of those operations is so fundamentally different now than it was then, the makeup of the district and the community so different,” TUSD’s legal team wrote in the motion seeking partial unitary status.
The African American and Latino plaintiffs disagree, saying the district hasn’t shown enough evidence of compliance and that granting a partial unitary status would be premature. Both parties submitted responses to the motion refuting TUSD’s claims that it no longer needs supervision in the six areas.
In their response, the Fisher plaintiffs argued that there is much more work to be done. For example, the family resource centers, “whose role is crucial in providing much needed support for family and community engagement,” took more than three years to get up and running.
“Despite TUSD’s statements regarding their compliance with this provision, it would appear they have fallen short of full and satisfactory compliance in this area,” the Fisher plaintiffs’ response said.
The Mendoza plaintiffs argued that the district “failed to demonstrate its good faith commitment to the whole of the USP,” or the Unitary Status Plan. The plan isn’t just about doing no harm, but showing affirmative action toward improving integration within the district, their response in court said.
Sylvia Campoy, who represents the Mendozas, said she hopes changes in TUSD’s governance and administration would lead to an “authentic compliance” of requirements in the reintegration plan.
Earlier this year, Rachael Sedgwick replaced Cam Juarez as a governing board member; Superintendent H.T. Sanchez resigned and Gabriel Trujillo, an assistant superintendent, took over as interim superintendent.
Stefanie Boe, a TUSD spokeswoman, said the district would not comment at this time.
