Over the last few years, the U.S. District Court has been forced to issue many orders to get the Tucson Unified School District to comply with the 2013 jointly stipulated Desegregation Unitary Status Plan (USP).
TUSD, for example, failed to provide an adequate comprehensive magnet-school plan for two years, which compelled the court to detail a process for TUSD to follow and listed elements to include in that plan. These orders did not suddenly drop out of the sky, as some in the district suggest, but came as a natural consequence of TUSDβs inaction or noncompliance.
On March 28, the court was again forced to order TUSD to comply with another such order. This order directs the district to develop an immediate plan to address the racial/ethnic disparities among faculty in its schools and is based on the jointly stipulated 2013 Unitary Status Plan, which states: βThe District shall identify significant disparities (i.e., more than a 15 percentage point variance) between the percentage of African-American or Latino certificated staff or administrators at an individual school and district-wide percentages for schools at comparable grade levels.β
The original 1978 court order also included language on teacher assignment to address the over-representation of African-American teachers at specific schools. The issue is not new.
There should be no confusion about what is required of TUSD: Each school should reflect the larger TUSD teacher demographics by level (elementary, middle school, K-8 and high school). TUSD agreed to this in 2012, prior to the courtβs approval of the USP, and has had more than three years to address the issue.
Yet, at the TUSD Governing Board meeting of April 12, statements expressed about the court order by the administration and top Tucson Education Association officials indicated significant misunderstanding.
As the administration reviewed a chart showing each schoolβs ethnic/racial teacher composition, several statements were made that reflected the mistaken belief that a disproportionately higher number of Latino teachers at a given school is justified by the large number of Latino students at that school.
This notion is counter-intuitive to the concept of diversity in general and is contrary to the requirements under the USP. Such comments do nothing but trigger confusion and raise concern about the districtβs comprehension of the court order.
TEA leaders expressed concern over the correlation of teacher assignment to race/ethnicity, along with opposition to offering incentives to teachers who voluntarily transfer as a means of improving a schoolβs ethnic/racial diversity. Some believed that teacher transfers would be mandatory, while the court order is clear about them being voluntary.
Some Tucsonans erroneously believe that the vestiges of discrimination have been uprooted from TUSD simply because it is now comprised of majority minority/non-white students. This misconception has many believing that, based on TUSDβs student composition alone, the desegregation case should be terminated.
No one more than the Fisher and Mendoza plaintiffs wish the speedy termination of the litigation. However, neither fatigue from the controversy nor the shifting demographics of the TUSD student population are justification for its conclusion.
The case will be closed and resolved if and when TUSD fulfills its previous commitment to correct its past illegal acts. TUSD simply needs to follow the courtβs orders and its existing agreement.
