Response of Consent Decree Monitoring Team

to the June 17, 2004 Joint Response of the Parties

Regarding the March 2004 Supplemental Report

 

On March 18, 2004, Supervising Judge William H. Allsup, United States District Court, Northern District of California, directed the parties in the related cases of SFNAACP v. SFUSD et al and Ho v. SFUSD et al to return to Court with a statement regarding what they will be doing to address the findings of the Consent Decree Monitoring Team’s March 2004 Supplemental Report.

 

Pursuant to this Order, on June 17, 2004, the parties submitted a Joint Response to the Court. 

 

On June 25, 2004, the Monitoring Team filed this response to the parties’ June 17th Joint Response.

 

· Response to Parties’ Joint Response Regarding 2004 Supplemental Report (complete text)

 

· Key Excerpt from June 25, 2004 Response

 

“…In the 2001 Settlement Agreement, the parties concluded that since Consent Decree issues will have been addressed to the extent practicable by December 2005, the Consent Decree should terminate at that time without the need for a further order by this Court.  However, because we have consistently found in our recent reports that these issues are not being addressed to the extent practicable, we have concluded that there is no justification for this Decree to end at that time.  Eighteen months is not nearly enough time for the parties to address the dramatic achievement gap, the increasing resegregation, the disproportionate special education burden on administrators at the low-performing, resegregating schools, the prevalence of low expectations at many school sites, and the general lack of compliance under the Decree’s terms and conditions to the extent practicable…”

 

· Overview of NEW FINDINGS from June 25, 2004 Response (scheduled to be included in Report #21 – July 2004).

 

 

 

************

 

Overview of Findings and Conclusions from June 25, 2004 Response Generally

 

· The Joint Response to the Court’s order of March 18, 2004 is an important first step in the right direction, with the potential to serve as a roadmap for future and essential action under the terms and conditions of this Decree.

 

· This positive and multi-faceted outcome reflects both the value of ongoing judicial oversight and the wisdom of the Consent Decree itself.

 

· However, the parties have not fully complied with the Court’s order.  They have only committed to two initial steps relating to academic achievement, with no assurance that any long-term changes consistent with these steps will be put in place.  And nothing specific has either been promised or planned – beyond efforts already in place – to address the interrelated issues of resegregation and special education placement documented in the Supplemental Report.

 

· In addition, new findings scheduled to be included in our forthcoming Annual Report (Report #21) include further evidence regarding the parameters of the achievement gap, continued low expectations at many school sites for low-income students of color, and ongoing lack of compliance with terms and conditions of the Consent Decree.

 

· The evidence to be presented in Report #21 not only reinforces the conclusion that more needs to be done right away, but also leads to a determination that the findings of the March 2004 Supplemental Report remain an accurate statement of current realities.  Consent Decree issues are not being addressed to the extent practicable.

 

· In the 2001 Settlement Agreement, the parties concluded that since Consent Decree issues will have been addressed to the extent practicable by December 2005, the Consent Decree should terminate at that time without the need for a further order by this Court.  However, because we have consistently found in our recent reports that these issues are not being addressed to the extent practicable, we have concluded that there is no justification for this Decree to end at that time.

 

· Indeed, we have found that the premise underlying the parties’ agreement to end the Consent Decree in eighteen months simply no longer holds true.  Eighteen months is not nearly enough time for the District and the other relevant parties to complete the work required under the Decree’s terms and conditions to the extent practicable.

 

· In addition, we have identified changed circumstances that were not foreseeable at the time of the 2001 agreement.  Both Fourteenth Amendment law at the federal level and anti-discrimination law at the state level are now moving in very different directions than they appeared to be moving three years ago.  This movement is reflected in a growing determination by federal and state courts that race may indeed be used as a factor in placement and admissions decisions.

 

· In light of these findings, we urge the Court to direct the parties (1) to complete the task assigned on March 18, 2004 by setting forth concrete plans to address all the issues documented in the Supplemental Report, and (2) to determine the parameters of a plan for extending the Consent Decree.  Alternatively, we urge the Court to appoint a Special Master to facilitate agreement among the parties regarding these essential and interrelated tasks.

 

************

 

· Previous Reports of the Consent Decree Monitoring Team (1997-2004)

 

 

 

Please Note:  Links to sections of the report are typically  to PDF files, which require

Adobe Acrobat Reader (free download).