SPECIAL MASTER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION SPECIAL MASTER'S RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE RECONFIGURATION OF GRADES AT BORMAN K-5 TO K-8

DAVID C. BURY, Senior District Judge.

Overview

On May 11, 2016, pursuant to a Court Order (Doc. 1929), the Special Master filed a Report and Recommendation in response to TUSD's defense of its proposal to create a middle school option at Borman Elementary School on the Davis-Monthan Air Force Base. See Exhibit A. In that R&R, the Special Master recommended that the Court approve the District's proposal. On May 25, 2016, the Fisher plaintiffs filed an objection to the Special Master's proposal asking the Court to reject the Special Master's recommendation, deny the District's request for approval of a middle school grade configuration at Borman K-5 school, and direct the District to develop a viable proposal for "effecting immediate and substantial improvement in the integration and improved academic achievement of Roberts-Naylor K-8." See Exhibit B.

Analysis

The core assumption in the Fisher plaintiffs' objection is that substantial improvements in the quality of education at Roberts-Naylor would draw a significant number of white students who "graduate" from Borman to Roberts-Naylor thereby integrating the school by the criteria defining "integration" in the USP. Roberts-Naylor is unique among the District schools in that its failure to meet the integration standards is because the number of African American students slightly exceeds the proportion of African American students that would define the school as integrated.

The assertions made by the Fisher plaintiffs can be examined by addressing three questions

Would the Addition of Middle Grades at Borman Draw Student Away from Roberts-Naylor?

It would not. For security reasons, only those students who come from military families or families where one or more of the adults is employed on the base can attend Borman. The District reports that only two students who formally attended Borman now attend Roberts-Naylor in grades seven and eight (the grades the Special Master asked about). The vast majority of former Borman students now attend Sonoran Science Academy, an on-base charter school.1

How Would a Borman K-8 School Affect "Patterns of Choice"?

The Fisher plaintiffs argue that the District inappropriately uses current choice (enrollment) patterns to estimate the effects on integration. In most cases, when new options for enrollment are introduced — as would have been the case in the creation of a middle school at Sabino High School — families will have significantly different considerations from those upon which they base current decisions about where their students would enroll. But the proposed Borman reconfiguration is unique because of (1) restrictions on on-base enrollment and (2) military families generally prefer on-base schools which tend to be socioeconomically diverse, promise order and safety, and are the schools their neighbors or co-workers attend. This common disposition applies to the Borman instance.

The District concludes that the principal factors that most importantly influence patterns of choice for Borman families do not include the quality of academic programs. While the survey upon which they base this conclusion is suspect because of low response, the conclusion has facial validity. Only a handful of former Borman students attend TUSD schools for grades 6 to 8 even though TUSD's Vail Middle School, which is as close to Borman as is Roberts-Naylor, is as highly rated (B) as the charter school on-base alternative (Roberts-Naylor is a C school). In addition, Vail offers a self-contained gifted and talented program that would seem to be especially attractive to families motivated enough to leave the base school.

Would Enhancing the Quality of Educational Programs Available at Roberts-Naylor Attract Students from the Base and Therefore Integrate Roberts-Naylor?

The weight that Borman families apparently place on the benefits of attending middle school on-base is significant and it is not clear that the kinds of improvements that that could reasonably be expected to be achieved at Roberts-Naylor would change the calculations made by Borman families. As noted, Borman families already have a good off-base middle school option in the form of TUSD's Vail Middle School. Moreover, it is not clear what TUSD could do to significantly improve the quality of schooling at Roberts-Naylor.

The best way to improve the school, as the Special Master pointed out in his May 11 R&R, is to substantially increase the quality of teaching. This is not easily done and could only be achieved in the short run by replacing a substantial number of current faculty with very highly effective teachers from throughout the District. Such a strategy would require significant financial incentives and would undermine teacher morale, not only at Roberts-Naylor, but in other schools in the District. The District suggests that a gifted and talented program at Roberts-Naylor might lead to improvement though there is little evidence to believe that this is the case or that having a second self-contained gifted and talented program in relatively close proximity would cause families to choose Roberts-Naylor. Few choose the Vail option now.

The Fisher plaintiffs' case for significantly improving Roberts-Naylor in order to achieve integration assumes that the students that would be drawn to the school would be predominantly white (as is Borman K-5). This is a highly improbable assumption. Throughout the country, there are few, if any, cases where a significant number of white families depart predominantly white schools for schools in which their children are outnumbered by nonwhite students almost nine to one (as would be the case at Roberts-Naylor).

Summary

Based on the highly improbable possibility that Roberts-Naylor could be turned into an A school that attracted a significant number of white students thus providing African American and Latino students the opportunity to attend a school where they substantially outnumber white students, the Fisher plaintiffs are asking that the District not be allowed to provide, at no increased cost to the taxpayers, a higher quality of education for military families than that which is now available to them in the public sector.

It is important to recognize that the addition of middle school grades to Borman can be accomplished with the extra funding that will come from the state of Arizona's per-pupil funding allocation. These funds would not otherwise be available to improve Roberts-Naylor unless middle school students now choosing not to attend Roberts-Naylor were to choose to do so in the future. The analysis above suggests that this is not likely. In other words, adding grades Borman will have no effect on the ability of TUSD to enhance the quality of education at Roberts-Naylor.

For these reasons, the Special Master recommends that the Court approve the District's request to create a K-8 school at Borman. This action by the Court should be expedited so that steps could be taken that would impact fifth grade students now attending Borman and middle school students now attending the on-base charter school in the next school year.

SPECIAL MASTER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENTATION REGARDING ROBERTS-NAYLOR

Introduction

In its March 8, 2016 order the Court directed the District as follows

The District was to report to the Court within 30 days. It submitted its report to the plaintiffs and the Special Master on April 15 (see Exhibit A). The Court ordered that the Special Master prepare a report and recommendation dealing with the District's report within 14 days.

The Court required the District's report because TUSD had proposed to add grades seven and eight to the Borman Elementary School which is located on the Davis-Monthan Air Force Base. This proposal by the District was objected to by the Fisher plaintiffs who are concerned, in part, that this move will draw students from the Roberts-Naylor's K-8 school which is located outside the base and would have negative consequences for integration. It also possible that the Borman grade configuration could negatively affect other TUSD schools. Currently Roberts-Naylor is 26% African-American, 11% Anglo and 54% Latino. Borman Elementary is 53% Anglo, 14 % African American and 21% Latino. The latest grade assigned to Roberts-Naylor by the state of Arizona is C; Borman Elementary school is an A school.

On April 27, 2016, the Commander of the Davis-Monthan Air Force Base sent a letter to the District strongly supporting the District's proposal to expand Borman to a K-8 school. That letter, which was shared with the Special Master on May 3, 2016, is attached as Exhibit B. Because May 4 was the day the Special Master was to file his R&R related to the District's report on Roberts-Naylor, on May 4 the Special Master filed an unopposed request for an extension to file his R&R on May 11, 2016.

Analysis

To answer the question posed by the Court the District presumably would have to do the following

The District provides a relatively detailed description of academic and other activities and learning resources available at Roberts-Naylor, but it does not provide any information about the schools it identifies as current competition for Roberts-Naylor, namely Sonora Science Academy charter school, Alice Vail Middle School (TUSD), Vail School District middle schools and "Private Parochial Schools." The one exception is that Sonora Science Academy charter school is described as a C school.

The District concludes, "based on available evidence" — which is not described except for a survey of dubious value — that the least important factors contributing to parents' decisions regarding middle school off-base attendance are proximity to work, keeping siblings together, keeping students within the military community, aftercare/extended day, special academic programs, accommodation for exceptional education, and ethnic and cultural diversity. (This conclusion about academic programs is contradicted elsewhere in the report). The report goes on to say that two of the factors identified as attractive to parents could potentially be replicated by special academic programs and safety and security to make Roberts-Naylor more competitive. In any event, this assumption is based on a survey conducted for the District in which the response rate was about 10%. Such a low response rate almost guarantees that the responses are not representative.

With respect to safety and security, it seems safe to conclude that virtually all parents value this school characteristic. Using student and parental surveys conducted by the District at Roberts-Naylor the District concludes that parents who send their children to Roberts-Naylor feel that safety is not an issue. However 39% of parents at Roberts-Naylor disagree with the statement, "I rarely hear that students will you harass others;" 42% of students disagree with the statement that, "This year I have rarely been the victim of bullying;" more than 50% disagree with the statement," Students behave during class;" and more than one in five say they do not feel safe at school. Perhaps parents at Roberts-Naylor have a high tolerance for unsafe conditions, but if these TUSD surveys are relatively valid and students and parents shared the views cited above with prospective attendees, it seems reasonable to conclude this would discourage attendance at Roberts-Naylor. The District does have data on the incidence of various types of disciplinary problems in all of its schools but it does not cite that evidence in its report.

At one point in its report, the District says that special academic programs are not likely to be important to parents in the schools that they select for their students. Despite such a statement, the District then lists possible programs to consider adding to Roberts-Naylor. This is guesswork. Some of these programs might work and the District has had experience with some of them at other schools, but it does not cite that evidence. One of the "possible" programs identified is self-contained gifted and talented education (GATE). However, there are existing self-contained GATE programs at a TUSD elementary school and a TUSD middle school that are in close proximity to the base and to Roberts-Naylor. The TUSD middle school is rated more highly than Roberts-Naylor and is difficult to understand why former Borman students would choose to attend Roberts-Naylor rather than the other District schools.

The District concludes that while the addition of new programs to Roberts-Naylor could improve the education the children at that school," it is unlikely that such changes would result in attracting significant numbers of students from the base to attend Roberts-Naylor." Despite the weaknesses in the District's analysis, I agree with this conclusion. Military communities tend to have a strong commitment to on-base schools. And, there is no reason to believe that adding new programs at this time to Roberts-Naylor would significantly alter the current patterns of attendance among students from Borman Elementary School. The only thing that might change family decisions is if Roberts-Naylor were one of TUSD's top schools.

Recommendations

As is true for the majority of TUSD schools, it would be desirable to strengthen Roberts-Naylor. But this is not likely to foster integration. The fact that Roberts-Naylor serves a relatively large number of African-American students makes it a candidate for additional investment. However, in light of limited resources, whether it is more urgent to strengthen Roberts-Naylor than other schools with weaker student performance should be carefully considered.

If a decision is made to prioritize further investments in improving the learning opportunities for students at Roberts-Naylor, the addition of "special academic programs" does not seem the place to start. The most important determinants of student learning are the effectiveness of teachers and school principals. First things first; strengthen teaching and leadership in the school. Then identify programs that are responsive to particular needs of Roberts-Naylor students based on evidence of their performance and behavior. For example, English-Language Arts is a particular challenge for Roberts-Naylor students, probably because of the large number of students from other countries for whom English is not their native language. In any event, the Court should not order additional investments in Roberts-Naylor. This decision should be made by the District.

The Court should approve the District's proposal to expand Borman Elementary School to a K-8 school. As noted above, the Fisher plaintiffs objected because of the potential effect that adding middle grades to Borman might have on District schools, particularly Roberts-Naylor. However, because the only students living off-base who would attend Borman K-8 School are members of military families or children of civilian employees who work on the base, the likelihood that this would involve many students is low. Only eight middle school students who formerly attended Borman now attend grades 7-8 at Roberts-Naylor and Vail Middle School (three Anglo, four Latino and one African American); two of these students attend Roberts-Naylor. As the base commander notes in his letter, most families connected with the military prefer to send their children to on-base education; in this case, it is a mediocre Sonora Science Academy.

While adding middle school grades to Borman is not likely to affect levels of integration in TUSD schools one way or the other, the District is not proposing to use 910G funds to implement the Borman proposal.

Creating a K-8 school at Borman will increase the quality of education available to the children of military families. Borman is an A school; the on-base charter school is a C school. This support for the military can be achieved without financial cost to the District even when the one-time remodeling costs about $60,000 are taken into account. Per-pupil state funds allocated to the District will exceed the costs of staffing, materials and upkeep. In out years, the District estimates that revenue will exceed costs by about $120,000 a year.

Finally, expanding the Borman Elementary will be evidence of commitment of the larger Tucson community to the Base. This evidence can be used when recurrent assessments by the Department of Defense of potential base the closings are considered.

FISHER PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTION TO SPECIAL MASTER'S 05/11/16 REPORT & RECOMMENDATION REGARDING ROBERTS-NAYLOR

1. THE FISHER PLAINTIFFS OBJECT TO SM ROBERTS-NAYLOR R&R

COME NOW, Plaintiffs Roy and Josie Fisher (hereinafter the Fisher Plaintiffs), by and through counsel undersigned, Rubin Salter, Jr. to object to Special Master (SM) Willis Hawley's 05/11/16 supplementary report and recommendation (R&R) regarding Roberts-Naylor K-8 School (filed 05/11/16 as document number 1933).

1.1. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This Court's 04/28/16 amended grade reconfiguration order (document number 1929) establishes a reporting and briefing schedule for: (1) Defendant Tucson Unified School District's (TUSD) report regarding Roberts-Naylor K-8 School (submitted to the SM and plaintiffs on 04/15/16); (2) the SM's 05/11/16 supplementary R&R regarding Roberts-Naylor (document number 1933) and any party objections thereto. Specifically, this Court's 04/28/16 order provides in relevant part that "[t]he Special Master shall a supplement to the R&R within 14 days of receiving TUSD's report. All parties may have 14 days to file objections to the Special Master's Borman supplement" (at page 17 lines 23-25 of document number 1929 filed 04/28/16 emphasis added). Because the SM filed his supplementary R&R regarding Roberts-Naylor on Wednesday 05/11/16, party objections are due fourteen (14) days from that date, Wednesday 05/25/16.

1.2. THIS COURT HAS PROPERLY REJECTED REQUESTS TO CREATE SPECIAL EXEMPTIONS TO THE DEFENDANT'S OBLIGATION TO INCREASE INTEGRATION AND ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT UNDER FEDERAL LAW

In its 04/28/16 amended grade reconfiguration order, this Court explained that "[o]n November 16, 2015, TUSD filed the NARA proposing to add 6th-8th grades at Borman K-5" (at page 2 of document number 1929 filed 04/28/16). In that same order, this Court explained that "[c]hanges which open new middle schools and move students from one school to another are not easily undone. Missed opportunities to improve diversity may be missed forever. And of course, changes exacerbating segregation must be avoided" (idem). In its order, this Court explained that "Borman elementary school is located on the Davis-Monthan Air Force Base (DMAFB) [and] serves children of military personnel and civil servants living and working on the base. Accordingly, many of the Borman students are not TUSD students and TUSD students cannot attend Borman unless their parents or grandparents are in the military. TUSD argues that adding the middle school at Borman would have virtually no impact on the surrounding middle schools because approximately 70% of the children attending Borman do not attend TUSD middle schools. After Borman, these students move to a charter K-8 on-base school or go to middle schools outside of TUSD. TUSD seeks to add grades six through eight to compete with the on-base charter school and to discourage students at Borman from going to middle schools outside TUSD" (idem at 3).

1.2.1. THIS COURT PROPERLY DENIED TUSD'S REQUEST TO CREATE A SPECIAL EXEMPTION FOR DMAFB STUDENTS IN 2007 AS INCONSISTENT WITH THE DISTRICT'S INTEGRATION OBLIGATIONS UNDER FEDERAL LAW

As this Court acknowledged, this is not the first time the Defendant has made this request:

In its 2007 ruling, this Court denied the Defendant's request and explained that it found the reopening of Smith Elementary School as a middle school would have an adverse affect on ongoing desegregation obligations because it is inconsistent with ongoing efforts to reduce segregation in TUSD's schools [...]. Reopening Smith School as a middle school removes a segment of the existing community assigned to Naylor Middle School, thereby, decreasing its base of concerned parents. Attendance by DM students at other TUSD schools and charter schools has had precisely this result. To the extent that TUSD is attempting to bring charter students back into its fold, this may benefit the Naylor Middle School. Conversely, it is not in the best interest of the community for TUSD to authorize non-minority DM students to attend other TUSD schools instead of Naylor Middle School [...]. In light of the evidence that Naylor Middle School, with a [predominantly] minority student body, is seriously failing to educate its student body, it is highly suspect for TUSD to carve out a separate non-minority educational system for a group of these students that are [predominantly] non-minority. Fisher Mendoza [is] a desegregation case, which at its core is based on the principle that separate schools will not provide equal education" (at pages 4-5 of document number 1209 filed 05/10/07 emphases added).

1.2.1. THIS COURT PROPERLY DENIED TUSD'S REQUEST TO CREATE A SPECIAL EXEMPTION FOR DMAFB STUDENTS IN 2016 AS INCONSISTENT WITH THE DISTRICT'S INTEGRATION OBLIGATIONS UNDER FEDERAL LAW

In its amended 04/28/16 reconfiguration order, this Court found that the Defendant's proposal to add grades 6 and 7 to Borman would directly compete with any marketing advantage Roberts-Naylor might have as a K-8 school, all else being equal. This Court then posed two questions relevant to the Defendant's integrative obligations at Borman and Roberts-Naylor: first, whether the White students completing 5th grade at Borman would "make a difference to the integration efforts at Roberts-Naylor" (at page 5 of document number 1929 filed 04/28/16) and second, whether The second, whether there are strategies that might attract Borman students to Roberts-Naylor instead of the K-8 on-base charter school or to middle schools outside of TUSD" (idem). This Court also noted that, beyond increasing the racial integration of Roberts-Naylor, "adding even minority students from Borman would indirectly improve future integration by improving the overall academic environment at Roberts-Naylor because Borman is an A school" (idem). Revisiting the Defendant's obligations under the Unitary Status Plan (USP), this Court explicitly rejected the Defendant's reliance on "current patterns of choice" in its desegregation impact analyses, explaining that:

Based on its findings, this Court denied the Defendants's 11/16/15 "plan to reconfigure Borman K-5 to a K-8 school" (idem at 17). Instead, this Court ordered the Defendant to:

The Defendant submitted its report regarding Roberts-Naylor K-8 School to the SM and plaintiffs on 04/15/16. In its report, the Defendant admits that "the school as a whole has had proficiency rates below the district averages compared to other K-8 schools" (at page 3 of 04/15/16 report). Without explaining how it hopes to market an underperforming school to prospective students, the District nevertheless reports that "Robert-Naylor hosted student visits during the District's Level-Up Days. Students from [...] Borman toured the campus [and] were mailed a brochure to follow-up on the visit and highlight the opportunities that Roberts-Naylor offers" (idem). Without stating exactly what opportunities Roberts-Naylor offers prospective students graduating from Borman, the Defendant goes on to explain that its efforts to "recruit students from Borman [include sending] a counselor and 6th grade students [on] a visit to Borman to talk to their 5th graders about Roberts-Naylor" (idem). Additionally, the Defendant explains that the principal of Roberts-Naylor "will attend a parent meeting at Borman to answer questions they might have and to encourage their child's enrollment" (idem). The Defendant continues on to explain that the staff of Roberts-Naylor have "worked with the [District's] marketing department to develop a marketing video to highlight the special qualities of the school" (idem). Without explicitly stating what those special qualities might be, the Defendant concludes that "a parent meeting will be held at Roberts/Naylor including [a] presentation to give families a sample of a typical day at a K-8 and possibly include student performances and speakers" (idem).

1.3. THE SPECIAL MASTER'S ROBERTS-NAYLOR R&R IS INCONSISTENT WITH THIS COURT'S PRIOR RULINGS AND FEDERAL DESEGREGATION LAW

In his report and recommendation (R&R) regarding Roberts-Naylor, the Special Master (SM) states that "[t]his proposal by the District was objected to by the Fisher plaintiffs who are concerned, in part, that this move will draw students from the Roberts-Naylor's K-8 school which is located outside the base and would have negative consequences for integration" (at page 2 of document number 1933 filed 05/11/16). The SM's analysis, and the assumptions it is based upon, are flawed in several critical respects. At page 6 of his R&R, the SM makes the unsupported claim that "adding middle school grades to Borman is not likely to affect levels of integration in TUSD schools one way or the other" (idem at 8). This claim perpetuates the Defendant's unjustifiable reliance upon "current patterns of school choice" in assessing the impact of its student assignment proposals (a standard this Court rejected as constitutionally insufficient in its 04/28/16 order). Contrary to the SM's claim, the reconfiguration of Borman from a K-5 into a K-8 would indeed affect the levels of integration in TUSD schools. In fact, as the Fisher Plaintiffs explained in their 12/07/15 objection to the Defendant's grade reconfiguration NARA, "the District admits that `Borman's population is approximately fifty percent Anglo, reflecting the population from which it draws, and will continue to draw as a K-8 as the same students in Borman now will form the 6th through 8th grades so there is no change to the racial-ethnic composition' (at page 9 of document number 1869 filed 11/16/15). What the District does not explain in its NARA, is that Borman (rated as an A school in the 2013-14 SY) is currently an identifiably White school (54% of the student body at Borman is White, whereas the district-wide average for White enrollment at grades K-5 is 20%) and because it is projected to remain so as a K-8 the grade reconfiguration would result in a greater number of White TUSD students attending an identifiably White school (Borman) while the predominantly non-White TUSD students attending nearby Roberts-Naylor K-8 (rated as a C school in the 2013-14 SY and currently designated to receive Borman-arbea 6th, 7th and 8th grade students) would continuing attending an identifiably minority school (11% of the student body at Roberts-Naylor K-8 is White, whereas the district-wide average for White enrollment at grades K-8 is 20%)" (at page 7 of document number 1877 filed 12/07/15). Thus, the SM, like the Defendant, fails to recognize "the unjustifiable normative assumption that runs through and fatally biases" (idem) the District's desegregation impact analysis for the Borman reconfiguration. The SM, like the Defendant, cites contemporary patterns of school choice as an unjustifiably low standard against which it asks this Court to gauge the potential impact of the Defendant's proposed grade reconfiguration. The Fisher Plaintiffs respectfully ask this Court to adhere to its own precedent and well-established federal law and to reject the SM's recommendation insofar as it relies on this constitutionally unsound standard.

Elsewhere in his report, the SM observes — reasonably — that, before it can comply with this Court's amended order, the Defendant will first need to: (1) "[i]dentify the schools with grades 6-8 now serving former Borman students" (idem at 3); (2) "[i]dentify the academic programs and other learning resources the competing schools offer, their demographic characteristics and indicators of student outcomes" (idem); and (3) "[c]ompare what is and could be available at Roberts-Naylor that would allow it to compete with the schools former Borman students now attend" (idem). And, as the SM acknowledges, the Defendant does provide "a relatively detailed description of academic and other activities and learning resources available at Roberts-Naylor," (idem) but it unfortunately fails to "provide any information about the schools it identifies as current competition for Roberts-Naylor" (idem). The SM, in his R&R, also faults the Defendant for its reliance on "a survey of dubious value" to reach conclusions regarding the relative weight Borman parents give to various factors when considering whether or not to enroll their children on or off base. The SM, in his R&R, focuses on what is likely a typo in the last paragraph of page 4 of the Defendant's report (the substitution of the word the "least" for the word the "most") and thereby considerably confuses the issue and likely attributes a position to the Defendant it never intended to take, as evidenced by the Defendant's more systematic presentation of the same list of "[f]actors affecting school choice" attached as page 8 of its report. What the Defendant states clearly under the heading of factors affecting school choice is that a survey was conducted that asked "[p]arents who had children enrolled in a base school (Borman Elementary or SSA-DM) or a school located off the base [...] to indicate the importance of various factors in choosing the school (scale ranged from not at all important to very important)" (at page 8 of TUSD Roberts-Naylor report). According to the Defendant:

While the SM can reasonably expect to learn more about the specifics of the survey (who conducted it, when, how many parents were surveyed, what was the exact wording of the survey questions etc.), the validity of the survey's results do not fly in the face of reason and offer some support to the premise that DMAFB parents afford significant weight to academic achievement and programmatic offerings when deciding to enroll their children off-base. The SM appears to conclude that the weight DMAFB parents afford to such factors as proximity to home and remaining within the military community are insurmountable. The Fisher Plaintiffs strongly disagree. In fact, the Defendant's report offers some preliminary evidence to the contrary, evidence which should certainly be the subject of further investigation and analysis, but evidence nonetheless. Despite this, the SM has returned a recommendation to allow the Defendant to proceed with its grade reconfiguration plans for Borman K-5 and thereby effectively grant the Defendant an exemption to its affirmative obligation to effect integration and ensure equitable academic achievement rates wherever practicable in its schools. The SM's recommendation clearly fails to pass constitutional muster and should not be adopted by this Court. The Civil Rights of the District's once segregated African American and Hispanic students cannot be compromised in the name of political expediency. The leadership of the DMAFB has expressed its support for the reconfiguration of Borman at the same time that it has advertised its rigid adherence to military policies (not federal laws) that pose considerable barriers to the integration of Borman. The DMAFB does indeed represent a major economic and political force in our community and while it might temporarily prove politically expedient to cater to the preferences of that powerful segment of our community, doing so would directly or indirectly impinge upon the Civil Rights of future generations of Roberts-Naylor students who will not have the option to attend a racially, ethnically and academically diverse school.

1.5. CONCLUSION

On the basis of the facts and law set forth above, the Fisher Plaintiffs respectfully ask this Court: (1) to reject the Special Master's recommendation; (2) to deny the District's request for approval of grade reconfigurations at Borman K-5 School; and (3) to direct the Defendant to develop a viable proposal for effecting immediate and substantial improvement in the integration and improved academic achievement at Roberts-Naylor K-8. The integrative imperative of the Unitary Status Plan (USP) is unambiguous, it represents a consensus reached by all of the parties to this case that was approved by order of this Court and that cannot now be ignored simply because the District wishes to recapture enrollment lost to the Charter Sector and neighboring districts or to cater to the preferences of the predominantly White parents wishing to enroll their children at schools located on Davis Monthan Air Force Base (DMAFB).