Eddie Bernice Johnson Asks DISD Board to Delay Tonight's Staffing Vote

By Robert Wilonsky Thu., May 14 2009 at 4:32 PM

Categories: Edumication News

Pin It

Eddie Bernice Johnson

The headline says it all. But this missive, which we just received from Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson's office concerning the fight over funding at Dallas Independent School District's magnet schools and learning centers, says it better. Certainly, longer.

Update at 5:15 p.m.: As the DISD board of trustees is due to begin its called meeting shortly, I asked district spokesman Jon Dahlander whether or not the board will heed Johnson's request to delay tonight's vote. At the moment, it's unclear. "The board has been meeting in their board briefing all day," he says. "I don't even know if they have received this."

I remain greatly concerned about the status of funding for Dallas ISD Learning Centers and Magnet Schools. Over the past weeks, I've been in close contact with the Department of Education, the Texas Education Agency (TEA) and Superintendent Michael Hinojosa regarding potential funding cuts within the Magnet Schools and Learning Centers. In
particular, there are outstanding questions as to whether or not the Learning Center programs may gain a waiver from being required to meet comparable funding requirements.

All Title I schools must meet comparability requirements in order to receive Title I funding. If Dallas ISD is found to be in violation it could potentially lose Title I funding, which is approximately $105 million.

The Department of Education and the Texas Education Agency are closely reviewing all of Dallas ISD's comparability numbers in order to determine what, if any, funding cuts need to be made. Dallas ISD has been working hard to get TEA all the necessary data, but it is my understanding from TEA and the Department of Education that there is still outstanding data that it needs to review. The Department of Education will not be able to give a determination until they can review all of this information.

Based on these circumstances, I have called on Dallas ISD Board of Trustees President Jack Lowe to delay tonight's vote on the budgetary measures that will result in funding and staff cuts for the Learning Centers and Magnets. While I understand the need to plan for next year and reposition staff, I also believe that final determinations from TEA and the Department of Education are integral to this funding decision. We should not make cuts to these schools and programs until we know what is required under law. I have been assured that the Department of Education will make a prompt determination once it has the necessary data, so I do not advocate a lengthy delay to this vote.

It is my hope that the Board of Trustees will take this under advisement, and I will continue to do my part in working with the Department of Education to receive an answer on what funding cuts may be necessary in a timely manner. I will continue to work with Dallas ISD to get the best possible result for our schools."

Like this Story?

Sign up for the Weekly Newsletter: Our weekly feature stories, movie reviews, calendar picks and more - minus the newsprint and sent directly to your inbox.

Write Comment

Email to Friend

Print Article

Related Content

@Mike Macnaughton I agree -- DISD probably is "broker than broke". LC's are all about keeping black kids in their neighborhood schools. Which, btw, is a very expensive thing to do and the whole purpose of the Court Order that released DISD from TASBY! This is all about money but as JimS points out it's the devil's deal back in 2003 that binds DISD to this expensive solution! I don't think the Trustees have thought this through--if they do away with the LC's won't we be right back into a desegregation lawsuit?
It was a very interesting meeting last night. Hurrah for Ranger...someone needed to make admin understand that when we get new info and interpretations daily, we need to take our time and get ALL the facts before we take machete in hand and start slashing. Flores' & Garza's little speeches at the end were obviously trying to convince everyone (regardless of viewpoint) that they were really good guys & on your side. It was laughable...esp. when Garza claimed that what he'd always wanted to do was not only maintain but expand these programs. It just looked like he was rushing to rubber-stamp the cuts. C'mon, how dumb do these guys think we are? And Hinojosa & his team of stooges look worse and worse. At least the several hundred folks who showed up gave him an inkling that its not his personal district. Or, it would have, if he were not so wrapped up in his own ego.
TASBY documents: http://library.law.smu.edu/disd/documents.shtm June 5, 2003 order (Covenants): http://library.law.smu.edu/disd/files/Memo%20opinion%20and%20order%20June%205,%202003.pdf In my opionion (Caveats: I am not a lawyer; I have a son in the magnet program; I have personally spoken with some of the participants in the original suit.) (1) the Order was to be the "big stick" that Judge Sanders could hold over the heads of the Trustees for the first three years. But there is no specified duration for the Covenants and the Judge, the power behind the order, is dead. (2) the Covenants may be modified at any time (even during the first 3 years) by a "Super-Majority" of the Board of Trustees (7 votes). And it looks to me like a Super-majority may alter the covenants today if they so desire. I encourage all of the parents, teachers, and Trustees to review these documents on their own as they shed historical light on the rather misguided actions of the Board in the last few weeks and then ask the question "Why do you want to make the proposed changes?" I am of the opinion that the answer is simple, DISD is broker than broke. I simply don't believe that "teachers will be moved from magnets to other schools" as was suggested in the articles published since the May 14, 2009 board meeting. Now some history. Magnets and Learning Centers are different. The intent was to create and support magnet schools and protect against racial bias. From the 2003 Order: "Magnet schools attract a diverse student population to centrally-located schools forcareer, vocational, and other specialty programs. See Tasby, 520 F.Supp. at 745. This Court has endorsed Magnet schools since the 1976 Judgment. See Tasby, 412F.Supp. at 1205; Tasby, 520 F.Supp. at 747; 1994 Order at 464. Section V of the Judgment contains detailed directives to the DISD regarding the operation of Magnet schools; these were supplemented by the 1994 Order. See Judgment at 12-19; 1994 Order at 464-466." In the 1994 Order that DISD is supposed to follow it is rather ironic to note the items in bold. "The Court finds, however, that the following actions by the District are necessary and practicable for full compliance with the Judgment and other directives from this Court regarding the operation of the magnet programs: ~ Continue the present vanguards and academies (including Montessori I and II), and the Lincoln and Booker T. Washington Magnets. Fund the magnets, academies, and vanguards at the current or higher levels. Complete and open Townview. See supra note 6, and infra at section II.A.10. The contingency fund included in the December 1992 bond package must be available for use on Townview should it become necessary. ~ Observe all requirements of the Judgment. ~ Follow guidelines in the Judgment governing transportation. Students should be reimbursed for the costs of private and public transportation. Transportation should be made available to ensure access to extracurricular activities. ~ Maintain screening committees with diverse ethnic membership for application to the magnets, academies, and vanguards. Committees should utilize standard selection criteria and should document the results of the screening process. ~ Consider changing the application timeline so that the selection process is completed well before the last day of school. Require the 32-32-32-4 ratio to govern the enrollment at all grades, rather than just the entry grade at magnets, academies, and vanguards. To ensure that enrollment remains consistent beyond the entry grade, establish a minimum number of slots for magnet students at magnets schools housed within regular schools. Provide pre-service and continued in-service staff development that addresses the needs of each magnet, vanguard, and academy school. ~ Observe the requirements of the Judgment to obtain Court approval before using the proceeds from the sale of the magnet facilities. Even six years ago the Court wanted to make sure TAG kids represented all races equally and they found that: "TAG is a program established for students who show the potential to perform at an exceptionally high level of accomplishment when compared to other children of the same age, experience and environment. (Oliphant, V. 5 at 172).....There is no evidence of racial discrimination in the TAG program." The Learning Centers were the Districts solution to busing. They were created to keep minority (read "black") students in their neighborhood schools by FUNDING THEM TO A HIGHER LEVEL than other schools. From the 1994 Order: "The Learning centers were established to provide quality educational programs for minority students in neighborhood settings. See Tasby, 585 F. Supp. 453 (approving South Dallas centers);"Tasby, 630 F. Supp. 597 (approving West Dallas Centers)." From the 2003 Order: "Ms. Malone also testified that there were unexplained fluctuations in the amount of money allocated to the Learning Centers, and that the District was slow in facilities repairs at the Learning Centers from 1997-2000. (Malone, V. 9 at 166-167). There was no evidence to suggest that the Learning Centers were allocated less money than was required by the 1994 Order or that the District was singling out the Learning Centers for delayed repairs. The Court finds that the DISD has complied with the Court's orders related to Learning Centers. The Learning Centers are a valuable tool in the District's efforts to increase minority achievement, and their programs appear to be particularly effective. Dr. Moses testified that the Learning Centers "are outstanding programs" that are "certainly worthy of replication." (Moses, V. 1 at 120). The Covenants also refer to the replication of successful Learning Center programs at other schools throughout the District. (Covenants, No.7; Defs.' Ex. 33). The Court commends the District, both on its compliance with the Court's Orders in this area and on its commitment to maintain and replicate the Learning Center programs. The Court relies on this commitment. Further judicial supervision of the Learning Centers is unnecessary." So what was required in the 1994 Order for funding the LC's? "The Court finds that the Learning Centers are valuable in closing the achievement gap between Anglo and minority students. However, the following actions are necessary to ensure full compliance with this Court's decrees regarding the Learning Centers: ~ continue the funding of the Learning Centers at the current or higher level. Please note that "other resources" were to be allocated "without regard to race". (pg. 50, 1994 order PDF) It is also interesting to note that: "Predominantly Black and predominantly minority schools (combined Black and Hispanic) received greater allocations per pupil than did non-magnet desegregated schools. Analysis, Table IX-3." (pg. 50, 1994 order PDF) Here is the (OCR'd) text from Section 2. of the 2003 Order: "2. Declaration of Commitments and Covenants In November, at the same meeting in which the DISD Board of Trustees voted to direct its counsel to request this hearing for dismissal, the Board adopted the Declaration of Commitments and Covenants Upon Release from Court Supervision ("Covenants") by a vote of eight to one. (Defs.' Ex. 33). The Covenants will become official policy of the DISD immediately upon the release of the District from supervision of the Court. (Covenants, No. 13; Defs.' Ex. 33). These Covenants declare the intention of the Board of Trustees to "continue to operate a unitary school system" and "to promote the availability of equal educational opportunities to all its students regardless of race, national origin, ethnicity, gender or religion." (Covenants, No.1; Defs.' Ex. 33)~� They also commit the DISD to continuing the principles of diversity in employment at all levels. (Covenants, No.2; Defs.' Ex. 33). The Covenants specifically commit the District to maintaining strong Early Childhood Education programs on each campus which includes K-3 students (Covenants, No.3; Defs.' Ex.33); maintaining tuition credits for students currently enrolled in the majority-to-minority transfer program (Covenants, No.4; Defs.' Ex. 33); maintaining a program of Magnet schools (including Vanguard schools, Academies, high schools designated as Magnets, and Montessori schools) which will be evaluated regularly (Covenants, No.5; Defs.' Ex. 33); maintaining programs for talented and gifted students in all elementary, middle, and high schools in accordance with State law (Covenants, No.6; Defs.' Ex. 33); maintaining the South, West, and East Dallas Learning Centers along with providing supplemental funding for students in at-risk situations (Covenants, Nos. 7-8; Defs.' Ex. 33); maintaining comprehensive Bilingual and English as a Second Language programs in grades PK-12 (Covenants, No.9; Defs.' Ex. 33); and maintaining a program of facility construction, addition, renovation, repair and maintenance, administered without regard to race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, or religion of the students enrolled at particular facilities. (Covenants, No. 10; Defs.' Ex. 33). The Court relies on these Covenants as a sign of the good faith of the Board that it will continue the progress it has made in terms of developing and maintaining a unitary system in which all children receive equal and quality education. The Court notes that Dr. Moses and all of the Trustees who testified about the Covenants stated that the current Board supports them, and intends to work toward their implementation. (Moses, V.l at 103-107; Zornes, V. 10 at 106-09; Anchia, V. 8A at 7-9; May, V. 8A at 39-40; Price, V. 8A at 68; Brashear, V. 8A at 73-74; Blackburn, V. 8A at 86-87). The Court also notes that the Covenants may not be modified, altered, amended, repealed, or vacated without approval of seven of the members of the Board. (Covenants, No. 13; Defs.' Ex. 33). The Court would be gravely concerned if there were any material departures from the Covenants during the three year term which begins upon the dismissal of this case. See FED. R. CIY. P. 60(b)."
Next up on the DISD agenda -- how to get ride of them pesky students and replace then with a less expensive alternative or none at all.
Thanks to Carla Ranger for reading the Press Release from Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson that ask the school board to delay voting on the measure about learning centers and magnet schools. President Jack Lowe admittted that he had spoken with Rep. Johnson, but did not explain to the many people in the audience what took place. Trustee Edwin Flores made a motion to accept the staffs recommendation to cut from the schools, and that motion got a second from Jerome Garza. Trustee Carla Ranger made an amendment to the motion to delay the decision until the Trustees have more information. The struggle continues..............
What about the famous exemptions? I thought Sanders' ruling and DISD's agreement on exemptions was still in effect?
Wouldn't it be great if she and Carla Ranger ran DISD? I just do not understand why the DISD board is so hell bent on killing the best things it has going for it.
You are amazing.