IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

CHINYERE JENKINS, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) Case No. 77-0420-CV-1

)

THE STATE OF MISSOURI, et al. )

)

Defendants. )

On October 2, 2001, this Court required the School District of Kansas City, Missouri ("KCMSD") to file by October 23, 2001 its explanation as to perceived differences between its current implementation of educational programs and previously ordered educational plans and to show cause why the Court should not replace the previously ordered plans with the School District’s Comprehensive School Improvement Plan ("CSIP"). The Court also on October 2, 2001 invited plaintiffs to respond to the KCMSD filing of October 23, 2001 and this pleading is that invited response.

The plaintiffs agree with the KCMSD that the Court should not "replace the plans approved by the Court on May 27, 1999 with the CSIP." KCMSD Response at 1. Plaintiffs do not agree, however, that the KCMSD has "[i]n most respects" implemented the plans approved by the Court in 1999. Plaintiffs specifically deny the KCMSD assertion that provisions of those plans the KCMSD has chosen not to implement are not "practicable in implementation." Id. Further, plaintiffs dispute that KCMSD’s "adopted alternative practices" have been properly adopted and that they are proper alternatives for the practices unilaterally abandoned by the KCMSD.

In light of the disagreements between the KCMSD and plaintiffs, the plaintiffs agree with the KCMSD that between now and December 17, 2001 the parties should attempt to reach agreement as to how and when the KCMSD will re-commit itself to the full implementation of the plans it submitted to the Court in January 1999 and that the Court provisionally approved on May 27, 1999. To the extent that the KCMSD has not agreed by December 17, 2001 to the full implementation of all aspects of those plans or to the extent to which there is not a stipulation of the parties by December 17, 2001, plaintiffs will seek a hearing and subsequent order of this Court compelling full implementation of those plans and sanctions for any continuing failures to achieve full implementation within a reasonable period of time.

Below, plaintiffs detail some of their responses to KCMSD’s assertions as to its implementation of the 1999 educational plans and the District’s explanations for its admitted failures at such implementation. The plaintiffs, however, reserve their right and opportunity to assert other and fuller objections to the School District’s failure to implement the 1999 educational plans for the reasons detailed in Plaintiffs’ Additional Response, September 14, 2001, at 1-2.

The KCMSD minimizes its admitted failure to implement the court-approved 1999 educational plans when it claims that its failures consist of the plans "not being implemented precisely as specified". KCMSD response at 3. As plaintiffs point out herein, a failure to implement the plans "precisely" does not fairly describe the issue. Plaintiffs would not complain about close but narrowly imprecise implementation. They do complain about wholesale abandonment of core aspects of the plans and the subsequent minimization of that abandonment as merely a failure to achieve "precise" implementation.

For example, a central component of the Accountability Plan is its system of grading each and every school on its academic performance as well as its performance in other critical areas, such as teacher attendance. By classifying each school, and making public those classifications, parents, administrators, the media and the public, and others will be provided specific data, as well as the explicit judgment of the KCMSD’s accountability system, about the performance of – or failure to perform by – each KCMSD school. School and central office administrators responsible for schools judged "In Crisis" or "Needs Improvement" will risk the wrath of parents sending children to such schools.

The KMCSD admits it has not "precisely" implemented this requirement of the plan. "The KCMSD has not proceeded…with the specific point system outlined [sic; should be "required"] in the plan for classifying the District’ schools into one of five categories…." KCMSD Response at 5. Instead the KCMSD points to Missouri’s ability to designate five schools as "academically deficient" – and that Missouri has done. The KCMSD does not point out, however, that Missouri is limited by to naming not more than five such deficient schools.

The failure of the KCMSD to assign specific point scores to its schools based on their achievement, combined with the state’s limited ability to designate deficient schools, works perversely to undermine the intent of the Accountability Plan. Unless there are only five poorly performing schools in the KCMSD, parents and others may mistakenly believe that because their children’s schools have not been declared deficient by the state, and because the KCMSD has been silent as to any ranking or categorization of schools, their schools are performing well, or at least adequately. Thus, the parents in nearly seventy schools could have the mistaken belief that the schools their children attend are not among the poorly performing schools in the District. Thus, the abandonment of the classification system in the Accountability Plan vitiates almost completely the power of the plan to harness parent, public, and other support for sustained school improvements. This abandonment amounts to much more than a failure to implement the Accountability Plan "precisely".

Similarly, the KCMSD has "departed in certain details" from the "precise" approaches in the 1999 Accountability Plan for a performance-based evaluation system for principals and teachers. While the plaintiffs have not been favored by the KCMSD with a copy of the agreement it recently negotiated with AFT Local 691, from reports in the media it appears that the agreement with the teachers is a modest, and hopefully significant, step toward full implementation of the Accountability Plan, but it does not appear to fulfill the detailed requirements of that Plan.

As to the Professional Development Plan, the KCMSD expresses a profound devaluation of the design and core mechanisms of the 1999 Professional Development Plan. That Plan, filed with the Court by the KCMSD itself, consisted of all the elements the KCMSD, the plaintiffs, and the AFT, together with their consultants, had desired in the plan. It was researched-based, student-focused, teacher-oriented, tailored to the specific staffing needs of the KCMSD, fit to the KCMSD’s budget limitations, and timed to correspond to the KCMSD’s educational calendar. The KCMSD now finds the plan to be "not practicable to implement", KCMSD Response at 7; "not generally positive", id., at 8; staff to implement it "not available", id.; its costs "very high", id.; and, that it "would get in the way" teaching, id., at 9. None of these concerns or objections are factually supportable and, if plaintiffs and the KCMSD cannot agree by December 17, 2001 on how to implement the 1999 Professional Development Plan, the plaintiffs will promptly bring this dispute to the Court to resolve.

Plaintiffs acknowledge that the KCMSD has properly listed some of plaintiffs’ concerns about the KCMSD implementation of the Professional Development Plan. Id., at 11 n.12. That is not a complete list, however. For instance, plaintiffs do not agree that the KCMSD’s offer of $2,000 per teacher completing National Board on Professional Teaching Standards certification is sufficient to assure that a minimum of six KCMSD teachers volunteer and undertake independently the professional development steps necessary to gain NBPTS certification annually. The KCMSD may have to significantly increase its offer of assistance until six teachers annually are certified. Had the KCMSD properly implemented this provision of the Professional Development Plan when it said it would, the KCMSD would presently have eighteen (18) nationally certified excellent teachers it does not now have. There are not assurances in the KCMSD’s recent response that three years from now the KCMSD will have any more nationally certified teachers than it does now – zero – instead of the thirty-six it should have if the Plan were, and had been, effectively implemented.

The KCMSD departure from the Assessment Plan is emblematic of how the KCMSD’s culture of low expectations for student achievement continues even at present. The KCMSD admits, id. at 12, that it has not implemented the Assessment Plan provision that every KCSMD student, over a period of several or many weeks, write a "thesis", undefined as to length or topic, a minimum of three times over thirteen years. The plan calls for such a thesis to be written once each in grades 5, 8, and 12. It further requires that each such grade level’s thesis requirement be designed and taught in a manner specifically using the writing rubrics measured by Missouri Assessment Program tests. The KCMSD has unilaterally abandoned this minimalist writing requirement for vague reasons concerning whether it would be "productive" to require students to write three major papers between fifth and twelfth grades. Some schools require three major papers every quarter, twelve times a year, or more than eighty such papers over the span of 5^th to 12^th grades. The KCMSD, however, is not willing to require its students to write only three such papers in their entire career with the KCMSD. And that reluctance stands even in the face of the requirement that such papers be aligned with the writing requirements measured by MAP tests. This reluctance is based either on the KCMSD’s low expectations for the abilities of its students (a low expectation the students do not deserve) to write three papers or it is based on a low expectation as to whether the KCMSD’s teachers across the board are capable of teaching their students to write three papers to MAP standards (a low expectation many teachers may, in truth, deserve). The KCMSD is certainly correct when it advised the Court that plaintiffs "want the thesis requirement to be implemented." Id. at 12.

Plaintiffs agree with the KCMSD that the Court should not substitute the CSIP for the existing provisionally approved educational plans and that the parties should be given until December 17, 2001 to reach agreement as to how and when those plans will be fully implemented, or to stipulate to any modifications of those plans to which the parties may agree. Absent agreement on the full implementation of those plans, a hearing before the Court may well be required to resolve the disputes that remain between the parties.

Respectfully submitted,

ARTHUR BENSON & ASSOCIATES

By: _________________________________

ARTHUR A. BENSON II #21107

JAMIE KATHRYN LANSFORD #31133

4006 Central St. (Courier ZIP: 64111)

P.O. Box 119007

Kansas City, Missouri 64171-9007

(816) 531-6565; (816) 531-6688 (fax)

abenson@bensonlaw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs