Decade of Turmoil
An analysis of struggle over Public School Governance
in New York City in the 1960's
by
Jitu K. Weusi
Historical Background
At the conclusion of World War II in 1945, the United States of America emerged in an enviable
position. It was the world's only nation to harness atomic power. With unprecedented wealth and
natural resources, it was the unchallenged leader of the "free market" world. As the United States
entered the Cold War era and global competition with the Soviet Union and world communism, one
area of concern was cited by critics—schools in decline (Bracey, G. 1997).
During the post-war period (1945–57), a spirited debate erupted in America among city managers and urban planners around the question of community power. The pluralist believed that decision-making on the community level was more diverse and shared by a wider cross-section of people and groups (Polsby, Nelson W., 1960). By the mid-fifties, it was generally assumed that the pluralist had won the day (Merelman, Richard M., 1968). Popular rule could be achieved best by the New England town meeting approach which featured informed decision-making and debate. Extending public participation, increasing awareness of responsibilities, and guarding against the dangers of tyrannical rule was seen as the best practices to improve the quality of government (Walker, Jack L., 1966). It was hoped by taking part in community affairs the citizen would broaden his perspective beyond his private life.
Many believe that pluralism as taught in American colleges and universities in post-war America was the underlying political foundation that ushered in a decade of turmoil in the 1960's (Gittell, M. and Hevesi, A., 1969).
A demographic revolution was underway in post-war America. Home building was underway massively in bedroom communities located 30 minutes or more from the inner cities. The age of suburban living was in full bloom by the 1950's. One and two automobile families become the new standard of suburban middle class America. Over the next 20 years, populations in America's cities would become darker surrounded by all-White suburbs.
Civil Rights Movement
On May 17th, 1954, the Supreme Court of the United States
handed down perhaps its most important decision in the 20th
Century's history of the court (Russo, J., Harris, J., and Sandidge, R.,
1994). In a unanimous 9 - 0 opinion in Brown vs. The Board of Education
of Topeka, Kansas, the court held that the dejure segregation of public
education based on race deprived minority children of equal educational
opportunities in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the
14th Amendment. Brown became the catalyst for the Civil Rights
Movement of the 50's and 60's and for a challenge to Public Schools for
equal educational opportunities that continues to this day. The decision
of the court opened the entire issue of educational governance and policy
to investigation by a wide range of civil rights and political groups
wishing to change the direction of American education (Gittell, M. and
Hevesi, A., 1969).
Among those experts who testified before the Supreme Court in 1953 about the psychological and educational damage to Black children attending segregated schools was the respected nationally recognized Black psychologist, Dr. Kenneth Clarke (Rogers, D., 1969). The late Dr. Clarke is the author of Dark Ghetto; a sociological text examining the ill effects of life in Urban Black communities upon its inhabitants. Dr. Clarke remained a consistent foe of segregation and served in many responsible civic positions including being a member of the New York State Board of Regents.
Dr. Clarks discussed the key role that his psychological testing played in the decision.
"I remember one child in Arkansas, a little boy, from the earlier study. When I asked in the key question (Which doll is most like you?), he looked up and smiled, laughed, and pointed to the brown doll and said, 'That's a nigger. I'm a nigger'. I found that as disturbing, if not more disturbing, than the children in Massachusetts, who would refuse to answer that question, or would cry and run out of the room. The children in the South did not reject the feeling of inferiority that the question implied (by having to identify with the doll they had deemed inferior). In fact, they sort of accepted it as part of the reality of lives. The children in the North more overtly and emotionally rejected their feelings of inferiority" (Williams, J., 1987).
On Thursday December 1, 1955, eighteen months after the Supreme Court decision, Mrs. Rosa Parks, a Black seamstress, got on a 5:30 p.m. bus in Montgomery, Alabama and rode into the history books of America. Her refusal to give up her seat, her arrest, and the Montgomery Bus Boycott that followed would begin the activist phase of the Civil Rights Movement (Garrow, D., 1988). The leader of that Montgomery Boycott, a young minister named Martin Luther King, Jr. would become the primary leader of the National Movement for Civil Rights that eventually cost his life. Dr. King, under the tutelage of Bayard Rustin, a lifelong socialist and pacifist incorporated the strategy of non-violent resistance to injustice within his movement (Garrow, D., 1988).
The incorporation of non-violence was a key strategy decision and enabled Dr. King to win support by whites and other racial groupings all over the nation. It also helped to win respect and friends among the national media.
The Civil Rights Movement, which overturned America's Apartheid system known as Segregation or Jim Crow during the years 1954–1965, was an internationally recognized movement that impacted on events all over the world. The movement, a combination or protests, politics, legal work, responses to violence and celebrations, like the great March on Washington on August 23, 1963 was a social outpouring that transformed society and the world (Williams, J., 1987).
The Civil Rights event that impacted most on New York City's educational community occurred in September of 1957 in Little Rock, Arkansas. Mrs. Daisy Bates, chairperson of Little Rock's NAACP recruited a group of public high school students willing to integrate Central High School. On September 20th, 1957, with more than 200 media outlets watching from all over the world, they attempted to enter the high school, and were met by a mob of more than 2,000 whites that pelted them and the reporters with rocks, bottles, and other missiles. The next day, they returned and were met by Arkansas' governor Orville Faubus and his National Guard that refused their right to enter. Finally after the state of Arkansas refused to honor the Laws of the Land, U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower sent Federal troops to escort these children to school.
It required the U.S. Army with rifles and fixed bayonets to enable nine Black children to go to school in Little Rock, Arkansas in 1957. The stakes for the education of children everywhere just became a little higher (Williams, J., 1087).
During an earlier time in American History, all of this struggle might have had little impact as it would have taken weeks or months for the news to reach various parts of the nation. But, home television became available to the American public immediately after World War II. In the 1950's, the major networks were in a power struggle to survive and grow. The nightly news reports hotly contested for new viewers. Coverage of the fledging social justice movement was a huge incentive for Blacks and their allies to watch news on a particular network. Aides to Dr. King reported that they received thousands of dollars in donations after the airing of a particular news broadcast (Garrrow, d., 1986). Around our house, Channel 2, the CBS affiliate in New York City, was always on because of its extraordinary coverage of the Civil Rights Movement. Via the magic of television, the Civil Rights movement with its tactics, strategies, and philosophies spread to various parts of the nation.
New York City's Decade of Turmoil
As the Civil Rights movement traveled North in the 1950's and early
1960's, it brought focus and investigation to the system of Public
Education. Trapped in the northern ghettoes of major cities, Blacks
pinned the hopes for advancement in society on their children's ability
to get a quality education (Clarke, K., 1965).
The confrontation that started as early as 1956 (Rogers, D., 1968 p. 46) over the feeder pattern for newly opened J.H.S. 258 in Bedford-Stuyvesant was symbolic of the struggles to come. The demand was for desegregation of New York schools using any number of formulas. Feeder schools, bussing, and pairing, were just a few of the many schemes that were attempted in an effort to integrate Public Education. But housing segregation and matters of class and race prejudice constantly blocked efforts to desegregate Public Education (Rogers, D., 1968 p. 20).
By the late 50's, the debate began to evolve around who was running the schools. This and other policy and governance questions began to be contested. Couple the issue of racial matters with education issues and issues surrounding the future of a community and we can understand why heated battles were fought. One of the earliest Black leaders to emerge in the 1950's–60's Civil Rights era in New York City was the Rev. Milton Galamison. Galamison was the pastor at Siloam Presbyterian Church, located on Jefferson Avenue and Marcy Avenue in the Bedford-Stuyvesant section of Brooklyn. His congregation at that time was the middle class of the Central Brooklyn community, but the Rev. Galamison was solidly supported by the Black poor and he reciprocated (Rogers, D., 1968). Juan Gonzalez, a columnist in the Daily News, who knew Rev. Galamison wrote:
"If Galamison were alive today, Al Sharpton would seem like some novice member of the choir." (Gonzalez, J., 1995)
Between 1953 and 1966, Galamison with his ever-present associate, Mrs. Annie Stein, a white and Jewish parent organizer and the organization, Parents Workshop for Equality, led a challenge to the politics and authority of the New York City Board of Education (Rogers, D., 1968).
"Black parents fed up with poor reading scores, rundown schools and a Board of Education that rarely paid attention to them, conducted widespread boycott of the schools in 1964 and 1965 and several sit-ins at the Board's headquarters. At the head of every protest was Galamison, a minister who began advocating for better schools right after Brown" (Gonzalez, J., 1995).
In the image of his idol Frederick Douglass, Rev. Galamison was an effective debater, he often wrote articles for the op-ed pages of the local newspapers and was present at every major event impacting his community. While Galamison forged momentous coalitions with more middle class organizations like the NAACP, Urban League, and later C.O.R.E., he was never hesitant to repudiate his former allies and strike out boldly.
Such was his work with the Citywide Committee for Integrated Schools, a broad based coalition composed of civil rights groups, labor, white liberals groups, and Puerto Rican representation that worked together to pull off city-wide boycotts that emptied the schools of half a million students in February and March of 1964. (Rogers, D., 1968) By mid-1964, Galamison was the undisputed leader of Black school protests and a popular figure on the New York City scene. Other parents, educators, and civil rights organizations emerged in the 1950's and early 60's with various viewpoints and programs with the respect to the integration of Public Education.
In 1963, in response to a Board of Education plan to pair two elementary schools in Queens to achieve racial integration, White parents resisted and formed Parents and Taxpayers (PAT) headed by Rosemary Gunning. (Rogers, D., 1968) PAT organized chapters in white residential neighborhoods from Jackson Heights and Howard Beach in Queens to Bay Ridge in Brooklyn and white ethnic areas in the Bronx, Manhattan, and Staten Island. PAT put forth the concept of the neighborhood school, a concept that advocated that elementary education is about sending your child to local areas to feel a sense of security and cultural identification with the institution (Gittell, M. and Hevesi, A., 1969). By making the neighborhood school concept a political issue PAT blocked further integration schemes by forcing Professional educators and elected representatives to respect their political clout in considering their future activities (Rogers, D., p.82). PAT became very successful in the late 60's. They formed the base of the state's Conservative Party, defeated a referendum on a civilian complaint police review board and elected a Conservative Republican, James Buckley, to the U.S. Senate from New York State. It is ironic that Blacks' acceptance of the neighborhood school concept set the stage for events after 1966 (Rogers, D., 1968 p. 99).
The moderate groups held the balance of power in the struggle over school desegregation and policy during these turbulent times. The U.P.A. (United Parents Association) represented the respected grassroots voice and Public Education Association (P.E.A.) the old line, respectable, establishment elite within the chamber of decision-making. Both saw the need for change but their concern for order and their fears about white flight from New York City's public schools made them slow to act. They embraced the lofty goal of "keeping politics out of Public Education" while they made decisions that were very political. (Rogers, D., 1968 p. 165–192)
Thus, UPA, PEA, and other members of the centrist coalition that held covert educational power on issues of governance and policy came late to the question of decentralization of schools.
Moderates within the Black community included such groups as the NAACP, the national Urban League and CORE (Congress Of Racial Equality). The NAACP, after a slow start on issues of desegregation in northern cities became more involved in the early 1960's. Local NAACP branches, more middle-class and better educated than most grassroots Blacks, reacted to issues rather than initiate conflict and favored negotiation rather than confrontation and demonstrations. The NAACP favored using the courts and lawsuits as effective weapons against segregation. Paul Zuber, a young Harlem-based African American lawyer, was effective in winning several cases that brought change in the 1960's. The Urban League's role as a researcher and information dispenser provided an invaluable resource in the 1960's.
CORE, another civil rights organization of the era, was smaller and less influential as compared to the NAACP. But CORE was organically connected to the Black urban grassroots communities. After 1965, CORE joined the ranks of educational militants embracing Black Power. Its chapters in Brooklyn, Harlem and the Bronx were in the forefront of the struggle for community control of schools. (Rogers, D., 1968 p. 106–112)
By September of 1963, Galamison and the Parents Workshop For Equality began to assemble the militant coalition that would provide the demands for immediate integration of schools and later issue the call for ommunity control. The Citywide Committee for Integrated Schools included Galamison and several lesser known ministers, representation of five militant NAACP branches in Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx, representation of CORE (especially Bronx, Harlem and Brooklyn Chapters) and several activist Urban League types. The Harlem Parents Committee, under the leadership of Isaiah Robinson and Mrs. Thelma Johnson organized in early 1963 to protest the conditions and quality of education in Harlem Public Schools, also joined the citywide movement and provided loyal support for Galamison's Brooklyn-based activities.
The citywide committee had the ideological and material support of at least one militant White group; EQUAL (Parents and Neighbors United for Integrated Quality education), a citywide organization formed in early 1964 with significant bases on Manhattan's Upper West Side and the Jamaica section of Queens, EQUAL was led by the outspoken Mrs. Ellen Laurie who had a long history of social work activism (Rogers, D., 1969). EQUAL supporters established the first reverse bussing plan in the United States when these white parents voluntarily agreed to send their children to all Black schools in Bedford-Stuyvesant to further the use of integration. While EQUAL had a very small following in the white community, it distinguished itself within the citywide coalition because of its excellent leadership and its commitment to the cause of immediate integration. Most EQUAL members were white, middle class, college educated, Jewish professionals (Rogers, D., p. 159). Led by Mrs. Ellen Laurie and later, Mrs. Rosalie Stutz, EQUAL published newsletters and fact sheets, enlisted the support of establishment types (Ministers, College Professors, etc.), gave testimony at hearings, and remained loyal to the objectives of immediate integration and latter community control. EQUAL's presence and visibility also helped Galamison rebuke those critics who tried to portray his movement as an all Black entity.
The middle class led Puerto Rican communities in NYC was lukewarm at the outset to overtures to join the Galamison-led movement. Several meetings occurred but failed to attract a recognized spokesperson of Puerto Rican ancestry to the visible support of the citywide coalition. Most Puerto Rican children suffered from similar symptoms of neglect as Black youngsters but Puerto Rican leadership chose blend into white educational opportunities or to obtain change through non-confrontational means. Finally in 1965 with the development of anti-poverty agencies led by Puerto Ricans, there emerged in the South Bronx a group known as the United Bronx Parents led by Mrs. Evelina Antonetty, who began to mobilize Puerto Rican parents along the style of Black parents in Harlem and Bedford-Stuyvesant (Rogers, D., 1069 p. 126). Participating in the Citywide Coalition, developing parent training programs and leading local community protests, Mrs. Antonetty became a militant voice in the Puerto Rican community for immediate change and later community power. She also played an invaluable role in uniting the majority of the grassroots Puerto Rican community with the Black community in the era between 1966 and 1968.
The City wide Coalition for Integrated Schools held three major boycotts of schools in 1964; February 16,1964 over 440,000 pupils stayed home; on March 17th 300,000 pupils stayed away from school and in September of 1964 over 20,000 students stayed home. The committee protests drew attention to the horrible conditions of schools located in all Black and Puerto Rican communities. The coalition was disbanded in the Fall of 1964 and would not be renewed until 1966 when it re-emerged as the Coalition for Community Schools. (Rogers, D. p. 130) The failure of the school officials to take any meaningful steps toward change after the protests in 1964 moved the members of this coalition away from the issue of integration and toward a solution based upon taking power over schools after the events on 1966.
New York City was not the only city in the U.S. engaged in education turmoil in the 1960's. Other large urban public school systems in the U.S. had similar struggles based around desegregation of all white schools and bringing about integration. Boston in 1965, enshrined the name of Louise Day Hicks as the defender of the neighborhood school concept. She mobilized white parents to repulse the efforts of Black parents to integrate schools in the white communities of that city (Gittell, M. and Hevesi, A., 1969).
Chicago recognized as the most segregated (housing) big city in America was beset with struggles for school reform in 1966. It was during this period that concessions toward a more "balanced staff" was accomplished as the city hired a record number of African American pedagogical staff as a step forward revamping education in the Black neighborhoods of Chicago (Gittell, M. and Hevesi, A., 1969).
Pittsburgh parents protested against overcrowding, low scores and second-class education. These protests avoided escalation as Black leaders and city fathers reached a compromise for improving schools in the Black areas of that city (Gittell, M. and Hevesi, A., 1969).
Philadelphia public schools often described as the most decrepit and under equipped in the nation was markedly improved as a result of desegregation protests. The Great Cities Project parents, raised public funds for school renovations and equipment and introduced moderate programs for school integration (Gittell, M. and Hevesi, A., 1969). New Haven, Connecticut; Washington, D.C.; Trenton, New Jersey and Milwaukee, Wisconsin are additional cities that faced protests and confrontation based around desegregation and immediate integration of public schools. Movement activists during the period traveled to colleges and cities around the nation discussing the shape of struggle in their community. In this manner the movement spread and gained new allies and supporters. By the mid-sixties public education began to replace the desegregation of public accommodation as the number one issue of national protest in the U.S. (Gittell, M. and Hevesi, A. 1969)
The principle body for policy and staff governance of schools in the United States is the school board (Chubb & Moe ___). In small school districts (i.e.: suburbs), school boards are elected and are usually closer to the communities they serve. Large school districts such as New York City are directed by an appointed board. That explains its isolation and insulation from the general public they support to serve.
The members of the New York City Board of Education is an appointed board (usually candidates from moderate backgrounds) which governs the 56,000 educators which serve the 1,200,000 pupils attending about 1,000 schools (Rogers, D. 1969). The Administrative head of the New York system is the Superintendent. In the decade from 1956–65, four superintendents: Jansen, Theobold, Gross and Donovan served as heads of the New York System. The turnover reflects the behavior of a Board that refused to take responsibility for its indecision. A failure to implement a policy was blamed on a superintendent and his contract was not renewed. The Board paid lip service to the policy of integration and when a superintendent became too ambitious or moved too slow to ward off protest and public criticism, the superintendent was replaced and the Board of Education was vindicated. The NYC Board of Education in the early 1960's was caught in a dilemma. They wanted to implement school integration with "all deliberate speed" as mandated by the courts. But they did not want to anger or incite the white middle-class parent base that resided i n the city. They wanted to prevent at all cost any further "white flight." (Rogers, D. 1969)
The board adopted the policy of open enrollment to foster integration in 1959. But a survey by an Education Advocacy group in 1962 found out that only 23% of Black parents knew and understood what the program of open enrollment was about. The board did not mandate or insure that parents, and sometimes staff, had a clear understanding of its policies or mandates. As a result, many board projects failed to accomplish their objectives. (Rogers, D. 1969) The board was responsive to organize political pressure and changed easily. A bussing and pairing scheme for 25 schools to improve integration was set to go into operation for September 1964 (as a response to Galamison's protest of February 1964). In August of 1964, PAT leaders made threats of disruptions. The Board of Education responded by cutting the bussing and pairing scheme to five schools.
With a selection committee controlled by establishment (Bar Association, University Presidents, U.P.A. and P.E.A.), moderate members were overwhelming white (usually by 1956, one Black member served) and insulated from the majority of pupils it served. If an occasional board member bolted from the team and violated protocol, it was understood his/her term would not be renewed at the end of their time of service. It is fair to say that most members who served were no match for the situations they faced. (Rogers, D. 1969)
During the years from 1956–65, there were a key number of issues that provoked controversy between the NYC Board of Education and the communities they sought to serve. (Gittell, M. and Hevesi, A. 1969)
On the top of the list was the locations of new schools (especially High Schools and Middle Schools), the zoning lines that decided the racial make-up of their pupil population. If the board was adhering to a policy of desegregation it was essential that all new schools be build with a plan for integration. Junior High Schools 275, 258 and 61 in Brooklyn were all built in fringe areas that would allow them to draw white students from one area and Black students from an adjoining neighborhood. If these plans for integration were not suitable for Black parents, protests and lawsuits were the accompanying result. If white parents were unhappy with the integration of a particular school, it would bring about white flight or removal of their children from public education. New High Schools were constructed with plans to bus children from Black neighborhoods to achieve integration. At Canarsie High School in Brooklyn when Black students arrived by bus, riots broke out by white parents who objected to Black children "invading" their neighborhood to achieve integration. Many external, political and economic institutional forces exerted their influence upon the Board of Education to build schools and zone them to preserve homogenous school populations. (Rogers, D. 1969)
If Black children are failing and not getting an equal education then it is the job of the Board of Education to provide compensatory program to bring their education to the level of other children. The struggle over extra tutorial programs and compensatory education was a bitterly fought issue. Why should Black students receive additional money, staff and programs that are not available to whites? Many white districts accepted limited numbers of 'minority' pupils so as to be eligible to receive additional funding.
Black parents also demanded the teaching of Black History and the revamping of curriculum to reflect a wider view of society. Many parent groups protested books and other educational materials that depicted Blacks in a servile and apathetic manner. Questions of self-image and outlook of students became important parts of evaluating a school program. Parents from all communities sought a re-examination of school curriculum. From this agitation has emanated the body of material referred to as Multicultural Education. (Banks, J. 1994)
Many groups during this period advocated for improved methods of teacher recruitment and the assignment of administrative personnel. The Chicago system, with 38% of the student body African American, had only 6% of its teachers African American. In New York City while 32% of 1.1 million pupils were African American, 7% of the teachers were African American. (Clarke, K. 1966) Dr. Kenneth Clarke wrote of this situation in 1966:
"Negroes seldom move up the ladder of promotion in urban school systems. There are only six Negroes out of more than 1,200 top level administrators in New York City, and three Negroes out of 800 are full Principals. Practically all of the Negroes are to be found quite far down in the Organizationally hierarchy—a fact discouraging in the extreme to Negro teachers and indirectly damaging to the self-image of Negro children who rarely see Negroes in posts of authority." (Clarke, K. 1966)
The decentralization of administrative function was the final major issue that caused confrontation. The Central Board of Education controlled everything from trivial matters like providing light bulbs, doorknobs and erasers to major matters like transportation facilities. (Rogers, D. 1969 p. 211) The board was especially opposed to decisions that might re-distribute power to local boards and allow for greater involvement. Thus the constant push and pull developed with community and civic groups who sought to assert their impact on a failing system.
"District Superintendent Schapp told angry parents who did not want their children transferred that this was a headquarters' decision. Executive Deputy Superintendent Nathan Brown told parents the district superintendents had the option to develop plans. A Bronx politician representing the parents pointed out on a TV news report that this was another example of how the board constantly lies to the community." ( Rogers, D. 1969 p.86)
The Road to Ocean Hill-Brownsville (1966–1968)
The year 1965 marks the final chapter in the New York City Board of
Education's attempts to integrate the public school system. (Rogers, D.
1969) From this point on, the emphasis shifts to an evaluation of the
governance mechanism and how it can be changed.
The U.S. Office of Education report on "Equality of Education Opportunity" or often referred to as the Coleman Report provides several departures that became topics for discussion and debate. First, the report emphasizes that responsibility to create educational achievement lies with the educational institution not the child. This recognition shifted the failure of Black children to the inequality of educational opportunity provided by segregated and powerless schools. (Gittell, M. and Hevesi, A 1969 p. 84)
Secondly, the report held schools accountable to concerned parents and community groups for their failure to achieve. And held up the area of governance to greater scrutiny and questioning.
The Mayor is the highest elected official of the City of New York. He is expected to use the power of his office to give guidance and direction in all areas of public life. Mayor Robert F. Wagner, who governed between 1953 to 1965, provided little direction in all areas relating to public education (Rogers, D.1969). Despite this obvious failure of leadership, several moderate educational groups gave him an award in 1965. He had preserved the Status Quo in Urban Education.
In the Mayoral Elections of 1965, Black voters crossed party lines and helped elect John V. Lindsay, a Republican-Liberal, mayor of New York City. Lindsay had run on a platform to lessen the power of established education power groups. Unlike his predecessor Wagner, Lindsay vowed to intervene in educational policy matters.
So as 1966 came around, a new mood was emerging. On a march in rural Mississippi in June of 1966, an event occurred.
"Willie Ricks, whom the world at large has barely noticed so far, must rank as one of those unknown heroes who captured the mood of history. In calling for Black Power, he caught the essence of the spirit moving Black people in the United States and around the world who were poor, Black, and without power" (Forman, J. 1972). Stokeley Carmichael, the chairperson of SNCC (Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee) in 1956 described this new concept, Black Power, as the "full participation in the decision-making process affecting the lives of Black people" (Berube, M and Gittell, M. 1969). Community control had been exercised by the white parents of PAT when they declared the Neighborhood School concept. The concept of community control offered to the Black community the opportunity to restructure public institutions so they will accomplish the ends they were designed to achieve (Berube, M. and Gittell, M. 1969).
During this period an increased measure of pride and racial identity impacted Black urban communities. The feeling that "the only way a Black child can learn was to be seated alongside a white child" began to be repudiated. (Gittell, M and Hevesi, A. 1969 p.328) Black parents began to demand the control and power to create quality educational institutions in their own communities. They were beginning to realize that if schools in their own communities were going to be effective, they were going to have to become more involved. Black parents were beginning to take responsibilities for problems in their own communities. This would come into fruition with the I.S. 201 controversy.
Harlem is the oldest and most famous African American neighborhood in New York City. Harlem was notorious because of the poor quality of education in its public schools. 87% of Harlem students are below grade level in reading and mathematics. Two-thirds of Harlem's pupils drop out of school before graduation from high school. (Clarke, J.H. 1969) When I.S. 201 was proposed as a new middle school in 1958 parents objected to the proposed site because it would create another segregated school In 1966, a year before opening, superintendent of N.Y.V. Public Schools, Bernard Donovan, promised parents the school would be integrated, related to a university and accompanied by special programs. As early as March of 1966, parents began organizing and demanding the board keep its promises or that the school be turned over to community groups to operate. (Clarke, J.H. 1969)
In September of 1966, angry Harlem parents boycotted I.S. 201. Reporter Martin Mayer wrote "Future historians will have no difficulty dating precisely the moment of decision that the New York schools could not be significantly integrated." The successful boycott brought concessions from a reeling Board of Education. Parents could select the school's top administrator (Principal) and have a role in governing the school. (Berube, M. and Gittell, M. 1969 p. 13)
Parent boycotts spread rapidly all over the city and the concept of community control spread with them. In December of 1966, a "People's Board" sat in at the Board of Education headquarters for three days and conducted three days of hearings in an attempt to coordinate parent demands and protest activities. Galamison, now swept with this new phase of the struggle, tried to resurrect a Citywide Coalition for Community Control of Public Schools. He was now as elder statesman as this new phase, community control, had its own group of grassroots parent leaders and anti-poverty organizational support base. (Rogers, D. 1968 p.102)
The I.S. 201 controversy, the People's Board sit-in, and other community protests provided the precise climate for Mayor John V. Lindsay to make his move. In April of 1967, he established a decentralization panel, under an act passed by the State legislature, to consider a plan for "The creation and redevelopment of education policy and administrative units…with adequate authority to foster greater community initiative and participation in the development of education policy to achieve greater flexibility in the administration of the schools." (Rogers, D. 1968 p. 475) The panel included as chairperson McGeorge Bundy, who was the president of the Ford Foundation. The panel report became known informally as the Bundy Report. The Bundy Report recommendations called for the immediate decentralization of the system into 30–60 autonomous districts run by local school boards composed of parents and representatives selected by the Mayor and central education agencies. The local boards would have power over staffing, curriculum, budgets and e ducational policy decisions. The central board would retain powers of service, support and review. The report called for the abolition of the Board of Examiners and the reliance on national Teachers Examinations and State Certification of teachers and supervisors. The report entitled "Reconnection for Learning" also recommended the board retain authority to run specialized schools (those for the handicapped and deaf) and advanced high schools like Stuyvesant, Bronx Science and Brooklyn Tech (Rogers, D. 1968 p. 476). The stage was now set for a major change in the structure and governance of New York City Public Schools. One group now stood in the path of change; the Professional staff of the school system stood opposed to change.
The United Federation of Teachers was the official bargaining agent for teachers since 1961. Teacher unionism was an outgrowth of the post World War II era. In New York City with over 50,000 teachers, more than 100 groups were vying for the right to represent teachers prior to 1960. The teachers' guild evolved into the United Federation of Teachers in 1961 and became the sole bargaining agent for teachers by 1963. The Union campaigned for decreased class size, more teacher preparation, and More ffective Schools Programs aimed at providing compensatory education for low income districts. The Union's main concern was the professionalizing of the teaching career with decent wages and job security (Rogers, D. 1968 p.192–193).
In the 50's and early 60's, the teacher's union provided material and verbal support for the Southern-based Civil Rights Movement and the struggles against apartheid in South Africa.
In 1964, Albert Shanker succeeded the founding president, Charles Coogan and a new chapter of the Union's history began. Shanker, a native New Yorker, and graduate of Stuyvesant High School, had a reputation as a liberal on racial matters (American Teacher, 1997). On his ascension to leadership, he was meet by community demands such as mandatory transfer of experienced teachers into low-performing schools, better handling of discipline-problem students, bonus pay and salary adjustment for teachers as inducements to attract more experienced staff to minority schools, and support of protests and demonstrations as it had supported civil disobedience in the South. (Rogers, D. 1968 p. 193) Shanker was caught between the conservative, career-oriented concerns of the bulk of his membership and the over-increasing demands of his leadership of a progressive labor organization. He might go to a delegate assembly and hear his teachers speaking in support of the Neighborhood School Concept and the following day be a speaker at an NAACP gathering calling for the immediate integration of public schools During Galamison's first boycott in 1964, the Union privately encouraged its members to honor civil rights picket lines. (Rogers, D.1967 p. 195) Shanker tried to reconcile these differences in a December 1966 article in the American Teacher:
"The conflict between teachers and parents in the ghetto is most tragic. It is tragic because the parents do not see that massive educational failure cannot be explained by a single good-teacher, bad-teacher theory for the truth is that both teachers and students are being destroyed by a rotten system. It is tragic because that system can be changed only if parents and teachers enter into a partnership for educational revolution—a partnership which is made impossible if parents blame educational disasters on bad teachers and teachers blame it on bad parents." (Rogers, D. 1968 p.198)
From this point on conditions between U.F.T. and protesting parent groups only become worst. The unions refused to support the Harlem parents at I.S. 201 and its decision to campaign for a Disruptive Child Cause in 1967, were the final action destroyed any union-parent compromise.
In the spring of 1967, the union raised the "Disruptive Child Clause" as part of its contract demands. (Podair, J.E. 1994) The Clause permitted a teacher to remove any seriously misbehaving student from the classroom and have him/her placed in a so-called special service school. In a series of conferences called in 1967 (Detroit and Chicago) by the American Federation of Teachers, Black Caucus members questioned the commitment of white unionist to challenge the racism within public education. Some of these teachers formed separate organizations. In New York City, the African American Teachers Association (A.T.A.) was formed. (Clarke, J.H. 1967 p.18) Albert Vann, president of A.T.A., had an angry public challenge with Albert Shanker in 1967. Vann argued that the 'disruptive child clause' symbolized white misunderstanding and disparagement of the values of the lower-class Black community. He explained that the very concept of a 'disruptive child' was an expression of white cultural bias against Black children who had a negative reaction to the middle-class values of the education system and surrounding social environment. (Podair, J.E. 1994) Shanker sought to convince Vann that the disruptive child clause would in fact help such children receive "special treatment." Vann answered that special service schools were "dumping grounds" and urged Shanker to be more concerned with matters of moral and social justice. (Podair, J.E. 1994)
In the Fall of 1967, the U.F.T. conducted a two week strike aimed in large measure at obtaining the disruptive child clause. African American teachers sided with militant parents who managed to keep open about a third of the City schools despite the strike. The Union ended the strike and the disruptive child clause was referred to an independent panel for discussion. The Union's relations with parents in Black and minority communities completely deteriorated after the 1967 strike. Teacher-power and parent-power were on a collision course (Berube, M. and Gittell, M. 1969 p.14).
The other opponent to decentralization of the public schools was the Council of Supervisory Association (C.S.A.) C.S.A. was formed in 1963 by the union of various supervisory associations and was composed of principals, district superintendents, administrative assistants, assistant principals and other upper level staff. C.S.A. was virtually an all-white organization (only 6 Black supervisors existed in the entire N.Y.C. system as late as 1964). (Rogers, D. 1968 p. 287)
C.S.A. opposed all plans and methods of school desegregation. They openly supported PAT and the Neighborhood School Concept, C.S.A. members distorted figures of demonstrations and protest, and undermined the efforts of community parents to receive a fair hearing of their grievances. They blocked the implementation of Board of Education plans and obstructed all efforts to bring about integration of the schools (Rogers, D. 1969 p. 303).
When the change in tactics occurred and Black community parents backed Community Control of decentralization, C.S.A. membership feared further disruption within the established order and suspected their leadership would be undermined by such a governance relationship. They wrote a scathing rebuke of the Bundy plan for decentralization presented in 1967. C.S.A. ignored the crisis and insulted the parents and community critics of the school system. They vehemently upheld the impartially of the Board of Examiners although many independent panels had labeled the institution biased. (Gittell, M. and Hevesi, A. 1969 p.277)
C.S.A. used money and lawsuits to block efforts towards peaceful change in public education. From 1967 to 1969, C.S.A. engaged in an informal alliance with U.F.T., which brought together two factions of the pedagogical staff that formerly had been at odds with each other. (Gittell, M. and Hevesi, A. 1969 p. 367)
The press during this period played a key role in communicating the positions and demands of various players of this drama. The Amsterdam News was the African American weekly and allied itself squarely with community groups and parent movements. The New York Post (which had a long tradition of Liberalism) was the daily that supported reform the most and provided the most unbiased reporting on school events. The Daily News, while favoring reform, was lukewarm to the concept of community control. The News favored all types of constraints and review of any power given to minority communities.
The New York Times, which normally favors liberal reform, was very conservative toward changes in New York City education governance. Times reporters used provocative words like "extremist" to describe protesters. It was later revealed that a Times reporter was related to a member of the Board of Education. (Rogers, D. 1969 p. 201–206)
Confrontation as Ocean Hill-Brownsville May–November 1968
It was in the Fall of 1966; Winter of 1967 following the U.S. 201
situation; the Ford Foundation announced a coalition of forces from the
Mayor's office, New York City Board of Education, general universities and
the State Department of Education to develop an experimental program in
school decentralization. (Rogers, D. 1968) The impetus for this
experiment was the failure of the State legislator to act on
decentralization legislation despite proposals submitted by Bundy, the
Mayor and the New York State Board of Regents. Ford announced a
willingness to finance "Demonstration" districts in three city areas.
I.S. 201, because it was the hot issue, was selected, along with the
Two-Bridges area of Lower Manhattan. The Lower East Side district was
having conflict over governance led by the poverty program, Mobilization
for Youth. The third district was the Ocean Hill-Brownsville section, a
unwanted area of District 17 that was having consistent conflict because
of the extremely poor quality of education of the schools
(Gittell, M. and Hevesi, A. 1969). In developing plans for the districts,
the term, "somewhat autonomous" was used by Board officials and others in
discussing the powers of the district. It would not be until August of
1968, more than one year after the start of the project, that the powers
of the experimental districts were clarified by the board of Education.
(Berube, M. and Gittell, M. 1969)
On July 1, 1967 Ford Foundation officials gave local planning groups $44,000 to begin the process of local control. Ocean Hill-Brownsville's planning council was well-organized and they moved ahead to organize parents during the Summer of 1967 to have an election of a Community Governing Board on August 13th, 1967. I.S. 201 and Two Bridges were less prepared and their election did not occur till October of 1967. By the end of August of 1967, the Governing Board of Ocean Hill-Brownsville demonstration district (Eight schools—six elementary schools and two junior high schools) which was composed of nine parents and three community persons (Priest-Christian Minister-Teenage Youth) had been installed. The first act of the Governing Board was the appointment of Rhody A McCoy as the unit administrator (Superintendent) of the district. McCoy had been an acting principal of a 600 school (Schools for youth remanded by the courts) with 18 years experience as an educator (Gittell, M. and Hevesi, A. 1969).
On September 2, 1967 McCoy and the Governing Board approved five new principals for District Schools. Three African American, one Asian and one Puerto Rican were selected to fill vacancies. This move made headlines and sent shockwaves through the C.S.A and U.F.T. circles. On the same agenda of the September 2nd meeting, U.F.T. teachers appealed to the Governing Board to support the union strike scheduled for the opening day of school. The Governing Board voted overwhelmingly to not support the strike. Thus in the opening days of this project, two decisions taken by the Governing Board had sealed the experiment's fate with the C.S.A. and U.F.T. (Berube, M. and Gittell, M. 1969).
The C.S.A. immediately filed a suit against the five new principals (they eventually won) charging their appointment violated civil service laws. They also urged all 23 assistant principals to transfer out of district schools. They regarded the demonstration districts as off limits to C.S.A. members.
The U.F.T. leaders felt betrayed by the Planning Council and elected Governing Board and they urged their membership to take what ever action that was appropriate to voice their disapproval of what they perceived as a betrayal. This feeling of betrayal was based upon the active involvement of U.F.T. members in lobbying for Ocean Hill-Brownsville to be selected by the Ford Foundation. They had also expected a favorite principal of the area, Jack Bromfield, to be selected as the first unit administrator of the district. Bromfield soured on the experiment and transferred from the district in February of 1967 taking five assistant principals, 35 teachers and five school secretaries as he left. (Berube, M. and Gittell, M. 1969)
By the Spring of 1968 incidents and provocations had brought relations between the U.F.T. and the Ocean Hill-Brownsville Governing Board to the pinnacle of district. The Governing Board accused union teachers with not teaching, chronic absenteeism and disrespect of administrators selected by the district. The Union accused the governing board of constant harassment of its teachers.
In the Spring of 1968, Mayor Lindsay, Governor Rockefeller and the State Board of Regents appealed to the State legislature to pass a decentralization bill before adjournment. The legislature being heavily lobbied by both U.F.T. and C.S.A. refused to take action and adjourned. (Berube, M. and Gittell, M. 1969)
On May 10th, 1968 the Ocean Hill-Brownsville Governing Board announced their intention to transfer out of district nineteen supervisors accused of sabotage of the demonstration project. Superintendent Donovan told the educators to ignore the order and report to work. District parents and their supporters blocked the school doors and refused to allow the teachers to enter. After three days of blockade over 600 policemen were sent to the school (J.H.S.271) with the instruction to admit all authorized personnel. The scene exploded into charges of police brutality, racism and vigilantism. (Berube, M. and Gittell, M. 1969)
The school year June 1968 ended with the city in turmoil over the confrontation between Ocean Hill-Brownsville Governing and the U.F.T. Shanker pulled out over 500 U.F.T. teachers from all eight of the district schools and vowed they would not return until the experiment was over. The O.H.B. Governing Board vowed they would never let the 19 dismissed teachers return to the district. Over the Summer of 1968, the lines hardened.
Mayor Lindsay appointed five new members to the Board of Education including the flamboyant Rev. Milton Galamison and the board changed dramatically in favor of decentralization. McCoy and the Ocean Hill board recruited and hired 500 new teachers who replaced union teachers who had struck the district since May. Special Trail Examiner, Francis R. Rivers, who heard the case against the 19 dismissed teachers, filed to reinstate them to district schools.
In the Fall of 1968, three U.F.T. strikes extending from September till the middle of November rocked the New York City Public School system as the forces of school decentralization and community control confronted the U.F.T. and the C.S.A. The union built its case on the issue of due process and the fact that they were not going to kowtow to community militants. Community parents were adamant in their demands to have more input in the staffing of schools in their communities. On November 28th, 1968, the weekend before Thanksgiving, an agreement was reached that ended the strikes and confrontations and put the city back on the road to recovery. The agreement restored the 19 teachers to their positions (They all transferred to other districts in February of 1969). (Berube, M. and Gittell, M. 1969) The State Education Department became the caretaker authority of the Ocean Hill-Brownsville district. Several Ocean-Hill teachers and administrators faced charges of harassment. Teachers were assured of due process.
The Ocean Hill-Brownsville confrontation of 1968 had the most profound impact on New York City of any incident within the past 50 years. It filled the airways with charges of racism, extremism, anti-Semitism and other acrimonious utterings. It caused teachers who worked in city schools to refuse to speak to each other for years. Everyone took sides. You were for the U.F.T. or for the community. Many believe the racial politics of this era is still part of the political scenery of New York City to this date. In February of 1969, the State Legislature passed a decentralization law creating 32 school districts in New York City to be governed by elected school boards. The U.F.T. and C.S.A. lobbied the legislature so successfully that the bill bestowed only two (limited) powers upon local boards. The power to hire a district superintendent and the power to hire school administrators (Principals and Assistant Principals), the power to hire teachers, revamp curriculum and make budgetary allocations remained with the Central Board of Education and the Chancellor (Chancellor replace superintendent as head of schools). The 1969 legislation remained in place for 27 years when it reversed by action of the State legislature of December 18th, 1996.
The political climate and national movement that produced the changes of 1969 no longer exist, especially in the area of education.