{Iggf1“flfl DEVELOPMENT OF CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING ALTERNATIVE PATTERNS TO REDUCE SCHOOL SEGREGATIDN IN THE INNER CITY Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY HOWARD W. HICKEY 1968 "2.___ .. _-—~-.._,m ’1 f. 0'. I LIBRARY ? III/”III” W L Michigan Stan: g T. é, , .' «- V~l I’—-s~ \ ’ »' {W U ni" f 51?)! “'3 «go-um. ‘M - wicm‘zi-M This is to certify that the thesis entitled DEVELOPMENT OF CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING ALTERNATIVE PATTERNS TO REDUCE _ SCHOOL SEGREGATION IN THE INNER CITY presented bg Howard W. Hickey has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph D. degree in Educational Administration I Major prtflessor Dane October 18, 1968 0-169 ABSTRACT ALTERNATIVE PATTERNS TO REDUCE SCHOOL SEGREGATION IN THE INNER CITY By Howard W. Hickey Purpose \— The purpose of this study was to develop criteria for evaluating proposed plans to reduce school segregation. Specifically, it attempted to: 1. Identify selected existing and proposed alternative plans for school desegregation. 2. Develop criteria by which alternative plans for school desegregation can be evaluated. 3. Devise a preliminary evaluation process which will assist local school officials in evaluating alternative desegrega- tion proposals. 4. Evaluate an inner city elementary school according to the criteria and alternative plans developed in the first three phases of the study. Howard W. Hickey 5. Analyze the apparent advantages and limitations of selected tive criteria. fiview of the Literature The review of the literature revealed the scope and extent of school segregation. Seventeen states had prescribed segregated opportunity. Even during the years following that Court decision, desegregation did not become the rule of the land. The United States Commission on Civil Rights study, Eial Isolation in the Public Schools, in 1967 documented the follow- ing statistics: nearly 9 out of every 10 Negro elementary students attend majority Negro schools; school segregation in the North is increasing; urban schools are becoming increasingly black while suburban schools are nearly all white. Research done in the area of achievement by minority Students in racial isolation compared to those in desegregated settings indicates that achievement goes up as time increases in a desegregated situation. Studies of self-concept development in segregated settings generally indicate that self-concept is low. More and better studies, Howard W. Hickey however, are necessary to clearly determine the effects of segregated schooling on achievement and self—concept. School districts typically have not established objectives for desegregation nor have they developed criteria to measure how successfully a plan might meet those objectives. In some instances schools have analyzed which factors caused desegregation to fail or succeed in their specific instance. Design With this background the present study sought to establish and analyze criteria which might be used by school authorities to evaluate desegregation alternatives. Thirty-five criteria were developed and field tested with Michigan State University doctoral candidates and staff members of the College of Education. Subsequently a panel of recognized authori- ties throughout the country was asked to react to some sixty criteria assigned to the following three categories: 1. Assessment of the Current Status of the Community A. Attitudes B. Racial Composition C. Resources 11. Commitment to a Plan of Action A . Attitudes Howard W. Hickey B . Probable Outcomes 1. Racial Composition 2. Learning Patterns C. Resources III. Implementation of the Plan A. Planning and Evaluation B. Curriculum and Services C. Attitude Changes The authorities were further asked to evaluate eighteen alternative plans for school desegregation. A final instrument was devised following analysis of the responses by the panel of authorities. This instrument was made up of 69 criteria assigned to the categories listed above and fifteen alter— native plans. The instrument thus developed was then used by local school officials in a specific setting to determine its suitability in helping them to evaluate alternatives in their own situation. Findings and Conclusions 1. Identification of Existing and Proposed Alternative Plans for Desegregation. Analysis of the literature and practices used by school districts revealed that there are presently no more than ten distinct Howard W. Hickey plans for school desegregation. They include: neighborhood schools; educational parks; voluntary transfer plans; relocating attendance zones; closing minority schools; pupil assignment; organization by grades (variations on the Princeton Plan); site selection; supplemen- tary education centers; and magnet schools. 2. Analysis of the Advantages and Limitations of Selected Alternatives for School Desegregation The panel of authorities were in little agreement as to which plans provided the best opportunities for meaningful desegre- gation. The local school officials also were in considerable disagree- ment about the various alternative plans. This lack of agreement may be a significant factor blocking progress toward compliance with the Supreme Court' s mandate for school desegregation. Until the objectives for school desegregation are clearly spelled out in each specific setting, it is doubtful that agreement about a method can be reached. 3. Development of Criteria for Evaluation of Alternative Plans for School Desegregation. The sixty-nine criteria developed in this study represent the most extensive list of criteria developed thus far, but further modification and revision of these criteria will be necessary. There should also be investigation of the advantages and disadvantages of Howard W. Hickey weighting the criteria. Such an instrument as the one developed in this study can be a useful one for school officials as they attempt to develop a plan of school desegregation. 4. Evaluation of a Specific School According to the Alterna— tive Plans and Criteria Developed. Application of the instrument to a Specific setting indicates the strong potential for such an instrument. It provided guidelines for school officials to: (a) analyze their community and its readiness for school desegregation; (b) analyze various alternatives; (c) adopt a plan with good potential; (d) adapt that plan to meet their own objec- tives; and (e) evaluate its success. DEVELOPMENT OF CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING ALTERNATIVE PATTERNS TO REDUCE SCHOOL SEGREGATION IN THE INNER CITY By s“ Howard W Hickey A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Higher Education 1968 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The attainment of any worthwhile goal by an individual represents contributions to that goal by many people. This is especially true of this dissertation and the doctoral program it cul- minates. doctoral committee. Dr. Donald Leu, chairman of the doctoral com- mittee, has contributed to much more than the dissertation--he has served additionally as counselor and friend. ii Mrs. R. S. Howard, Mr. and Mrs. Henry Rahn, Mr. and Mrs. W. G. Hickey, Mr. and Mrs. Orlin Merklin, and Mr. and Mrs. John Fletcher. They have all made immeasurable contributions to the writer' 3 think- ing and well being. And finally, the writer expresses his appreciation to the Mott Foundation whose financial support provided the opportunity for the development of the concepts the dissertation explores. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF PLATES CHAPTER I. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM Introduction The Problem . . . . . . Significance of the Problem Definition of Terms Assumptions . . . . . . Delimitations of the Study Summary and Overview II. SELECTED REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE History of School Segregation in the United States . . . . . . The Colonial Period. . . . . . . From the Revolutionary War to the CivilWar Reconstruction to the Plessy-Ferguson Case........ Plessy-Ferguson to 1954 Brown v. Board of Education 1954 to 1968 The Effect of School Segregation on Learning . The Effect of School Segregation on Student Self-concept . . . . . . . Alternative Educational Plans for School Desegregation . . . . . . . . . . Establishment of Neighborhood Schools Educational Parks . . . . . . iv Page vii p... OCDOOQADOH 13 l4 17 22 28 34 39 44 49 55 57 57 CHAPTER page Voluntary Transfer Plans . . . . . . . . . 59 Relocating Attendance Zones . . . . . . . . 61 Closing Minority Schools . . . . . . . . . . 62 Pupil Assignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Organization by Grades . . . . . . . . . . 66 Site Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Supplementary Centers . . . . . . . . . . 68 Magnet Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . \Ziy III. ESTABLISHMENT OF CRITERIA FOR SCHOOL DESEGREGATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Criteria Which Have Been Established . . . . . 73 Format for Establishment of Criteria . . . . . 79 Analysis of Responses by Panel of Judges . . . 82 An Instrument to Evaluate Alternative Plans for School Desegregation . . . . . . . . . 106 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 IV. EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS IN AN INNER CITY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL . . . . 115 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 The Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 Evaluation Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 Analysis of the Responses . . . . . . . . . . 128 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 V. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDA- TIONS................. 153 Introduction . . . . . . 153 Findings and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . 154 Recommendations 1 7 O BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 APPENDIX A. QUESTIONNAIRE TO FIELD TEST THE CONCEPT . A QUESTIONNAIRE TO ASSIST DEVELOPMENT OF AN INSTRUMENT TO EVALUATE ALTER- NATIVE PATTERNS FOR SCHOOL DESEGREGA- TION RESPONDENTS TO QUESTIONNAIRE AN INSTRUMENT TO EVALUATE ALTERNA— TIVE PATTERNS FOR SCHOOL DESEGREGA— TION PLANS EVALUATED . PLAN OF ACTION vi Page 178 183 202 203 217 222 PLATE III-1 III-2 III-3 III-4 III-5 III-6 III—7 III-8 III-9 III-10 III-11 III-12 III-13 III-14 LIST OF PLATES Assessment of Status of Community Attitudes Assessment of Status of Community Composition . . Assessment of Status of Community Resources Examination of Alternative Plans Commitment to a Plan of Action--Attitudes Commitment to a Plan of Action~-Probable Outcomes: Racial Composition Commitment to a Plan of Action-~Probable Outcomes: Learning Patterns . Commitment to a Plan of Action-—Resources Implementation of the Plan--Planning and Evaluation . Implementation of the Plan~-Curriculum and Services Implementation of the Plan--Attitude Changes . Analysis of Section Parts Analysis of Sections Evaluation Flow Chart vii Page 86 86 88 93 94 96 96 98 99 101 101 103 104 110 PLATE IV-1 IV-2 IV—3 IV—4 IV-5 IV-6 IV—7 IV-8 IV—9 IV-IO IV-ll Percent of Non-white Pupils . Stanford Achievement Battery Median Scores Attitudes Probable Outcomes-~Racial Composition Probable Outcomes — - Learning Patterns Resources Commitment to a Plan of Action Analysis of the Evaluators' Responses to the Plans . . . . Planning and Evaluation . Curriculum and Services Attitude Changes . viii Page 123 124 136 138 140 142 143 145 146 148 149 CHAPTER I STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM Introduction In 1954 the United States Supreme Court rendered a sig— nificant decision in the case of Brown v. Topeka Board of Education. This decision reversed the Court' 8 "separate but equal" doctrine established in the case of Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896. During the fifty—eight years between these two historic cases, states and local school districts had been given broad discretion in determining poli— cies to implement a ”separate but equal" school system. Under the provisions of the 1954 decision segregated edu- cation is ruled inherently unequal. But even partial enforcement of the court ruling required another ten years. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the subsequent passage of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in 1965 provided a legal structure whereby the Courts and the United States Office of Education could exert pressure which would force segregated school districts to desegregate. Token desegregation in many Southern cities served to remove them from the public eye. In 1964 June Shagaloff quoted some startling figures, "For the deep Southern states only 1% of the total number of Negro children are now attending desegregated schools. " Meanwhile, many large cities in the North, while appalled by flagrant violation by Southern schools, found many of their schools becoming increasingly segregated. School officials in Washington, D. C. , reported 1967 enrollment was 95% Negro, while Chicago and Detroit now enroll more than 50% Negroes. Surrounding these large city districts are suburban schools with few minority students. The result is that more Negro students attend segregated schools today than did in 1954 or 1964. First attempts by the United States Office of Education to force Chicago to adopt a desegregation plan or lose ten million dollars of federal aid under Public Law 89-10 were successfully beaten down following political intervention by the mayor' 3 office in Chicago and Congressional pressure from Illinois representatives. Similar fate befell the U. S. Office when it tried to apply pressure in Boston. In spite of such temporary setbacks, it has become increasingly clear that the law of the land will demand equal educa- tional opportunity through desegregated schooling. The concern for 1June Shagaloff, A Symposium on School Integration (East Lansing: Michigan State University, 1964), p. 37. compliance with civil rights legislation is being supplemented with the concern for the means to be utilized to accomplish desegregation of schools. concerned. uating proposed plans to reduce school segregation. It is with this problem of desegregation that this study is The Problem The purpose of this study is to develop criteria for eval- Specifically, this study is an effort to: 1. Identify selected existing and proposed alternative plans for school desegregation. Develop criteria by which alternative plans for school desegregation can be evaluated. Devise a preliminary evaluation process which will assist local school officials in evaluating alternative desegrega- tion proposals. Evaluate an inner city elementary school according to the criteria and alternative plans developed in the first three phases of the study. Analyze the apparent advantages and limitations of selected alternative plans for desegregation in one school setting. ( 4..wa nae: M-Mf . ._ 6. Suggest needed additional research in developing evalua— tive criteria. Significance of the Problem The prevailing attitude of many Americans during the 1950's and 60' s was echoed by Eric Hofferz as he made the point that the Negro must "win" equality. The events in major American cities during the summers of 1966, 1967, and 1968, however, convinced many people in power positions that the white man has some stake as well in the equality between races. Gunnar Myrdal, 3 in An American Dilemma, in 1944 questioned the morality of holding out our American Creed on the one hand, and in discriminating against minority Americans, on the other, on the basis of racial or ethnic differences. The militant black power groups are now speaking to the dilemma--they no longer accept a professed belief by whites in the equality of all mankind; they want white behavior which will implement that belief—~and now. It is against this background of urgency that many school leaders analyze desegregation plans. 2Eric Hoffer, The Temper of Our Times (New York: Harper and Row, 1966), p. 132. Gunnar Myrdal, An American Dilemma (New York: Harper and Row, 1944), p. xlvii. John Gardner, 4 aware of the many refinements of equality, points out, "It is only proper to recognize that even if society achieved perfect equality of opportunity, it would still invariably favor those whose gifts fit the requirements of that society. " It is in this mood that the Skelley Wright-Hansen case in Washington, D. C. , struck down an educational tracking system which served to prohibit lower class citizens from ever achieving the "gifts” Gardner mentions as so necessary. It appears that school leaders too often have been repres- sors rather than initiators of action to implement desegregation plans. But within the last several years many plans have been developed to treat varying degrees of school desegregation. Where some school systems have had sufficient lead time to develop sound alternatives, most have not utilized it. We are more likely, as time goes on with only token desegregation, to see more cases similar to the New Rochelle, New York, decision of January 24, 1961. Judge Irving Kaufman decreed that the Board of Education prepare a plan to de- segregate the Lincoln Elementary School, made up of 95% Negro In children as opposed to a district—wide figure of 18% Negroes. order to insure full compliance the court took jurisdiction over the 4John Gardner, Excellence (New York: Harper and Row, 1961). pp. 12-13. case through 1964. 5 When the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari in December, 1962, the Board began to plan in earnest. In a little more than four months the district produced a plan implemented in the fall of 1963. A more dramatic case of forced desegregation occurred in Michigan with the dissolution of the Carver School District in suburban Detroit in November of 1960. This largely Negro district was attached to the predominantly white Oak Park District by state order as a result of the Michigan Attorney General' 5 opinion number 3568, dated November 7, 1960. This forced attachment, the result of other than racial basis, indicates how school and community forces can develop mean- ingful alternatives under duress. Clifford May documented the many steps taken to prevent all-out warfare, and credits ". . . the positive and unequivocating leadership provided by Oak Park School officials and influential persons and organizations in the community [as] the crucial factor in the implementation of the attachment order. " And David G. Salten, "The Organization of Integrated School Districts: The New Rochelle Story, ” in Michigan State University, A Symposium on School Integration (East Lansing: Michigan State University, 1964), pp. 27-37. Clifford May, "Forced Attachment of Two Culturally 6 Differing School Districts: A Problematic Analysis” (unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Wayne State University, 1963), 285 pages. 7Ibid., p. 249 -C .V. r-A Try. “Iv . #4.: NJ; . . a u i e~ while segregation in elementary schools still exists in the district, most of the problems predicted in the early stages of the attachment never came to pass. The Skelley Wright—Hansen decision relative to Washing- ton, D. C. , indicates that the Courts will not settle for simple desegregation of boundaries, but will look at what happens within those borders. Cases now pending in Courts across the country will have perhaps greater effect in insuring true equal educational oppor- tunity than have those prior to the present. Definition of Terms Prejudice will be regarded as a system of negative con- ceptions, feelings, and action-orientations regarding the members of a particular group. Discrimination entails overt action in which members of a group are accorded unfavorable treatment on the basis of their membership in that group. It should be noted that prejudice and discrimination can occur singly, either one without the other, as well as occurring together. —___ James W. Vander Zanden, American Minority Relations (New York: The Ronald Press Co. , 1966), p. 8. 91bido: pp. 8’9. Desegregation refers to the removal of legal and social . . . . 10 barriers which are based on ra01a1 or ethnic membership. Its primary result is to remove discrimination. Integration occurs with the elimination of prejudice as well as discrimination, and hence refers to much more than desegre- gation. Self—concept is the reported View of self as measured by paper and pencil tests. A positive view of self is characterized by a reservoir of self-confidence, identification with others, openness to experience and acceptance, and a rich and available perceptual field. 12 Assumptions Any study must be based on some broad assumptions upon which its development depends. This study relies on these assump- tions: 1. The purposes of education, in addition to the traditional goals set, ". . . are the development of critical thinking, 10Ibid., p. 10. 11Ibid. 2Arthur Combs, Perceiving, Behaving, Becoming: A New Focus (New York: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1962), pp. 50-64. effective communication, creative skills, and social, civic, and occupational competence. "13 2. Desegregation is a responsibility of the school as well as of other social institutions. 3. The topic of school desegregation is timely and requires study. 4. Some alternative methods for school desegregation are superior to others in a specific situation. 5. Objective evaluation of potential alternative plans will produce a desegregation plan in a specific setting with greater likelihood for meeting its objectives. Delimitations of the Study The most serious limitation to a thesis type study is the human limitations of the researcher. It is recognized that the par- ticular orientation of a researcher makes him subject to errors of omission and commission. The survey of the literature has been broadened in an attempt to limit errors of the first type. The eval- uation of an inner city school utilizing the criteria and alternative patterns for desegregation plans deveIOped through the study is an I attempt to minimize errors of the second type. —-__ 3Myron Lieberman, The Future of Public Education (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1960), p. 17. 10 The study will be further delimited to a study of an ele— mentary inner city school in which the majority of students are low income Negroes. No single, simple plan can or should be expected to pro- vide a panacea for school desegregation. The whole arena of race relations is in such a state of change that one study can only begin to provide proper questions for which many of the answers are un- doubtedly beyond the scope of a dissertation. Summary and Overview The problem of racial integration and desegregation has been called the most important issue of our time by many outstand- ing authorities in a variety of fields. The problem will be solved or fail to be solved partly as the result of the kind of intervention by the school. The writer will develop and maintain a position relative to school desegregation, therefore the format is a thesis. 14 The review of the literature will investigate the history of school segre- gation and its effect on learning and self-concept. The review will further investigate alternative plans for school desegregation which 14Webster' 8 New Twentieth Century Dictionary (New York: Rockville House Publishers, Inc., 1965), p. 1778. 11 have been utilized by some school systems and plans which have been proposed in the literature. A set of criteria will be developed to evaluate alternative plans for school desegregation. These criteria will be evaluated by recognized experts across the country who have contributed to the field of knowledge or are associated with education and the civil rights movement. The study will then evaluate selected alternative plans for school desegregation in a Grand Rapids inner city elementary school. The concluding chapter will present findings, conclusions, and recommendations. The format for the study will be developed as follows: Chapter 11 Selected Review of the Literature A. History of School Segregation in the United States B. The Effect of School Segregation on Learning C. The Effect of School Segregation on Student Self-concept D. Alternative Educational Plans for Desegregation Chapter III Establishment of Criteria for School Desegregation 12 Chapter IV Evaluation of Alternative Plans in an Inner City Elementary School in Grand Rapids, Michigan Chapter V Findings, Conclusions, and Recommenda- tions CHAPTER II SELECTED REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The review of the literature is primarily directed at the following areas: 1. The history of school segregation in the United States; 2. The effect of school segregation on learning; 3. The effect of school segregation on student self-concept; 4. Alternative educational plans for school desegregation. History of School Segregation in the United States The momentous Supreme Court decision of May 17, 1954, has resulted in thousands of school board members, teachers, admin— istrators, and citizens raising questions about the past, present, and future of Negro and white education. This concern about the educa- tion of the Negro minority is not new. Nor are the controversy and conflict which have accompanied desegregation plans a recent devel- opment. 13 F' 9.. \I .s ~-1 A 14 The Colonial Period Historians have not been able to agree on the arrival date of the first black man to this country. Franklin1 places the arrival of the first Africans in 1619, shortly after the arrival of the Pilgrims. Paul2 notes that Negroes came to North Carolina in 1526 as slaves with Spanish settlers in the Cape Fear region of that state. Pierce, Kincheloe, Moore, Drewry, and Carmichael3 agree with Franklin, but Clift4 suggests that Pedro Alonso Nino of the Columbus crew was a Negro. And Clift adds that 30 Negroes accompaned Balboa when he discovered the Pacific Ocean. Estevanico, a Negro, was one of the outstanding explorers who opened up New Mexico and Arizona for the Spanish. Brickman5 documents the arrival of the 1John Hope Franklin, ”Two Worlds of Race: A Historical View, " in Talcott Parsons and Kenneth B. Clark, The Negro Ameri- gag (Boston: Beacon Press, 1965). p. 47. 2James C. N. Paul, Law and Government (Chapel Hill, N.C.: Institute of Government, 1954), p. 5. 3Trumen M. Pierce, James B. Kincheloe, R. Edgar Moore, Galen N. Drewry, and Bennie E. Carmichael, White and Negro Schools in the South (Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice—Hall, Inc., 1955), p. 26. 4Virgil A. Clift, "The History of Racial Segregation in American Education, " in William M. Brickman and Stanley Lehrer, The Countdown on Segregated Education (New York: Society for the Advancement of Education, 1960T, p. 20. 5William W. Brickman, "Chronological Outline of Racial Segregation and Integration in U. S. Schools, " in William M. Brick- man and Stanley Lehrer, The Countdown on Segregated Education (New York: Society for the Advancement of Education, 1960), p, 152, 15 first Negro slaves, twenty in all, to Jamestown. Their arrival date, 1619, may explain the disparity between Franklin and Pierce 31.511" and the other researchers. A Virginia statute recognized slavery as legal in 1661, 6 but the slave trade had opened formally in 1517, when Bishop Las Casas encouraged immigration to the New World by permitting Spaniards to import twelve Negroes each. 7 From the beginning, the Negroes were not considered even as second class citizens, but as real property of the white man. A few Negroes were taught to read the Scriptures by missionaries of the Church of England, who were sent out as early as 1695 by the Society for the Propagation of the GOSpel in Foreign Parts. The Quakers also attempted to provide some limited educa— tion for Negroes. Additionally, some Negroes who were apprenticed out were taught to read and write. 9 But further efforts to educate slaves in the South were generally discouraged on the grounds that education would be a factor in destroying slavery, although the Society for the Propagation of the GOSpel did set up a short lived 6Ibid. 7Clift, op. cit., p. 20. 8Franklin, op. cit., p. 48. 9Pierce et a1., op. cit., p. 27. 16 school for Negroes in Charleston, S. C. , as late as the early 18th century. In this school the teachers themselves were slaves owned by that Society. 10 George Fox, a Pennsylvania Quaker leader, urged slave owners to give their slaves religious instruction. In 1700 William Penn was instrumental in getting a Monthly Meeting established. But these efforts to provide limited education to a small number of slaves in the South were based either on the attempt of the slave owner to increase the value of this real property or on the more altruistic missionary Spirit of the church--here were souls to be saved. While many Northern colonists had bought slaves, many of them treated them as indentured servants and eventually released them. These colonists provided the first education of any consequence for their slaves and the freed Negroes. 1 The Negro in New England benefited from intellectual activities much more than his Southern counterpart. In 1674, John Eliot turned his attention from improvement of Indian life to instruct- ing Negroes. Cotton Mather took time, also, to teach Negroes, and in 1717 began his evening school for Indians and Negroes. In 1728 Nathaniel Piggot announced that he was opening a school for the 10Clift, op. cit., p. 22. 1 11bid. 17 instruction of Negroes in reading, but there is no record of its suc- cess or failure. 12 The evidence of the first formal integrated education was that carried on by several New England religious groups in the first half of the. 18th century. 13 The first specific documentation of inte- grated schooling occurred in a Philadelphia Quaker school in 1770. 14 Almost universally, however, Negroes were excluded from schools attended by whites prior to 1860. From the Revolutionary War to the Civil War The abolition of slavery was a necessary, but not suffi- cient, prerequisite to any general school integration. As a result of the Quock Walker case in 1781 the Supreme Court of Massachusetts freed the slaves of that state. A year earlier Pennsylvania had pro- vided for the gradual abolition by freeing the children of slave mothers 1 but required them to serve their mothers' owners as indentured ser- vants until the age of 28. This pattern was followed by Vermont, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York. Slavery was 12mm. pp. 22.—23. 131bid., p. 23. 14‘Doxey A. Wilkerson, Public School Segregation and Integration in the North (New York: National Association of Inter- group Relations Officers, 1963), p. 3. 18 abolished in other states by different methods: legislative enactment, judicial decision, constitutional amendments, the sheer force of public opinion, presidential proclamation, and finally in 1865 by the Thir- teenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 15 The establishment of Negro schools followed the abolition of slavery. New Jersey began educating resident Negroes in 1777. The New York African Free School, established by the Manumission Society, opened its doors a decade later. The Society? s venture was a success, for in 1810 New York State enacted a law which required masters to teach all slave children to read the Scriptures. By 1797 there were at least seven schools for Negroes in Philadelphia. 16 The pattern of development for Negro education generally followed that of white education-—church-related instruction, private schools, and finally public supported education. The City of Boston opened an elementary school for Negroes in 1820. 17 By 1860 most Northern cities had provided separate systems of schools for Negroes, while a few small communities enrolled white and Negro in the same school. In even fewer instances were Negro children in the South allowed to attend schools with whites. 18 15Paul, op. cit... PP. 7-8. 16 . . Clift, 0p. c1t., pp. 25-27. 17Ibid. 18Wilkerson, op. cit., p. 4. 19 Early school segregation was not legislated, rather it deve10ped by practice. Some states established laws which permitted segregated schools. New York' s permissive legislation was passed in 1841. 19 Ohio was the first Northern state to exclude Negroes by law. This legislation was enacted in 1829 and was not followed by permissive legislation to allow for any Negro education until 1849. 20 That same year, 1849, saw the beginning of the series of events which would be culminated by the 1954 Supreme Court decision. The legality of a segregated school in Boston was challenged in the case of Roberts v. City of Boston. Charles Sumner was the counsel for the plaintiff, Sarah Roberts, a Negro girl who had been barred from a white school under a local ordinance. When the 1954 Supreme Court attempted to determine the intent of the framers of the Four- teenth Amendment, the name of Charles Sumner was prominent among the supporters of the amendment. In order to determine his intent, the Court was eventually referred back to his arguments on behalf of the Roberts girl. As Fletcher points out, "His oral argument, which the Abolitionists widely circulated, is one of the landmarks in the 2 crystallization of the equalitarian concepts. ” 19Ibid. , p. 28. 20Ibid. 21John F. Fletcher, Jr. , The Segregation Case and the §lipreme Court (Boston: Boston University, 1958), p. 21. \" yu. ‘7' es. 0“ (’ll (1. ‘n 7 ,1; 20 Although the Massachusetts Supreme Court rejected Sumner' s argument and decided against the plaintiff, sufficient public opinion was mobilized to persuade the Massachusetts Legislature to repudiate the Court, and in 1855 public school segregation was pro- hibited by state statute. 22 Rose23 characterized the generally poor state of educa— tion in the South prior to the Civil War as the reason for formalized segregated schooling developing later in the South than in the North. With the exception of a few private academies, the rich provided tutors for their own children. Lower class whites and all girls, as well as Negroes, were generally deprived of educational opportunities until after the Civil War. South Carolina in 1740 had started the South down the road to segregation when it legislated against teaching Negroes writing. Georgia followed that lead in 1755. But it wasn't until 1819 that state legislation in Virginia prohibited any kind of instruction of Negroes. Georgia expanded its legislation in 1829 to include all instruction, and North Carolina and Louisiana adopted similar legislation in 1830.24 22Brickman, op. cit., pp. 153—454. 3Arnold Rose, The Negro in America (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1964), pp. 215, 280-289. 2 . 4:Brickman, op. c1t., pp. 153-154. 21 North Carolina’ 5 pattern of educational development is typical of the South. It created a formal structure for public schools in 1839 which excluded Negroes, both slave and free. 25 Private schools for Negroes developed following the Civil War. But in fear of establishing integrated schools, the State Legislature abandoned all public schools in 1866. Separated schools were opened in 1869 and the State Constitution was amended in 1875 to insure segregated education. Pierce et a1. summarize the state of affairs relative to education in the South: The general conservatism of a predominantly rural pop- ulation blocked the provision of adequate financial support for public schools. Taxes were generally unpalatable; school taxes were intolerable to plutocracy. . . . The main stream of the struggle in the South for free, universal education meandered among white groups. At the time, there was no question of discrimination~-the Negro simply was not con- sidered. In the North, with the exception of Massachusetts, Negro education was little better than in the South. In 1850 a convention of fugitive slaves warned newly escaped slaves not to enroll their chil- dren in the inferior, segregated Negro schools of the North. The fugitives were almost completely uneducated. Less than 5% could read or write. Of the approximately 1. 25 million slave children age _ 25Paul, op. cit., pp. 8-12. 26Pierce et al., op. cit., p. 34. 22 five to nineteen, probably not one was enrolled in school. Of 150, 000 free Negro children, maybe one in six was enrolled in some kind of school. It is interesting to note that while the North was openly condemning the South for slavery, segregated education was already an innovation of the North. Segregation was the rule from the 1830' 3 until well after the Civil War. The large cities~-New York, Phila- delphia, Cincinnati, Providence, New Haven-mall held firmly to school segregation. Only in Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont did legal segregation not develop. 28 It was not until the 1860' s that Rhode Island and Connecticut abolished segregation. Michigan out- lawed it in 1867. 29 Reconstruction to the Plessy-Ferguson Case The status of Negro education in the North following the Civil War can be summarized in two statements: 1. Negro education made its first strides. Negroes won admission to public schools in all Northern states along with the legal right to equality of educational opportunity. 7Meyer Weinberg, ”School Integration in American History, " Integrated Education, Vol. 1, No. 6, December, 1963, pp. 17-26. 8Wilkerson, loc. cit. Brickman, loc. cit. 23 2, At the same time, however, separate--and generally inferior—~Negro schools prevailed. The Illinois schols in general, and the Chicago schools Specifically, provide an example. Baron31 outlines the development of free public schools in Illinois, first authorized in 1825, which were open only to white children. Racial distinctions which were sanctioned by state statute were discontinued after the Civil War. In Chicago an ordinance passed in 1863 requiring Negro and mulatto children to attend separate schools was repealed in 1865. From then until the great Negro migration into the Chicago Southside during World War I, Negro children attended largely integrated schools in Chicago. By the 1880' s legally separated schools were rare in the North. Segregation had been prohibited by Michigan in 1867, Con- necticut and Iowa in 1868, and New Jersey and Pennsylvania in 1881. Ohio struck down separate schools in 1886 and in 1890 New York and California passed laws prohibiting segregated schools. But the situation in the South took the opposite turn. The end of the War found the South defeated, impoverished, and dis- Pirited-—a way of life had been destroyed. The two periods of 30Wilkerson, loc. cit. 31Harold Baron, "History of Chicago School Segregation to 1953," Integrated Education, Vol. 1, N0. 1, January. 1953, pp. 17- 19, 30. 3ZBrickman, op. cit., pp. 156—158. 24 Reconstruction further alienated the South. The Presidential Recon- struction years--1865-1867-—saw little accomplishment in the field of education. The Congressionally created Freedman' s Bureau, although short-lived (1865-1870), succeeded in doing two things: 1. It constructed and operated many Negro schools. In only five years it established 4, 239 schools, employed 9, 307 teachers, and instructed 247, 333 pupils. 33 2. Coupled with the Reconstruction Acts it developed an antagonism by the Southern whites that was to take years to dissipate. The Congressional Reconstruction Act was brought about by refusal of Southern states to accept the Fourteenth Amendment, which although it guaranteed privileges of citizenship to the Negro, also disfranchised a considerable segment of the white population. The ten years of the Reconstruction Act~-1867=—1877--saw three important changes in Southern education: 1. Schools in all states were opened to Negroes. 2. There was provided more centralization and closer super— vision by state officials. 3. Permanent school funds were re-established. 33Pierce et a1. , op. cit. , pp. 41-42. 25 But there were two important precedents set with regard to taxes for support of Negro education. The first was actually set by Congress in 1862 when it set up the principle of allocation of school funds in Washington, D. C. , on the basis of taxes paid by that race to be educated. Kentucky, which was not subject to the Reconstruction Acts, adopted similar legislation. So in spite of the attempts by the North to enforce inte- grated schooling in the South, integrated schooling was actually tried in only a few places. Actually only five Southern states made mixed schools legal--South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, and Louisiana. Florida and Alabama never did operate even one integrated school during this period. West Virginia had become a separate political unit in 1863, and its people adOpted a constitution which set up a separate but equal school system for Negroes. Missouri adopted similar legislation in 1865, 35 and the pattern was set. Although Reconstruction lasted officially until 1877, its effect on education was never very great. In reality, the pattern of separate schools became operative as soon as the Negro was legally admitted to the public schools. The integrated schools set up in 3‘i'Ibid. 351bid., pp. 37-38. 26 Columbia and Charleston, South Carolina, amounted to no more than white and Negro children attending separate classes within the same building. 36 But even the farce of integration lasted only a short time. In 1870 Georgia adopted laws requiring segregated schools. Texas in 1873, North Carolina and Alabama in 1876, South Carolina in 1877, Mississippi in 1878, and Virginia in 1882 legalized segregated schools. 37 The last two decades of the nineteenth century saw Negro education in the South almost destroyed. Following withdrawal of Federal troops in 1877 when Reconstruction ended, Southern white extremists turned many of their energies to finding ways to negate the separate but equal provisions of education statutes. Two examples will serve to typify such efforts. In Mississippi state School funds were the primary source for local school funds. These funds were distributed on a per capita basis. "Black" counties with small white student enrollment found no problem in establishing adequate white schools. Since state law required that black and white students have school terms of equal length, there were only two ways open to discriminate-—-a Negro 361bid., p. 42. 37Brickman, op. cit., pp. 157-158. ”CD (I) (2. 27 teacher could expect to have as many as 100 students while an equal number of white students would have several teachers. The other alternative was that local examining officers could give Negro teachers lower certificates with correSpondingly lower salaries. Both these practices were utilized over a period of time in Mississippi. But many counties with low Negro enrollment could not subsidize the education of white children at the expense of Negro stu- dents, and in these counties white children often fared little better than Negro students in other counties. Finally in 1890 a constitutional convention changed the allocation formula and discrimination became official. 38 Circumstances in Alabama had been very similar to those in Mississippi. Operating under a law which required separate but equal education after 187 6, local boards were seriously impaired in their attempts to discriminate. In 1890 a law was passed giving county boards the power to use their share of funds as they saw fit in attempt- ing to maintain a "system of schools equal for all children as nearly as practical. "39 Subsequently the annual reports listing expenditures according to race were discontinued. When the practice was resumed 38 . . Pierce et a1. , op. c1t. , pp. 45-49. 39Ibid., p. 50. 28 in 1909, white per capita expenditures were 514. 8% that of Negro . . 40 per capita expenditures. Thus it was during the last part of the nineteenth century that segregation of the schools in the South really developed. Plessy-Fergson to 1 954 In 1896 the United States Supreme Court handed down a decision involving the right of a Negro to use white facilities on a passenger train. By virtue of a dictum, or side remark of the Court, in this case, the separate but equal doctrine of education was given the sanction of Federal law. Plessy, a man of one-eighth Negro descent, asked the Court to invalidate a Louisiana law which required colored passengers to ride in the "colored" coach. Plessy instituted an action to restrain enforcement of these statutes on the grounds that they violated the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments. The defendant in the Plessy case was Ferguson, the Louisiana judge designated to hear the lower court case. Plessy' s plea was actually to prohibit Ferguson' 3 hear- ing of the case, and the U. S. Supreme Court affirmed the Louisiana Court denial. As Blaustein and Ferguson point out, "Although Plessy V. Ferguson did not involve education, there is no doubt that the —_ 40Ibid. .o\ -\~ ‘41 29 Supreme Court had bestowed its blessings on state-maintained segregated school systems. "41 During the next fifty-eight years, the separate but equal doctrine was to be based on Plessy-Ferguson. Perhaps one of the most amazing facets to the case was that something as tangible as railway car facilities which could reasonably well be tested as to equality had been used to prescribe a separate but equal doctrine in an area with such intangible measures of equality. It was three years later before the Court faced its first school segregation case, Cummings v. Board of Education. The Negro plaintiffs asked for an injunction closing the white schools of Richmond County, Georgia, until a Negro school was provided. They contended that no school at all was an obvious inequality, but then went further and stated that a state—maintained separate school was unconstitutional. This suit was dismissed and the Court avoided pass- ing on the validity of separate but equal, but also failed to indicate what were appropriate standards for measuring equality. 42 This and the subsequent refusal of the Court to act on three other cases 41Albert P. Blaustein and Clarence Clyde Ferguson, Jr. , Pgsegregation and the Law (New Brunswick, N. J. : Rutgers Uni- versity Press, 1957), p. 98. 42mm. pp. 95-100. 30 undoubtedly resulted in the rapid propagation of separate and unequal schools for Negroes. The segregation issue in the North and West followed a mixed course during the first half of the twentieth century. State law prohibited separate schools in New York in 1900, which strengthened the law passed in 1890. 43 Negroes elsewhere sought to end or pre- vent the introduction of school segregation. Almost everywhere they encountered strong opposition from local school authorities and the white community. Occasionally they won; more often they did not. 44 The mass migration of Negroes from the Southern rural areas to the Northern cities during and following World War I resulted in large Negro neighborhoods in many of the central cities. This, in turn, brought a new kind of segregation to the schools. De jure segregation, that mandated by law, had been replaced in the North by de facto segregation, that which results from some other cause, chiefly housing patterns. 45 By the early 1920's one-half to two-thirds of all Negro children in Chicago attended segregated schools. And as the influx of Negroes continued through the '20' s and '30' 5, severe school 43Brickman, op. cit., p. 159. 4("Wilkerson, op. cit., p. 5. Baron, loc. cit. 31 housing problems in Negro areas resulted in further disparities in Negro education. School boundaries began to be used to contain Negro children during the '40' s. White children caught in Negro school attendance areas were allowed to transfer to white schools. School expenditures in Chicago during 1937-38 tell the story of the unequal educational opportunities. Schools spent $86. 07 per pupil in white schools and $74. 02 per pupil in Negro schools. 46 By the mid 1920's the situation was similar in other large Northern cities. A study made during 1925-2647 revealed that Buf- falo, Dayton, Gary, Indianapolis, New York, and Philadelphia had rigidly segregated schools. A survey in 194748 found that only one- quarter of all Northern Negroes and one-half of Western Negroes attended integrated schools. The Plessy-Ferguson case had more direct effect on the South. At the beginning of the twentieth century the South was ready for the public education explosion the North had witnessed many years earlier. The effects of the Civil War and Reconstruction eras had just about worn off. Without the necessity to worry about Negro education most of the Southern states experienced rapid educational 46mm. 47 . . Weinberg, op. c1t., p. 23. 4‘8Ibid., p. 26. 32 gains for white students. But even then there were few Southern states spending one-half as much per pupil as was the North in 1915- 1916. 49 Public education for Southern Negroes received its greatest impetus from outside. The Rockefeller and Peabody Founda- tions, the Anna T. J eanes Fund and the Julius Rosenwald Fund attempted to upgrade building programs and to improve instruction in Negro schools. 50 Even then, the per-pupil value of Negro school property was less than one-fifth as great as that of white schools. A comparison of teacher salaries is just as telling. Between 1900 and 1930 the average white teacher's salary rose from $200 to $900 per year, while the average Negro teacher's salary rose from $100 to $400. 51 The first break in the U. S. Court' 8 attitude relative to the separate but equal doctrine occurred at the graduate college level. In 1935 Donald Murray, a Negro, applied for admission to the University of Maryland' 3 Law School since there was none pro- vided for Negroes. Previously, the state had granted a limited number of limited scholarships to Negroes to attend out-of—state fi 9Pierce et al., op. cit., p. 53. 50Clift, op. cit., pp. 33-34. 51Ibid. 33 schools. The Maryland Court of Appeals upheld Murray's conten- tion. This was followed in 1938 by the Gaines case in which the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Court of Missouri's denying Gaines admittance to the University of Missouri School of Law. How- ever, the U. S. Court did not direct the University to accept Gaines. 53 Two significant cases were to be settled by the Supreme Court on the same day in 1950. In the Sweatt v. Painter case Herman Sweatt had been denied admission to the University of Texas Law School on racial grounds. Texas decided to establish a Negro law school, and it was the equality of this new law school that Sweatt appealed. The U. S. Court had little trouble ruling on the inequality of such action. "There are no colored court systems, nor colored governments. Education for an integrated society must of necessity be nonsegregated to be effective. "54 In McLaurin v. Board of Rgents McLaurin had been admitted to the Graduate School of the University of Oklahoma. But he had been assigned a "colored" seat in each classroom, a special table in the library, and had to dine in a segregated portion of the 52Ibid. , p. 35. 53Ibid. , p. 36. 54Blaustein and Ferguson, op. cit., p. 109. 34 cafeteria. Here again, the Supreme Court had little trouble striking . . 55 down such restriction. And thus the stage was set for the 1954 decision which would completely reject the Plessy-Ferguson decision--the separate but equal doctrine . Brown v. Board of Education On May 17, 1954, the U. S. Supreme Court ruled unani- mously that segregation of the races in public education is unconsti- tutional. This decision represented the culmination of litigation in five separate cases which challenged the separate but equal doctrine. Although each raised the basic issues in a somewhat different way the Supreme Court heard them concurrently and decided on them in a single opinion. The first of the five cases to reach the Court was Briggs v. Elliott. Harry Briggs was one of a group of over forty Negro children in whose name the legal action was taken against school authorities of Clarendon County, South Carolina. R. W. Elliott was chairman of the Board of Trustees for School District Number 22 . 56 55mm. pp. 110-111. 56Fletcher, op. cit., pp. 4-10. 35 The second and third cases, Davis v. County School Board of Prince Edward County, Virginia, and Bolling v. Sharpe, originating in the District of Columbia, were also brought by Negro school children and their parents against school officials. In Brown v. Board of Education Oliver Brown went to court because the Topeka, Kansas, white elementary school five blocks from his home barred the admission of his eight-year old daughter. 57 The fifth case, Gebhart v. Belton, originated in New Castle County, Delaware, and was actually a request by school officials to have the U. S. Court reverse a Delaware Court ruling for immediate admission of Negro children to two white schools. Because Brown v. Board of Education was not remanded to the District Court, it was the first case to officially reach the Supreme Court, and became the case of record. 58 All five cases had been funded and fought by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. In each of the cases, lawyers from the central NAACP staff worked on the cases through the lower courts. Thurgood Marshall, head of the NAACP legal staff, led the Supreme Court argument. 59 ‘— 57Blaustein and Ferguson, op. cit. , pp. 39-44. 58Fletcher, op. cit., p.11. 591bid., p. 15. .L_) ‘ . (I) Fri 36 While the defendants had less of a coordinated effort, John W. Davis, dean of American constitutional lawyers, was employed to argue the case for South Carolina. 60 The plaintiffs and defendants agreed on the issue--was segregation in the public elementary and secondary schools itself unconstitutional. The question of whether or not Negroes were being provided with equal facilities and education was _r_1__o_t_ an issue. The question of constitutionality applied to the Fourteenth Amendment—- specifically to the last restriction in it placed upon the states: . No state shall make or enforce any law which Shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. 61 But since the meaning of this provision is not made clear by the Constitution itself, the Court set out to determine the intent of its framers, the judicial precedents, the effect of segregation, and the predictions as to the results of desegregation. 62 In order to determine the intent of the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment, the NAACP went back to Charles Sumner' s arguments in the Roberts v. City of Boston (1849) case to demonstrate the genesis of the amendment as meaning to destroy all caste and 60Ibid. 61United States Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment. 62 Fletcher, op. cit., PP. 18-71. 37 color legislation. Some 120 pages of testimony traced the abolitionist background of the control group in Congress, which included Sumner, at the time of passage of the amendment. The lawyers for the plain- tiffs further argued that the legislatures of the thirty-three states which ratified the amendment understood it in the same light. Here the lawyers referred to newspaper accounts, governors' speeches, and the voting records of the legislators. 63 In arguing the judicial precedents, the NAACP tried to demonstrate that Plessy-Ferguson, which was not concerned with education, was really atypical of other decisions more closely allied with education. Since this was the first case in which the question of public school segregation was directly faced by the Court, the NAACP argued that the more recent Sweatt v. Painter and McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents cases were demonstrations of reasonable . . . 64 jud1c1al precedents. Perhaps the most telling arguments for the plaintiffs were those which dealt with the effect of segregation. The NAACP strategy of using sociological and psychological data related by "experts" was a radical development and discussion of its suitability is still under way. The use of this non-legal logic was quite 63Ibid., pp. 19-38. 64‘1bid., pp. 38—54. 38 persuasive according to Jack Greenberg, assistant NAACP coun- sel: Social scientists' testimony was used in a wholly dif- ferent way . . . by placing before the Court authoritative scientific opinions regarding the effect of racial classification and of "separate but equal" treatment, the plaintiffs helped ‘ persuade the Court in the shaping of a judge-made rule of law. 65 The review of the literature on the effect of segregation will be presented in the second and third sections of this chapter, and will include the research quoted before the Court. The NAACP arguments relative to the results of desegre- gation centered primarily on the successful desegregation of the armed forces, college and graduate schools, and the Baltimore Police Department. 66 The success of the plaintiff' s arguments is attested to by the unanimous decision of the Court written by Chief Justice Warren, which included these statements: We come then to the question presented: Does segrega- tion of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other "tangible factors" may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities? We believe that it does. Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of law; for the 5Blaustein and Ferguson, op. cit., p. 133. 66Fletcher, 0p. cit., pp. 66-68. 39 policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denot- ing the inferiority of the Negro group. (This paragraph is quoted from the Kansas lower court decision in the U. S. Court decision). We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of "separate but equal" has no place. Separate edu- cational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. . . .67 And so public school segregation had been legally struck down. But the fourteen years since the decision have demonstrated that an institution which took so long to develop does not die easily. 1954 to 1968 The reaction to the Supreme Court decision was as varied as might be expected. In the North as well as in the South there were organized white protests. Segregation was upheld using virtually everybody from Washington to Lincoln as supporting it. Norfleet even made inferences from quotations from the Bible: What principles are laid down in the Bible with respect to segregation, separation of the races generally as well as within public schools? Nations were divided in the earth after the flood, Gen. 10:32. The Lord ”scattered them (people) abroad upon the face of all the earth, " Gen. 11:8-9. He "determined the bounds of their habitation, " Acts 17:26. The Lord separated his people from other people, Lev. 10:15. The habitation of the Negro race in Africa continued there until some of it was tranSported elsewhere by man, away from its natural 67Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. S. 483. 40 habitation, which act of Man produced the present dire prob— lem of forced school integration in the South and in all the United States, resulting from the violation of Divine selection and disposition of the black race in Africa, its natural place of life. Man has always gotten into trouble when he Opposed God. . . it is pertinent to examine Biblical authority on this subject. Even as to cattle and seed, such precept is--"Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thouhshalt not sow thy field with mingled seed, " Lev. 19:19. "Thou shalt not sow thy vineyard with divers seeds: lest the fruit of thy seed which thou has sown, and the fruit of thy vineyard, be defiled, " Deut. 22:9 With respect to mankind, the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance and set the boundaries of the pe0ple when He separated the sons of Adam, Deut. 32:8. Later, through Joshua, He advised that association and intermarriage between those of different nations can be snares, scourges and thorns in the eyes of mankind, until perishing from the good land given him by the Lord, Josh. 23:3-13. . . . The teachings of St. Paul of Christianity to the Galatians advise that the Scripture teaches the principle of segregation or separation. Namely, that some are ”cast out" as an heir here on earth and others are not, and that regard- less of either class, when those of both are (in a spiritual concept) "baptised into Christ, " either then becomes (spiritu- ally) "one in Jesus Christ, " leaving the remainder not so baptized cast out, segregated or separated to themselves. . . . The above clearly shows that the Bible, both the Old and New Testaments, teach physical separation of the races in or out of public schools. . . . . Mr. Truman was not moved by Biblical principles upon which so many have been urged to favor school integra- tion, because, as it is easy for all to read and understand from the above citations from both the Old and New Testaments, their contents are not as they have been represented. To the contrary, the principle of segregation of the white and black races is clearly found and taught therein. And Norfleet found considerable support for his interpre- tations of Biblical verse. On the other side of the ledger, many —__ 68Marvin Brooks Norfleet, Forced School Integration in the U.S.A. (New York: Carlton Press, 1961), pp. 7-9. 41 authorities were quick to point to the success of the great experiment. Clift observed: By the fourth anniversary of the Supreme Court's original decision, the desegregation process was at work in 10 out of the 17 states that previously had compulsory school segrega- tion. . . . Of the 2, 889 Southern school districts with both white and colored pupils, desegregation had begun in 764 by the end of four years. 6 Blaustein and Ferguson reported the observations of Harold C. Fleming, assistant director of the Southern Regional Con- ference in 1956: There is no longer a Solid South of segregation. This is based on the 1, 100 instances of newly practiced desegregation which I have discovered in the seventeen Southern and border states . . . and virtually all of them took place smoothly and harmoniously. But then Blaustein and Ferguson go on to document the results. In September, 1956, only 723 of the 10, 000 school dis- tricts of the South--4, 000 of which had potential Negro pupils—- had been desegregated. . . . Mississippi was still proceeding on the theory that desegregation could--and would—-be avoided. And so during the first decade following Brown v. Board of Education Americans read of desegregation plans, proposals, and actions. Little Rocks and New Rochelles gained the spotlight, but in 69Clift, op. cit., p. 41. 70 . . Blaustein and Ferguson, op. Cit., p. 210. 71Ibid., p. 211. 42 the vast number of schools, North and South, desegregation was token or non-existent. The United States Civil Rights Commission revealed many interesting facts. Their report is based on statistics gathered in 1965-1966. The Commission findings include: Racial isolation in the public schools is intense through- out the United States. . . . Nearly 9 of every 10 Negro ele- mentary students in the cities attend majority Negro schools. This high level of racial separation in city schools exists whether the city is large or small, whether the proportion of Negro enrollment is large or small, and whether the city is located in the North or South. Racial isolation in the public schools is increasing. . . . In Southern and border cities, although the proportion of Negroes in all-Negro schools has decreased since the 1954 Supreme Court decision, a rising Negro enrollment, combined with only slight desegregation, has produced a substantial increase in the number of Negroes attending nearly all-Negro schools. Appendix A in the second volume of the report gives the results of a study of the extent of segregation in 119 cities. 73 Here again the evidence is overwhelming. In the three Alabama cities studied, each has a proportion of about 50% Negroes in the elementary schools. One hundred percent of the white students in all three cities attend schools with fewer than 10% Negro students. From 99. 6% to 72U. S. Commission on Civil Rights, Racial Isolation in 3113 Public Schools, Volume 1 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1967), p. 199. 73U. S. Commission on Civil Rights, Racial Isolation in flip Public Schools, Volume 2 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1967). PP. 1-20. 43 99. 8% of the Negro students attend schools at least 90% Negro. The status of the forty cities studied in the states of Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia is similar. At least 90% of the white students in each of these cities attend elementary schools with fewer than 10% Negroes. With one exception, Corpus Christi, 80% to 90% of the Negroes attend schools with fewer than 10% white students. Lest residents of Northern cities point a finger of blame, the statistics are little betterthere. Los Angeles serves as an example: 58. 9% of all students are white, Negroes make up 19. 2% of the total, Mexican-Americans make up most of the remainder; 94. 7% of the whites attend schools with more than 90% white students; 87. 5% of the Negro students attend schools in which more than half of the students are Negro. Similar figures are true for Denver; Middleton, Connecti- cut; Peoria, Illinois; Flint, Michigan; and Seattle, Washington. Most of the remaining cities would yield similar results. Such discouraging figures could be repeated endlessly from the Civil Rights Commission report. There were two and one- half times as many Negro students enrolled in schools with more than 90% Negro student bodies in 1965 than in 1950 in Miami, Florida. Cleveland, Oklahoma City, and Columbus reported similar increases. \E: 44 Milwaukee registered a 990% increase in the number of Negro stu- dents attending schools with at least 90% Negro students. Flint, Michigan, recorded a 723% increase during the same fifteen year period. While it is clear that much of these increases were due to great increases in the numbers of Negroes in those cities, the fact remains--segregated schooling increased. The Effect of School Segregation on Learning The Coleman and Pettigrew reports document the best and most recent research done on the effect of school segregation. The Coleman Report, 74 Equality of Educational Opportunity, was commissioned by the U. S. Office of Education following enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Information was obtained from 600, 000 students in grades one, three, six, nine, and twelve in a sample of 4, 000 schools across the United States. This research was based on one of the largest samples ever utilized in educational research. The Pettigrew Report, 75 Racial Isolation in the Public Schools, Volumes I and 11, represent the findings of the Commission 74James S. Coleman and others, Equality of Educational Opportunity (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Office of Education, Govern- ment Printing Office, 1966), 737 pages. 75U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, op. cit. 45 on Civil Rights based on detailed information obtained from more than 100 school systems, public hearings held throughout the country, and several research studies commissioned by the Com- mission, including a reanalysis of the Coleman data by Coleman. Coleman's reanalysis of his data concluded: The outcomes of education for Negro students are influ- enced by a number of factors including students' home back- grounds, the quality of education provided in their schools, and the social class background of their classmates. In addition to these factors, the racial composition of schools appears to be a distinct element. Racial isolation tends to lower students' achievement, restrict their aspirations, and impair their sense of being able to affect their own destiny. By contrast, Negro children in predominantly white schools more often score higher on achievement tests, develop higher aspirations, and have a firmer sense of control over their own destinies. Differences in performance, attitudes, and aspirations occur most often when Negroes are in majority-white schools. Negro children in schools that are majority—Negro often fail to do better than children in all-Negro schools. In addition, the results stemming from desegregated schooling tend to be most positive for those Negro children who began their attendance at desegregated schools in the earlier elementary grades. Where his first analysis reported most of this difference in achievement attributable to social class and social composition, his reanalysis was more pointed: There also is evidence that the racial composition, as distinguished from the social class composition of the school has an important influence. . . . There remains a strong 76Ibid., Volume I, pp. 113-114. 46 association between the average achievement of individual Negro students and the proportion of their classmates who are white. And he points more explicitly to the effect of racial com- position: There is an independent residual relationship between racial composition of the class and achievement. This residual relationship is evidence for the effect of racial seg- regation, per se, apart fronj8differences in the social class of the students in the class. He further cautions against a belief in the lack of effect for segregated classes within a desegregated school: Negro students in segregated classrooms apparently do not derive any benefit from attending majority-white schools. 79 Lesser, Rosenthal, Polkoff, and Pfankuch80 reported a study made of 400 Negro, Puerto Rican, Chinese, and Jewish chil- dren. Their findings reported: For every one of the four abilities measured--verbal ability, reasoning, numerical ability, and space conceptuali- zation— -the children from the more integrated schools and neighborhoods showed significantly superior performance when compared to the children from racially-imbalanced schools and neighborhoods. 77Ibid., Volume II, p. 40. 78Ibid. , p. 41. 791bid., p. 42. 80Gerald S. Lesser, Kristine M. Rosenthal, Sally E, Polkoff, and Marjorie B. Pfankuch, "Some Effects of Segregation and Desegregation in the Schools, " Integrated Education, Vol. II, No. 9, June, 1964, PP. 20-27. 47 In the more racially-balanced schools, the children from various ethnic groups Show quite similar scores-—displaying levels of ability more Similar to each other. In contrast, in the racially-imbalanced schools, average test scores for each ethnic group remain markedly different. As part of the New Rochelle integration efforts a study was made of Negro students as they moved into previously all-white schools. For two years previous to the closing of a school 98% Negro in June, 1963, Negro students could transfer to white schools. The research followed the transfer group, non-transfer Negro students, and white students-~all kindergarten age--through their next two years of school. Statistical analysis of the differences between the means of the reading scores for the transfer group, non-transfer group, and white group were found to have statistical signifi- cance.. O The percentage of transfer children who achieved higher scores in the Metropolitan Reading Readiness Test was sig- nificant lg higher than either of the two other non-transfer groups. 2 Another study done for the Pettigrew Report on the effects of school segregation was done by Alan B. Wilson, and is reported in Appendix C3 of Volume II. The sample included 17, 000 81Ibid. , p. 21. 82 T. G. Wolman, "Learning Effects of Integration in New Rochelle,” Integrated Education, No. 12, December, 1964, pp. 30-31. 83 Alan B. Wilson, "Educational Consequences of Segre- gation in a California Community, " Racial Isolation in the Public 961122152. Vol. 11, pp. 165—206. 48 students attending eleven public schools in western Contra Costa County, California, and included the Richmond Schools across the bay from San Francisco. His results were supportive of Coleman's work for Equality of Educational Opportunity. . the racial composition of the elementary school does not have any independent effect, over and above the social- class composition of the school, upon achievement. . . . The central importance placed upon racial balance in [elementary] schools may be somewhat off the mark. But he goes on to support reasons why racial composition should be considered: Here, however, as contrasted with the case of white stu- dents whose achievement was not related to the racial compo- sition of their schools, we find that Negro students from integrated schools are doing better than their compeers from segregated Negro schools. 85 And finally, he points out one of the big problems in analyzing whether or not desegregation has an effect on achievement in the elementary school. This concurrent effect is not nearly as important as what effect elementary school segregation has on junior and senior high achievement. The more important reason for emphasizing the effect of segregation [in elementary schools] on subsequent rather than concurrent achievement, however, is that segregation has more 84Ibid. , p. 181. 85Ibid., p. 184. 49 substantial long-run than short-run effects. . . . [the evidence] shows that elementary school segregation has twice the effect of junior-high segregation upon eighth—grade achievement when allowing for effects of familial background and primary school development. He summarizes his results thusly: Segregation in the elementary school has a major effect upon subsequent school achievement; segregation at later grade levels augments this effect only slightly, if at all. . . . these data suggest that efforts to balance school composition should have the most perceptible impact upon subsequent student per- formance if it is done at the elementary school level. It is evident that much research remains to be done on the effects of school segregation on scholastic achievement. Much of what has been done is not conclusive--it does, however, indicate the possibility that school segregation has an effect on achievement. The Effect of School Segregation on Student Self-concept In recent years social Scientists have investigated the correlation between positive student self-concept and school achieve- ment. If there is a cause and effect relationship between these two variables, then the effect of segregation on self—concept takes on a different meaning. If there is not a cause and effect relationship, then a good case can still be developed for the importance of attempts to 86Ibid., p. 188. 87Ibid., p. 190. 50 develop positive self-concepts among all students—-whether they are majority or minority members. Psychologists and psychiatrists, as well as humanitarians, would point out the value in every member of society deve10ping a strong self-image. Much of Brookover' 888 research seems to document the correlation between positive self-concept and achievement. His studies show that a positive self-concept is a necessary, but not suf- ficient, factor in determining the individual' 5 learning behavior. Sears and Sherman89 undertook a case study with fifth and sixth grade students to determine their self-esteem as defined by a favorable self-concept. Their study indicated there is a sig- nificant relationship between feelings of self-esteem and achievement. Data from a study by Brookover, Erickson, and Joiner90 indicated that there is a correlation between self-concept of ability and grade point average. In the study they followed a single secon- dary school class over a period of six years--from grade seven 88Wilbur Brookover and Edsel L. Erickson, The Soci— ological Foundations of Educability (East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, 1968), mimeographed advance publica- tion copy. 89P. S. Sears and V. S. Sherman, In Pursuit of Self- Esteem (Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing Co. , 1964). 0Wilbur Brookover, Edsel Erickson, and Lee Joiner, Elf-concept of Ability and School Achievement, III (East Lansing: Michigan State University, 1967), p. 4. 51 through grade twelve. They found correlations between self-concept and achievement of from . 48 to . 63. Butcher91 in a study that investigated the relationship between self- concept and achievement in high achieving schools found significant correlations of .37 and . 38, reSpectively, for grades four and five, but non-significant correlations at grade levels three and six. The best statement that could be made about the current status of research in the area of self—concept and achievement would be that most researchers would claim there is valid evidence that there is a low, but significant, correlation between the two variables. These researchers would, however, suggest that much more research in this area is necessary before conclusions can be drawn. Research in the area of the effect of school segregation on the self-concept goes back to at least World War 11. Dr. Kenneth Clark and his wife, Mamie, 92 investigated children's racial recog- nition ability. Using black and white dolls with a group of young Negro children, they found that 90% could tell a Negro doll from a 91Donald G. Butcher, "A Study of the Relationships of Student Self-concept to Academic Achievement in Six High Achieving Elementary Schools" (unpublished Ed.D. Dissertation, College of Education, Michigan State University, 1967). 92Kenneth B. and Mamie P. Clark, ”Racial Identifica- tion and Preference in Negro Children, " Readings in Social Psychology, ed. by T. M. Newcomb and E. L. Hartley (New York: Holt, 1947). 52 white one, yet only 66% could make correct self—identification. Much of Dr. Clark' 5 testimony before the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education was based on this and similar studies. In 1952 Trager and Yarrow93 reported that they found both Negro and white children valued the white race more highly. Of ninety—five Negro children who responded to a question of whether or not a Negro boy in a picture would like to be white, 74% Said he would. Much of the argument by the NAACP in the Brown v. Board of Education case was based on the effect of segregation upon" self-concept. The testimony of Dr. Clark was particularly aimed in this direction. Much of his evidence had been previously presented in the lower court trial of Briggs v. Elliott and then read into the record of Brown v. Board of Education. According to Clark: The essence of this detrimental effect [of segregation] is a confusion in the child' s concept of his own self-esteem-- basic feelings of inferiority, conflict, confusion in his self- image, resentment, hostility towards himself, hostility toward whites, intensification of a desire to resolve his basic conflict by sometimes escaping or withdrawing. Much of the criticism of Clark' 8 documentation claimed that Clark limited his study to only the dolls. However, it should _; 93Helen Trager and M. R. Yarrow, They Learn What lhey Live (New York: Harpers, 1952), pp. 141-142. 94U. S. Supreme Court, Record of the District Court Trial in Briggs v. Elliott, p. 86. 53 be pointed out that the doll study was only one part of his presenta- tion. He had sueveyed the studies of social scientists, reviewed the literature, and conducted other studies. 95 But since Clark's evidence did not really distinguish between social and school segregation, the NAACP added more specific evidence to their brief. point: Expert witnesses testified that compulsory racial segre— gation in elementary and high schools inflicts considerable personal injury on Negro pupils which endures as long as these students remain in the segregated school. . . . segregation injures the Negro students by l) impairing their ability to learn; 2) deterring the development of their personalities ; 3) depriving them of equal status in the school community; 4) destroying their self-respect; 5) denying them full oppor- tunity for democratic social development; subjecting them to the prejudiceés of others and stamping them with a badge of inferiority. 9 Harold McNalley in his testimony enlarged upon the latter . . there is basically implied in the separation--the two groups in this case Negro and white--that there is some difference in the two groups which doegs7not make it desirable for them to be educated together . . . So if the whites refuse to be educated with the blacks, the only conclusion to be drawn is that whites feel blacks are inferior. 95Fletcher, op. cit., p. 55. 96Brigggv. Elliott, op. cit., p. 15. 97Ibid. , p. 16. 54 Just as the evidence is not clear about the correlation between self- concept and achievement, there is apparently no straightforward conclusion about the effect of segregation on student self-concept. But if one carries the question one step farther and assumes Brookover is right and self-concept is a necessary but not sufficient factor in school achievement, the effects of programs to build positive self—concepts in racial isolation would bear scrutiny. Dr. Sam Shepard' s Banneker Project98 in the Banneker area of St. Louis was the first program to attempt to raise self- concepts on a large scale in all-Negro schools. The project, now ten years old, is a school community venture which places much attention on the value of achieving and doing well in school. Successful Negroes visit with the students to demonstrate that black people can escape the ghetto. For all the effort, however, the project has not brought the gains its sponsors hoped for. By the 1960-61 school year, after the program had been in existence for three years, Dr. Samuel Shepard reported that eighth grade reading levels at the Banneker Schools had shown a noticeable improvement. . . . A comparison of eighth grade reading scores in subsequent school years, however, shows that this gain apparently was not sustained. 98Harold Baron, "Samuel Shepard and the Banneker Project, " Living Together (Chicago: Integrated Education Asso— ciates, 1964), pp. 45-48. 99 U.S. Civil Rights Commission, op. cit., Vol. 2, p. 121, 55 The lack of long-run gains in the Banneker project is part of the emerging pattern for most compensatory programs. The Higher Horizons program in New York spent up to $60 per pupil more per year, and yet: . the investigators found no significant differences between students in schools with the Higher Horizons Program and similarly situated students in schools without the program. Such evidence is being reported by schools across the country, and is disheartening to school officials who have tried-their best. While all the evidence is not in, there would seem to be enough to suggest thatei’éttempts to improve Negro self-concept in racial isola- tion may be successful in terms of raising measured self- concept,“ but the corresponding increase in achievement will not be forthcoming. Alternative Educational Plans for School Desegregation Development of plans to desegregate schools is not new-- desegregation occurred before this country achieved its independence. A Philadelphia Quaker School was desegregated in 1770. 101 Most early desegregation occurred, however, as a necessity in small towns which could not adequately finance separate schools.102 But 100Ibid., p. 125. 101Wilkerson, op. cit., p. 3. 102 Ibid., p. 4. 56 it wasn't until 1855 that Massachusetts formally prohibited segregated schooling. 103 The problems inherent in that desegregation were different from the problems facing today's schools. Cities of that era were not such large complexes with the large inner city ghetto. In 1855 there were no cities of a million, and only six cities had pOpulations greater than 100, 000. 104 Trying to desegregate schools in a city of 100, 000 is much different than a similar attempt in a city of two or three million. The other significant difference was that de facto segregation was not considered segregation for the schools. Even though the Supreme Court ruled against school seg- regation in 1954, there have been few successful models for deseg- regation. Many promising plans have not proven themselves when implemented. This review will consider plans, successful or unsuc- cessful, which have been described with any frequency in the literature, or are familiar to the writer. Other plans not discussed may hold promise for implementation, and their omission in this review should not be construed to mean they are insignificant. 103Brickman, op. cit., PP. 153-154. 104Information Please Almanac (New York City: Simon and Schuster, 1967)? p. 323. 57 Establishment of Neighborhood Schools There has been much recent criticism of neighborhood schools by organizations dedicated to achieving true integration of American society. DeSpite the criticism, establishment of neigh- borhood schools in most small towns in the South could achieve desegregation almost immediately. The rural South has operated an expensive, inefficient dual school system for years. But as was pointed out in Racial Isolation, "In small communities, school deseg- regation plans creating schools designed to serve a broad spectrum of the community have been implemented. "105 Educational Parks At the other end of the scale, several large cities are building or considering education parks, complexes which would handle large numbers of students (some have been proposed to house 30, 000 students) over a large range of grade levels. Dentler and Elsbery commented on the potential of the educational park: Citizens from a variety of groups have endorsed the practical educational potential of the park because the park can be shown 105U. S. Commission on Civil Rights, 91:11.. V01. 1. p. 163. 58 to offer a host of related improvements. Desegre ation is perceived as obtainable incidentally or en route. 1 5 But they go on to point out that it could take thirty years to create a system of parks, and by 1975 many of the large cities in this country will be nearly all black. 107 Candoli108 created a modified model of the educational park where it would provide supplementary services for all the stu- dents and citizens of the community. The park would provide an integrating center for all segments of the Grand Rapids community; the public and non- public schools, the inner city and the peripheral residential areas, the white and non-white elements, the wealthy and the low income segments, the culturally deprived and the culturally advantaged, the old and the young. 109 Phi Delta Kappa1 10 commissioned a study of desegre- gation in which considerable attention is given to examination of 106Robert A. Dentler and James Elsbery, "Big City School Desegregation: Trends and Methods" (a paper read at the National Conference on Equal Educational Opportunities in America's Cities, Washington, D.C., November 16, 1967). 107Ibid. 1081. C. Candoli, "A Feasibility Study of the Community College's Potential Role in Combating the Effects of Cultural Depri- vation in Metropolitan Areas” (unpublished Ph. D. Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1967), PP. 96'100- 109mm. , p. 100. 110Herbert Wey and John Corey, Action Patterns in @1001 Desegregation (Bloomington, Indiana: Phi Delta Kappa, 1958). p. 276. 59 alternative plans. At the time of the publication (1958) there was considerable discussion over an "all at once" plan versus the "gradual" plan. It is interesting to contemplate that those who held out for an all at once plan then would not have accepted the educa- tional park. Yet in the ten years that have gone by since then, several educational parks could already be in service. Voluntary Transfer Plans A variety of desegregation plans depend on voluntary transfers of minority students to white—majority schools. However, except for the publicity value, there is little evidence to indicate many changes in enrollment patterns as a result of voluntary trans- fers. In Columbia, Missouri, 1 about a dozen Negro high school students transferred to formerly all-white schools as the result of a transfer plan. Lubbock, Texas, 2 reported fifteen students trans- ferred. Louisville113 found that transferring could work to sup- press ultimate desegregation. When the schools there were deseg- - regated and attendance boundaries were established to include both 11Ibid., pp. 91-92. 1 12Ibid., p. 95. 113mm,. pp. 98-99. 60 black and white students, children were routinely assigned to their neighborhood school. Of the 11% of the students who requested transfers, 85% of the white children who had been assigned to a pre— dominantly Negro school asked to be transferred back to their former school. Half of the Negroes asked to be sent back to their former schools. 1 14 For all the attention given to Little Rock, there was only token desegregation by Negro transfer students. Austin, Texas, reported similarly small numbers of Negroes who actually were transferred to majority-white schools. 6 Other school dis- tricts reported that a student application for transfer was not necessarily accepted. In Charlotte, North Carolina, for example, only five applications out of forty were accepted for transfer in 1957—58. 117 Undoubtedly the largest voluntary transfer (or open enrollment) plan has been in New York City. It was estimated that 114Ibid., p. 93 115 Ibid. , p. 1 13. 116Ibid. p. 114. 1 117Ibid. , p. 123. 61 118 50, 000 students were transferred between 1958 and 1963. The plan there provided that students from over—utilized or sending schools cound transfer to under-utilized or receiving schools. This plan has been widely adopted throughout the country. While such a plan has merit for the transferring students, it doesn't change sub- stantially the racial mix in either the sending or receiving school. RelocatirlgAttendance Zones One of the cities which has come under recent attack by the Courts, Washington, D. C. , was one of the first to attempt district- wide desegregation, The hOpe for the success of the plan is apparent in this description of its plan: On September 13, 1954, desegregation occurred in Washington, D. C. , a community with 105, 000 students, 62% of whom were Negroes. Dr. Hobart M. Corning, then superintendent of the District of Columbia, gave leadership to the development of the plan now bearing his name. It called for complete desegregation of all schools, to be accomplished with the least possible delay. The plan was deceivingly simple; attendance areas were gerrymandered, or redrawn, so as to achieve the best possible 118Eleanor B. Sheldon, James N. Hudson, and Raymond A. Glazier, "Administrative Irnplications of Integration Plans for Schools, " in Schools In a Changigg Society, ed. Albert J. Reiss, Jr. (New York City: Free Press, 1965), pp. 153-189. 119Wiey and Corey, op. cit., p. 100. 62 racial mix. Three factors have shown such a plan to fail in Wash- ington: 1. Gerrymandering can be successful where there is some diversification of housing, but not where de facto segre- gation exists on a wide scale, such as is the case in Washington. 2. When a city becomes 94% Negro, there are too few whites with whom to integrate. 3. Even if desegregation of schools had occurred, the seg- regation within the school in the form of the rigid tracking systems used in Washington would have negated whatever good effect might have occurred. Closing Minority Schools The closing of all-Negro or minority schools is a drastic process, but has resulted in desegregation. This means has been used successfully in small school districts all across the country. Del Rio and Kenedy, Texas; Hardin County, Kentucky; and Fredrick- town, Missouri, closed their Negro schools and sent the students to white schools. 120 In these instances the decision was simple; it resulted in better education and at lower costs. h 120Ibid., p. 96. 63 In larger communities it may have practicality in certain situations. Grand Rapids, Michigan, has plans to convert a majority- Negro high school in September, 1968, to a junior high, dispersing the students to the other three high schools in the district. 121 The use of such a converted facility, however, must be carefully planned to avoid creating another problem worse than the first. Montgomery County, Maryland, utilized a ”combination" plan which included closing of four substandard Negro elementary schools. Marion County, West Virginia, discontinued a Negro high school under similar conditions. Utilizing closure of selected schools in conjunction with other plans may be considered as one alternative which could be used in many settings. Pupil Assi Went Pupil assignment need not necessarily be a separate alternative plan. Gerrymandering and closure of schools both involve assigning pupils to different schools. For the purpose of this dis- cussion, however, it will include two plans referred to in the literature as bussing and cross-bussing. Under a bussing plan minority students are selected and assigned to attend majority-white 121Grand Rapids Board of Education meeting, May 27, 1968. 122Wey and Corey, op. cit., pp. 122-123. schools . 64 They are ordinarily bussed from their neighborhood school to the receiving school at district expense as opposed to many volun- tary bussing or transfer plans where the district may or may not assume responsibility for such costs. While this plan can achieve the obvious benefits of a better racial mix, it has suffered from: 1. Anything compulsory draws strong reactions from people who might otherwise promote desegregation. It often Atimes puts ”poorly trained Negro children of inferior background with white children from better backgrounds, "123 according to Rose. It may also place teachers who have not been properly prepared for such a situation in the receiving schools. These teachers may, in fact, mediate against students acquiring good understandings of race relations. "There are some aspects of this question which have little to do with race relations. Long before this . . . educators 124 were arguing the pros and cons of pupil transportation. ” Rose likens this factor to the consolidation issue--do we 123Arnold Rose, De Facto Segegation (New York City: National Conference of Christians and Jews, 1964). p. 44. 124mm,, p. 19. 65 want our children to attend school close at home, or do we need the advantages of specialization and more effi— cient management. While evaluation of bussing plans differ widely, the East Harlem Project reported: In the majority of cases the children showed dramatic improvement in their school work, in their attendance, and 125 generally they showed renewed vigor and interest in school. Philadelphia has provided a good measure of the success of bussing in comparison with compensatory education in racial iso- lation. The school system inaugurated both programs in 1964. Using 1963 measurements as pre-tests and 1967 measurements as post-tests .0 the study concluded: 1. There is little evidence that the EIP [Educational Improvement Program--a compensatory education program in racial isolation] is achieving its goals of raising the read- ing performance. . . 2. There is evidence that children who are from the same economic and educational environment as the EIP, but who are bussed to predominantly white schools, increase their rate of development in reading over time and are sig- nificantly better in achievement than the EIP children. . The benefits of desegregation are most pronounced in the children with higher achievement potential, but are apparent in the lowest achieving group as well. 125Meyer Weinberg, Learning Together (Chicago: Inte- grated Education Associates, 1965), p. 126. 126 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, op. cit., Vol. II, p. 247. 66 This study gives us two kinds of information. It is another instance of the lack of success of compensatory education programs in racial isolation; and gives us reason to believe that bussing can be a significant alternative plan. Cross-bussing has been referred to as a possible means of desegregation. This adds a second dimension to bussing—-trans- [porting white students from white-majority schools to Negro-majority schools. This writer could find little documentation of examples of where it has been tried. Berkeley had written a proposal for initiat- ing such a program, but the results of such action have yet to be reported. The obvious beneficial effect of better racial composition has been offset by the emotional overtones of white children from the peripheral areas of the city attending inner city ghetto schools. Those whites who have maintained that separate education can be equal should have difficulty in defending their unwillingness to have the products of separate but equal education associate with their own children. Organization bj Grades Where there are two or more nearby schools, one or more serving Negro or minority students, and one or more serving white students, pairing has been utilized to achieve a better racial mix. Under this plan, if for example four k-8 schools were involved, 67 one school could house kindergarten through second grade, a second would house grades three and four, another grades five and six, and the other grades seven and eight. This method was first adopted in Princeton, New Jersey, and shortly thereafter in Willow Grove, Pennsylvania, and Benton Harbor, Michigan. 127 The plan requires oppositely segregated schools in close proximity with a fairly high population density. The division by grades has certain disadvantages, particularly in lower grades where children may have to walk further and where older children are not available for patrol. It may also reduce opportunities for broad grouping among grade levels. Site Selection Selection of sites for new schools can be based on advan- tageous racial mix. Minneapolis predicated part of its desegregation plan on this basis. 128 This strategy, the result of the Michigan State University Facilities Survey Team counsel, required taking racial balance into account as a criterion in educational planning. 127Rose, op. cit., p. 38. 128James A. Tillman, Jr., "Minneapolis: Chronology of Success, " in Learning Together, ed. Meyer Weinberg (Chicago: Integrated Education Associates, 1965). PP. 87-90. 68 Supplementary Centers Part-time desegregation would be one outcome of supple- mentary centers, established to provide selected educational services to a portion or all of a district' s students. Depending on the plan, a child might spend a part of each day, part of a day per week, or a few days a year at such a center. Areas of study could include local history, science, art, music, education for the gifted or retarded, certain physical education experiences, cultural experiences, or a wide range of other areas. Mt. Vernon, New York, deveIOped plans for a "Children' 3 Academy.’ Six thousand elementary children would spend up to 40% of their time where they would receive supplementary instruction in the basic skills. 129 Cleveland provides special educational programs for all the 14, 000 sixth grade students from public and parochial schools in such a center. Each day about 300 students attend the center, with racial balance maintained. 130 Disadvantages of the supplementary center are in its part-time nature as well as in scheduling and transporting students. 0 .-~ .‘O- 129U. S. Commission on Civil Rights, op. cit. , V01. 1. p. 164. 130mm. 69 But one apparent advantage is the lack of opposition to it. The plan provides a good transition from no desegregation to some experience in the desegregated situation. A somewhat similar concept on a more limited scale has been used in some districts where Special subjects are offered at the secondary level in one school and students are brought from other schools to make up the class. Hot Springs, Arkansas, offered auto mechanics and practical nursing in such a situation. 131 Clyde Campbell132 has proposed bringing a racially mixed group of high school students together from several school districts on a regular basislto’ discuss current problems facing all young people, The attempt here would be to strengthen bonds between racial groups on the basis of sharing ideas about their common prob- lem s; Magget Schools The concept of smaller complexes than educational parks, sometimes called magnet schools, is gaining supporters because they can in many instances be built more quickly with smaller commit- ments of resources. 131Wey and Corey, 0p. cit., p. 119. 132Clyde Campbell in a meeting with school superinten- dents from the Greater Lansing, Michigan, area, May 7, 1968, 70 The Bronx Science High School in New York and the Latin Grammar School in Boston are examples of the direction such schools would take. These magnet schools would have open enrollment and have at least one area of specialization. Philadelphia has begun a federally funded project where three senior high schools will specialize—-one in commerce and business, another in space and aeronautical science, and a third in government and human science. In addition, school officials project middle schools, grades five to eight, and elementary schools with intensive programs in reading and science. 133 All schools would Operate with a racial balance consistent with the district-wide aver- age. Many of the advantages of the educational park obtain, with different disadvantages. Travel distances would be smaller, they require less initial capitalization, and don't bring such large groups of students together. But they may result in fewer oppor- tunities for desegregation than in an educational park. Summa ry The review of the literature has revealed the scope and extent of school segregation. Most every means of carrying out 133U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, op. cit., V01. 11. p. 165. 71 school segregation has occurred somewhere in the United States. While many anti-desegregation groups today are adamant that schools not utilize particular methods for desegregation, the same methods they criticize have undoubtedly been used to perpetuate segregation. Bussing has long been used to transport Negroes past white schools to attend Negro schools and white students have been bussed past Negro schools to attend white schools. Schools have been closed rather than to place Negro students in white schools or white students in Negro schools. Schools have been both under- utilized or over-utilized to prevent desegregation. School attendance boundaries have been gerrymandered to protect segregation. Pri- vate schools have replaced public schools to ensure segregation. And while it might salve the conscience of some whites to place such actions in past history, therefore actions for which we today are not responsible, there is ample documentation to indicate it is still going on today. There is some evidence to indicate that the achievement of Negro students improves the longer the time they spend in a deseg- regated class. But this evidence is not accepted by all researchers. The conditions under which most such research has been conducted, and even the methodology of the research, have not been what is needed if there is to be shown a clear cause and effect relationship. 72 The effect of school segregation on student self—concept is even more difficult to draw conclusions from. There have been no studies which clearly demonstrate the differences between the effects of residential or environmental segregation and school seg- regation on self-concept. The assumption that there is even a cause and effect relationship between self-concept and achievement in school is difficult to prove. There have been instances where compensatory education in racial isolation has raised student self-concept, but the resulting improvement in achievement has not obtained. This has led some researchers to hypothesize that self—concept is a necessary, but not sufficient, factor in school achievement. A review of successful and unsuccessful alternative plans for school desegregation tells one very little about the potentiality of a given alternative. Since no two sets of conditions seem to be equal, the particular situation under which desegregation is to occur seems to merit a specially deveIOped proposal. A comparison of significant factors in successful desegregation indicates that how the plan is implemented is at least as important as which alternative was chosen. The review of the literature further confirms the need for the deveIOpment of criteria for selection and implementation of a plan for desegregation. This study attempts to develop such a set of criteria. CHAPTER III ESTABLISHMENT OF CRITERIA FOR SCHOOL DESEGREGATION Introduction Few school districts have totally desegregated since 1954, while many more have accepted token desegregation. But as the Supreme Court and the Congress continue to demonstrate that the law of the land should be carried out, and that legally there is no place for segregated education, districts must plan in earnest for meaningful desegregation. This study attempts to develop criteria against which alternative plans can be evaluated by a local district. The first step in the development of the criteria is to assess what has been done in this light by school districts or has been proposed in the literature. Criteria Which Have Been Established There have been some success stories in our press toward an integrated society. But even the most ardent optimist 73 74 would have to admit that in the fourteen years since the Brown deci- sion, our progress has been intermittent and uncertain. This has been especially true with regard to school desegregation. John Fischer has summed it up very well: Twelve years of effort, some ingeniously pro forma and some laboriously genuine, have proved that desegregating schools--to say nothing of integrating them--—is much more difficult than it first appeared. . . . Despite some initial suc- cess and a few stable solutions, the consequences, for the most part, have proved disappointing. . . . Underlying the whole situation are basic facts that have too seldom been given the attention they merit. . . . Nor in some cases, have community characteristics and population movement been well enough con- sidered. 1 Fischer goes on to list two requirements for successful desegregation: 1. The first requirement is that the proportion of each race in the school be acceptable and educationally beneficial to both groups. The school must respond to the educational needs of all of its students better than the schools they might other- wise attend. The school must possess the capacity, the physical facilities, the staff strength, the leadership, and the flexibility required not only to offer a wide range of programs and services but must also adapt them to the special circumstances of individual students. As the members of the Civil Rights Commission analyzed successful school desegregation, they saw some crucial factors: 1John H. Fischer, "The School Park, " in Racial Isolation i_n_the Public Schools (Washington, D. C. : U. S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1967), Vol. II, pp. 253-254. 21pm. . pp. 254-255. number of factors. 75 Whether school desegregation is effective depends on a These include the leadership given by State and local officials; the application of the plan to all schools in the community; the measures taken to minimize the possibility of racial friction in the newly desegregated schools; the main- tenance or improvement of educational standards; the desegre- gation of classes within the schools as well as the schools them- selves, and the availability of supportive services for individual students who lag in achievement. Dr. Neil Sullivan, former superintendent of schools in Berkeley, California, where desegregation action has moved along rapidly, has proposed the following criteria: 1. Segregation must in fact be ended. This point should be self—evident. However, in too many cases the so—called solutions developed represent token gestures toward racial balance but do not wipe out de facto segregation. It may not be possible to wipe out de facto Segregation totally overnight, but a community must accept the fact that tensions will continue and the problem will not be solved until this result has finally been achieved. Desegregation must be combined with a general program of educational improvement. It is not enough simply to mix youngsters, many of whom come from a background of educational deprivation. These children must be given Special help to overcome this deficit and to succeed in the new environment. Also large segments of our communi- ties, unconvinced of the educational necessity for inte- gration, must be shown that the new program is in the best interests of all children. The "solution" to de facto segregation must involve the total community. No area of the city must be made to feel that it is being picked on or sacrificed to solve a total community problem. The experience of my own city is an example. A proposal made by a citizens' com- mittee to achieve desegregation by redistricting junior 3U. S. Commission on Civil Rights, Racial Isolation in 313 Public Schools (Washington, D. C. : U. S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1967), Vol. I, p. 154. 76 high school boundaries met with a storm of protest in one area of the community that felt it was being sacrificed to solve a citywide problem. When, in the course of com- munity deliberation, another plan was substituted, pro- viding an even greater degree of integration and involving all areas of the city, the community accepted the proposal. This criteria also means that Negroes cannot be asked to bear the total brunt of the drawbacks (e. g. long distance travel) accompanying desegregation. De facto segrega- tion is a community-wide problem and must be solved on a community-wide basis. Educators in working toward the solution to the problems of de facto segregation must act in good faith, and build the confidence of the community in that good faith. Unless such confidence is built securely, educators risk being considered antagonists and too often are denied the time and community c00peration needed to prepare programs for solving the problems. Phi Delta Kappa became concerned about desegregation problems, and published Action Patterns in School Desegregation-- A Guidebook in 1959. The editors, after analyzing the problem, divided their publication into four parts: 1. Determining the readiness of the school and the com- munity for desegregation and developing attitudes of acceptance. Formulating policies and developing a plan for desegre- gation. Carrying out a plan of desegregation and a description of the reSponsibilities assumed and the roles played by individuals . Determining changes in the education program as a result of desegregation and adapting the educational program to meet the needs of all children. 4Neil V. Sullivan, "Desegregation Techniques," in Racial I_solation in the Public Schools (Washington, D. C. : U. S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1967), Vol. II, p. 287. 5Herbert Wey and John Corey, Action Patterns in School Dese re ation-~A Guidebook (Bloomington, Indiana: Phi Delta Kappa, mix-E p. viii. 77 Of all the materials reviewed for this study, the Phi Delta Kappa publication was the most appropriate for school leaders seeking to implement a desegregation plan. The insight of the authors into approaches is typified by the following statement: . . Although back in 1954 it was possible for a super- intendent simply to announce that the schools were desegre- gated according to the Supreme Court decision, this type of approach will not work now or in the future. It is becoming more and more important that a superintendent use all the means at his disposal to make sure that the plan he developes is the one best for his community. Valien7 outlines some guiding principles which made for successful desegregation in St. Louis. These principles, however, were very general in nature and would be difficult to put into opera- tional statements for use by other districts. Stoff8 looked at six factors associated with nonviolent public school desegregation and grouped them by factor analysis to establish their importance. These factors were: favorable school leadership, the opposition (or lack of it) by significant individuals or groups, the urban center composition, the practical community, active community support, and residual support. —___ 61bid. , p. 129. 7Bonita H. Valien, The St. Louis Story: A Study of De- segregation (New York City: Anti-Defamation League of B' nai B'rith, 1956), pp. 66-72. 8 Sheldon Stoff, The Two Way Street (Indianapolis: David-Stewart Publishing Co. , 1967), 185 pages. 78 Crucial areas of concern were listed by Suchman et al. as: firmness or laxness with which policy and procedure are announced and communicated; the clarity of specification of objec— tives; the amount of voluntary choice permitted white and Negro students and its effects; the teachers' perceptions of what is expected of them; the amount of staff anxiety, the concern it creates, in turn, and the administrator's handling of it; the extent of partici- pation by staff in the details of change—over. The concern for commitment by school leadership to desegregation is seen by most every writer as a necessary criteria to successful desegregation. Solomon10 spells out nine behaviors the board and superintendent must exhibit if the desegregation plan is to be successful. A few writers have gone beyond the physical act of desegregation to look at what happens once the children are brought 9Edward A. Suchman, John P. Dean, and Robin M. Williams, Jr. , Desegregation: Some Propositions and Research Suggestions (New York: Anti-Defamation League of B' nai B' rith, 1958), p. 87. 10Benjamin Solomon, "Integration and the Educators, " infling Together, ed. Meyer Weinberg (Chicago: Integrated Education Associates, 1965), p. 156. 79 together. Green11 points out the necessity for transitional activities between Negro and white students, curriculum changes, teacher preparation for the desegregated school, and counseling services. 2 Sullivan1 indicates that desegregation without corresponding gains in instruction is not possible. The area which seems to have received the least attention by school systems and writers in the field is formal evaluation of the success of the desegregation program and how well it met the goals established for it. The review of the literature has documented the need for establishment of criteria by which alternative plans for desegrega- tion can be evaluated. This apparently has not been done previously. The use of any criteria has been very limited and the description of what factors or criteria were significant in the success or failure of a specific program were developed after the fact. Format for Establishment of Criteria The decision was made that an instrument could be designed to assist local school officials to evaluate alternative plans 11Robert L. Green, ”After School Integration--What? Problems in Social Learning, " Personnel and Guidance Journal, March, 1966, pp. 704-710. 12Neil V. Sullivan, "Revolution in Reading, " a paper presented to the International Reading Association, California Regional Councils, Fresno, California, October 29, 1966. 80 for desegregation. Thirty-five criteria were developed and a ques- tionnaire was administered to twenty-five respondents including doctoral students and professors in the College of Education at Michigan State University. The respondents were asked to react to the inclusion of the criteria in an instrument to assist local school officials to evaluate alternative plans for desegregation. The field test questionnaire appears in Appendix A. Analysis of the field test of the questionnaire indicated: 1. Design of such an instrument would be desirable. 2. The criteria should be classified into categories. 3. A questionnaire should be developed to send to recognized authorities in the field for their evaluation of whether or not selected criteria should be included in the final instrument. 4. The questionnaire should be devised in cooperation with the Research Services Bureau of the College of Educa- tion, Michigan State University. Subsequently the researcher developed several drafts of a questionnaire which ultimately resulted in classification of the criteria into the following categories: 1. Assessment of Current Status of the Community A. Attitudes 81 B. Racial Composition C. Resources II. Examination of Alternative Plans III. Commitment to a Plan of Action A . Attitudes B. Probable Outcomes 1. Racial composition 2. Learning patterns C. Resources IV. Implementation of the Plan A. Planning and Evaluation B. Curriculum and Services C. Attitude Changes A group of twenty—two recognized authorities in the United States was identified and asked to respond to the questionnaire. Six- teen criteria were selected for inclusion in Section I. Eighteen alternate plans for desegregation made up Section II. Twenty-five criteria were included in Section III. Section IV had nineteen criteria. The questionnaire appears in Appendix B. The experts were asked to rate the relevance of each item for inclusion in the final instrument according to the following scale: 1. I feel the item is necessary. 2. I feel the item is desirable but not necessary. 82 3. I feel the item is undesirable but acceptable. 4. I feel the item is not acceptable. They were further asked to add criteria to each category which they felt should be included, and to rewrite any item which they rated undesirable or not acceptable if the wording of the item was what made it not acceptable. Analysis of Responses by Panel of Experts The analysis of reSponses by the panel of judges was not meant to be a statistical analysis of significance. The responses of the panel were used to ensure that the criteria as set up were repre- sentative of the dimensions of the problem. There was no attempt to establish the statistical significance, validity, or even reliability of the criteria. The size of the sample was obviously too small to per- form such operations. At the outset of the study, it was recognized that appeal- ing to authorities in the field, while it had many advantages, would have the disadvantage of the likelihood that many would not take the time to reSpond to the questionnaire. It was felt that if eight ques- tionnaires were completed and returned, the respondents would make a significant contribution to the study. It was also expected that the reactions of the reSpondents would be varied and even divergent. 83 This proved to be true in only one section, that dealing with alterna- tive plans for desegregation. Appendix C contains the names of the respondents. The method for analysis of the reSponses was deveIOped with the cooperation of the Bureau of Research Consultation, College of Education, Michigan State University. The responses were assigned the following directional weightings: +3 Necessary +1 Desirable but not necessary 0 No response -1 Undesirable but acceptable -3 Not acceptable The three point weighting was utilized because it would give greater weighting to those reSponses which indicated a greater degree of confidence by the respondent in his answer. Where a respondent did not respond to a specific criteria, a score of zero was assigned. The sum of scores was tabulated for each item and divided by the total number of reSpondents to the questionnaire (eight). The resulting mean is the statistic which indicates the panel's composite weighting of the criteria as to the desirability for inclusion in the final instrument. Areas for acceptance and rejection of the criteria were set as follows, where the statistic, s, is the mean of the responses: 84 s _>_ +2. 50 Necessary (N) +2.49 _>_ s _>_ +0. 67 Desirable (D) +0. 66 Z s _>_ -0. 66 Indeterminate (I) -0.67 3 8 IV -2 . 49 Undesirable (U) s _<_ -2.50 Not acceptable (NA) According to these areas of acceptance and rejection, then, whenever the statistic s is greater than or equal to +0. 67 the criteria is accepted for inclusion in the final instrument. The rank N merely indicates a much stronger response by the reSpondents. Whenever the statistic s is less than or equal to -0. 67 the criteria is rejected. The rank NA represents a much stronger rejection of the criteria for inclusion in the final instrument. The rank 1, where s is greater than or equal to -0. 66 but less than or equal to +0. 66, indicates there was not concensus by the panel for inclusion of that criteria in the final instrument. This tended to occur where there was great divergence of opinion by the panel. In these instances the writer will take the option to include or not to include the criteria in the final instrument. Following the last item in each section of the question- naire there were two items left open for the respondents to include criteria which they felt should be included. These responses will be analyzed at the end of this chapter. A. Attitude s 85 Section 1: Assessment of Current Status of the Community The panel of judges responded to the following criteria in Part A of Section I: 1. School officials and the citizens of the community generally agree that diversification does not contra- dict their purposes for education. There is an active group of community supporters for school diversification. There is little or no group organization against school diversification. There is little or no group organization against the present school leadership. School officials are aware of the desegregation policies of other community and public agencies. State officials demonstrate support for school diversification. Plate III-1 indicates the frequency of responses by the panel to Section I, Part A of the questionnaire, Assessment of the Current Status of Community Attitudes. The judges were in general agreement that each criteria was at lease desirable for inclusion in the final instrument. B. Racial Composition It ems evaluated included: 86 PLATE III-l Assessment of Status of Community Attitudes Response Number 1 2 None 3 4 5 Response Ranka Response Mean Weighting +3 +1 0 '1 '3 1 4 3 O 0 1 1. 50 D 2 2 6 0 O 0 1. 50 D 3 3 4 0 0 1 1.25 D Item Number 4 1 6 0 0 1 . 88 D 5 5 2 1 0 0 2. 12 D 6 4 4 0 0 0 2 . 00 D Totals 19 25 1 0 3 1 . 52 D aSee the areas for acceptance or rejection on page 84. PLATE III—2 Assessment of Status of Community Composition Response 1 2 None 3 4 Number 3 Response Rank Mean Refp‘m.“ +3 +1 0 -1 -3 Weighting 9 7 1 0 0 0 2. 75 N 10 4 4 0 0 0 2. 00 D Item 0 0 0 2 . 00 D Number 11 4 4 12 5 3 0 0 0 2. 25 D 13 7 1 0 0 0 2. 75 N Totals 27 13 0 0 0 2. 35 D 10. ll. 12. 13. 87 School officials have available information describ- ing the amount and location of residential segrega- tion. School officials have available the building—by- building ethnic-racial percentages of student population. School officials have available information describ- ing the entire ethnic-racial balance of the district, not just the Negro-white balance. School officials have available a description of the natural barriers (railroads, highways, rivers) within the district which enhance segregation. School officials have available such demographic projections as those predicated on the effects of urban renewal, migrations, open housing, and building programs. Section I, Part B, Assessment of the Current Status of Community Composition, is analyzed in Plate III-2. Here again the judges were in agreement that each criteria was desirable for inclu- sion in the final instrument. Items 9 and 13 were accepted as neces- sary. C. Current Resources Available to the District Items were: 16. 17. Financial resources are available to provide the educational program the community des1res. Personnel are available to implement the educa- tional program the community desires. 88 18. Facilities are available to implement the educa- tional program the community desires. 19. All existing facilities are now being used. 20. The school district has completed a projection of student pOpulation for the next ten years. 21. The school district has completed a projection of school needs for the next ten years. 22. The school district has completed a projection of fiscal resources available for the next ten years. All items in Section I, Part C, Assessment of Current Status of Community Resources, were judged to be desirable for inclusion in the final instrument. Analysis of these items appears in Plate III- 3 . PLATE III-3 Assessment of Status of Community Resources Rbfsl’onse 1 2 None 3 4 umber 3 Response Rank Response Mean Weighting +3 +1 0 -1 —3 16 2 5 1 0 0 1. 38 D 17 2 6 0 0 0 1. 50 D 18 3 5 0 0 0 1. 75 D Item Number 19 1 3 1 2 1 1. 25 D 20 4 4 0 0 0 2. 00 D 21 3 5 0 0 0 1. 75 D 22 3 5 0 0 0 1. 75 D Totals 18 33 2 2 1 1. 46 K D 89 Section II: Examination of Alternative Plans The panel of judges evaluated the following eighteen alternative plans for inclusion in the final instrument: 1. Bussing of Negro and other minority students to white schools, but controlling enrollment so as to maintain a racial mix similar to the district average. Permissive open enrollment of minority students from over-utilized Negro—majority schools to under- utilized white-majority schools, but limiting enroll- ment so as to maintain a racial mix similar to the district average. Permissive transfer of minority students from Negro-majority schools to schools of their choice, but restricting enrollment so as to maintain a racial mix similar to the district average. Cross-bussing to transfer minority students from Negro-majority to white-majority schools, and white students from white-majority schools to Negro-majority schools, but restricting enrollment so as to maintain a racial mix similar to the dis- trict average. Open enrollment allowing all students to attend schools of their choice, using a lottery to determine enrollment in over-requested schools. Allow minority students to attend any school of their choice, restricting enrollment so as to maintain a racial mix similar to the district average. Utilize the Princeton Plan, a pairing of two or more oppositely segregated schools in proximity, placing lower grades in one, middle grades in another, and upper grades in a third, for example, resulting in a better racial mix. 10. ll. 12. l3. 14. 15. 16. 17. 90 Relocate, or gerrymander, school attendance areas so as to attain a better racial mix. Close Negro-majority schools, bus students to other schools, and use the closed facilities for other purposes. Locate new school sites to break down segregation patterns. Conduct inter-school seminars at the secondary schools on a regular basis in order to bring students from different racial and ethnic backgrounds together to discuss current issues which are of interest to all students. Establish diversified supplementary education centers to which students could be sent for a part of each day for a part of their school curriculum. Establish education parks which enroll large num- bers of students from age three through graduate college level students. There would be open enroll- ment. Establish magnet schools with very high quality pro- grams and staffs. Students would be selected so as to achieve racial and socio-economic mix similar to the district average. Diversify secondary students only, maintaining neighborhood elementary schools. Develop schomes (school homes), neighborhood primary units which serve pre-kindergarten through first graders; and diversify middle schools for grades six through eight, and high schools serving grades nine through twelve. Primary schools for grades two through five would be neighborhood schools. Maintain neighborhood primary units for pre- kindergarten through grade three, use minimal 91 travel intermediate schools (Princeton Plan, for example), and diversify secondary schools. 18. Accomplish diversification wherever possible without tranSporting large numbers of students. Diversify faculty everywhere else. Section II of the questionnaire proved to have greater disagreement among the judges than any other section. No items were judged to be necessary for inclusion in the final instrument. Only nine of the items were judged to be desirable, six were inder- terminant, and three items were rated as undesirable for inclusion in the final instrument. Particularly surprising are items which have been well accepted in the literature. Item 12, dealing with establishment of supplementary centers, has been considered by many experts to be one logical solution to desegregation in many areas, particularly in a large metropolitan area where the inner city is so large. Only one judge felt inclusion of this item for consideration by school officials was necessary, while three of the judges felt the item was not accept- able. The mean response was negative, leaving its inclusion indeter- minant. The incidence of negative responses throughout this section indicates the lack of agreement which people may feel about desirable patterns for school desegregation. Such disagreement may indicate one reason why school desegregation has proceeded so slowly. 92 Responses to items 16, 17, and 18 are not surprising. These alternatives represent plans which, although proposed by some groups, could in fact increase segregation in some instances. Frequency of reSponses and analysis of the reSponses to Section II are included in Plate III-4. Section III: Commitment to a Plan of Action A. Attitudes C riteria evaluated included: 1. 2. Public acceptance is possible now for this plan. The school staff would accept the plan now. The plan can be easily understood by the staff. The plan would not contradict the schools' stated goals. The plan takes into account desegregation policies of other community and public agencies. The plan would have state leadership approval. There will be an active group of citizens who will support the plan. There will be little or no organized support against the plan. The responses to Section III were generally positive. The respondents were in agreement that the criteria listed generally represented the factors that local school officials should consider as 93 PLATE III-4 Examination of Alternative Plans that? 1 2 3 4 . Response Rank 9:12.21: +3 +1 o -1 -. M... 1 3 3 0 1 1 1.00 D 2 3 2 1 2 0 1.12 D 3 1 2 l 1 3 - .62 I 4 4 1 1 2 0 1.38 D 5 2 1 1 1 3 - .38 I 6 1 2 2 1 2 - .25 I 7 4 3 1 0 0 1.88 D 8 3 2 1 1 1 .88 D Ntiitrfhrer 9 2 4 1 1 0 1.12 D 10 5 3 0 0 0 2.25 D 11 0 6 0 0 2 .00 I 12 1 3 0 1 3 - .50 I 13 4 4 0 0 0 2.00 D 14 2 4 0 1 1 .75 D 15 0 1 0 5 2 -1.25 U 16 0 3 O 3 2 - .75 U 17 1 2 1 3 1 - .12 I 18 1 2 0 2 3 - .75 U Totals 37 48 10 25 24 .43 I 94 they attempt to settle on one particular alternative plan. The responses to Part A, Commitment to a Plan of Action--Attitudes, are listed in Plate III-5. All items were judged as desirable but Item 8, on which they were in disagreement, and a rating of inde- terminant resulted. PLATE III- 5 Commitment to a Plan of Action-—Attitudes ReSponse 1 2 None 3 4 Number 8 Response Rank ReSponse Mean - -3 Weighting +3 +1 0 1 1 3 3 0 1 1 1. 00 D 2 3 3 1 1 0 1. 38 D 3 4 3 1 0 0 1. 88 D Item 0 1 . 88 D Number 4 2 4 1 5 4 2 1 0 1 1. 38 D 6 3 4 0 0 1 1. 25 D 7 3 5 0 0 0 1. 75 D 8 2 3 1 0 2 . 38 I Totals 24 27 5 2 6 1. 23 D B. Probable Outcomes The judges evaluated these criteria: 95 a. Racial composition 11. The plan will achieve an evenly distributed racial mix throughout the school system. 12. The plan will provide diversification opportunities within the individual schools. 13. The plan provides for diversification of faculty. 14. The plan provides for minority students to become involved in the total school life. 15. The plan provides for minority parents to become involved in the total activities of the school. 16. The plan provides a time schedule for the inclusion of all schools in the diversification. b. Learning patterns 19. The plan provides for increased student learning experiences. ~ 20. The plan will have a non-negative effect on the learning of white students. 21. The plan will have a positive effect on the learning of minority students. 22. The plan provides for compensatory instruction for all low-achieving students. 23. The plan provides for improvement of educational standards for all children. Part B of Section III, Commitment to a Plan of Action—— Probable Outcomes, is analyzed in Plates III-6 and 111-7. Racial composition included criteria which the panel rated very high. Items 13, 14, and 16 were ranked as necessary; all other items were 96 PLATE III-6 Commitment to a Plan of Action--Probable Outcomes Racial Composition Response Number 1 2 None 3 4 8 Response Rank ReSponse Mean Weighting +3 +1 0 '1 '3 1 l 4 4 0 0 0 2 . 00 D 12 4 4 0 0 0 2 . 00 D Item 13 7 1 0 0 0 2 . 75 N Number 14 7 l 0 0 0 2. 75 N 15 5 3 0 0 0 2 . 25 D 16 6 2 0 0 0 2. 50 N Totals 33 15 0 0 0 2. 38 D PLATE III-7 Commitment to a Plan of Action--Probable Outcomes Learning Response 1 2 None 3 4 Number 3 Response Rank Response Mean 0 -1 -3 Weighting +3 +1 19 7 1 0 0 0 2. 75 N 20 6 2 0 0 0 2. 50 N Item 0 0 2. 75 N Number 2 1 7 1 O 22 4 3 0 0 1 1. 50 D 23 6 2 0 0 0 2 . 50 N Totals 30 9 0 0 1 2. 40 D ll 97 rated as desirable for inclusion in the final instrument. Probable Outcomes for Learning criteria were rated even higher as seen in Plate III-7. Item 22 was rated as desirable; all other items were seen as necessary for inclusion in the final instrument. C. Resources Items were: 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. Financial resources can be made available to implement the plan. Personnel can be employed to implement the plan. Facilities can be made available to implement the plan. All existing facilities would be used. Travel distance does not consume too much time for students. The plan fits the projection of student population during the next ten years. The plan fits the projection of school needs during the next ten years. The plan fits the projection of school resources during the next ten years. Plate III-8 indicates the frequency of responses by the panel of judges to Part C of Section III, Commitment to a Plan of Action--Resources. The judges ranked all items as desirable for inclusion in the final instrument. 98 PLATE III-8 Commitment to a Plan of Action--Resources Response Number 1 2 None 3 4 3 Response Rank Response Mean Weighting +3 +1 0 -1 '3 26 4 2 1 0 1 1 . 38 D 27 5 2 1 0 0 2. 12 D 28 5 1 2 0 0 2 . 00 D Item 29 3 3 1 0 1 1. 12 D N umber 30 3 4 1 0 0 1. 62 D 31 2 6 0 0 0 1. 50 D 32 2 6 0 0 0 1. 50 D 33 1 7 0 0 0 1. 25 D Totals 25 33 6 0 2 1. 59 D Section IV: Implementation of the Plan A. Planning and Evaluation Items evaluated: 1. There will be sufficient planning time before imple— mentation. 2. Specific operational steps are clearly delineated. 3. Non-school personnel will be involved in planning. 4. Staff responsibilities are clearly delineated. 99 5. Student responsibilities are clearly delineated. 6. There will be communication of the plan to every- one in the community. 7. There will be continuing evaluation of the plan, its objectives, and how well it meets them. 8. Changes can be made in the plan as a result of con- tinuing evaluation. PLATE III-9 Implementation of the Plan-—Planning and Evaluation Response 2 3 4 Number 1 None 8 Response Rank Response Mean 0 -1 -3 Weighting +3 +1 1 6 1 1 0 0 2. 38 D 2 7 1 0 0 0 2 . 75 N 3 5 3 0 0 0 2. 25 D Item 4 7 1 0 0 0 2. 75 N Number 5 4 3 1 0 0 1. 88 D 6 4 4 0 0 0 2. 00 D 7 7 0 1 0 0 2. 62 N 8 7 0 1 0 0 2. 62 N Totals 47 12 4 0 0 2. 41 D The panel of judges rated Section IV, Implementation of the Plan, higher than any other section of the questionnaire. Part A, Planning and Evaluation, is analyzed in Plate III-9. The judges were 100 in general agreement about the desirability of including all criteria in the final instrument. Items 2, 7, and 8 were rated as necessary and all other as desirable. B. Curriculum and Services Criteria evaluated: 11. 12. l3. 14. The plan allows for changes and additions to the curriculum when necessary. The plan provides for transitional activities when it is first adopted. (Transitional activities could include weekly seminars, small group discussions, or assemblies in which the diversification is put into perspective.) The plan provides curricular additions for white and minority students to learn about the history and culture of minority peoples. The plan provides for supportive services such as counseling and social services for students who lag in achievement . Plate III-10 lists the responses for Part B, Curriculum and Services. General agreement among the judges is evidenced in their rating of the four items. Items 11 and 13 were rated as neces- sary for inclusion in the final instrument; items 12 and 14 were judged to be desirable. C. Attitude Changes Criteria evaluated: 17. The plan provides ways to develop positive student self-concept. 101 PLATE III-10 Implementation of the Plan-~Curriculum and Services Response Number 1 2 None 3 4 5 Response Rank Response Mean Weighting +3 +1 0 -1 -3 1 1 6 2 0 0 0 2. 50 N Item 12 4 4 0 0 0 2. 00 D Number 13 6 2 0 0 0 2. 50 N 14 5 3 0 0 0 2. 25 D Totals 21 I 11 0 O 0 2.31 D PLATE III—11 Implementation of the Flam—Attitude Changes Response 2 N 3 4 Number 1 I one 5 Response Rank Response Mean 0 —1 —3 Weighting 3 +1 I 7 1 0 0 0 2.75 N 8 0 0 0 0 3. 00 N 8 0 0 0 0 3. 00 N 6 2 0 0 O 2. 50 N 7 l 0 0 0 2.75 N .6 2 0 0 0 2.50 N 2 2 3 0 1 . 62 I 3 4 1 O 0 1.62 D 3 2 2 1 O l. 25 D Totals 50 I 14 I 6 I 1 I 1 I 2.22 D 102 18. The plan provides ways to help bring about positive attitudinal changes about race by students. 19. The plan provides ways to help bring about positive attitudinal changes about race by faculty. 20. The plan provides ways to help bring about positive attitudinal changes about race by citizens. 21. The plan provides ways for teachers to develop understanding about probable differences in student standards of behavior and cultural background. 22. The plan provides ways for teachers to develop understanding about probable student academic achievement differences. 23. The plan provides ways for students to learn appro- priate behavior between and within races. 24. The plan provides counseling to white and minority students who have difficulty adapting to the diversi- f ied situation. 25. The plan provides counseling for teachers who have difficulty adapting to the diversified situation. Part C, Attitude Changes, is analyzed in Plate III-11. Items 17 through 22 were rated by the panel as necessary; items 24 and 25 were rated as desirable. Item 23 brought an indeterminant response, partially because some of the judges failed to respond to it. Plate III-12 shows the sum of the responses for each part of the four sections of the questionnaire. The highest rating was given to the two scales of Part B, Section III, Commitment to a Plan of Action-~Probable Outcomes. This would seem to indicate that the 103 panel of judges was very concerned that school officials try to antici- pate the results of each alternative plan with regard to racial compo- sition and learning. The judges also showed concern for criteria which would help school officials assess the current status of the community composition, Part B of Section I. P LATE III— 12 Analysis of Section Parts ReSponse 1 2 None 3 4 Number 8 ReSponse Rank ReSponse Mean Weighting +3 +1 0 1 -3 I-A 19 25 1 0 3 1. 52 D I-B 27 13 0 0 0 2. 35 D I-C 18 33 2 2 1 1. 46 D II 37 48 10 25 24 .43 I Part III—A 24 27 5 2 6 1. 23 D Number III-B1 33 15 0 0 0 2. 38 D III-B2 30 9 0 0 1 2. 49 D III-C 25 33 6 0 2 1. 59 D IV-A 47 13 4 0 0 2. 41 D IV-B 21 11 0 0 0 2. 31 D IV-C 50 14 6 1 1 2. 22 D All parts of the Section IV, Implementation of the Plan, received a high rating. This apparently demonstrates the concern of 104 the judges that school officials realize their job is not done once they have selected a specific plan for desegregation. How the plan is implemented is perhaps just as important as which plan was selected. Plate III-13 analyzes the reSponses to the four sections of the questionnaire. The favorable rating of Sections 111 and IV is demonstrated by the ratings by the experts. Section I received a Only in Section 11 did the rating which was overall quote positive. experts fail to give a significant positive rating to the alternative plans. PLATE III-13 Analysis of Sections ReSponse 1 2 None 3 4 Number 8 Response Rank Response Mean Weighting +3 +1 0 1 3 I 64 71 3 2 4 1. 73 D Section II 37 48 10 25 24 .43 I Number III 112 94 11 2 9 2. 01 D IV 118 38 10 1 1 2. 31 D Totals 331 251 34 30 38 l. 61 D The panel of judges was also asked to comment about the wording of existing items and to add items which they felt should be included. The respondents were nearly unanimous in their opposition 105 to use of the word diversification. As several pointed out, while it may be a more explicit term, it has not been used frequently enough as yet in the literature or in the field, and should be replaced with the word desegregation. This will be done in the final instrument. Analysis of the criteria added by the reSpondents indicates that some additional criteria are necessary. In Section I, Part A, Assessment of Community Attitudes, several respondents, while they reacted favorably to Item 3, pointed out that a better item was available. Accordingly, that item in the final instrument will read: Groups which are opposed to school desegregation have been identified. One additional criteria for Part B, Section 1, Assessment of Community Racial Composition, was proposed which will be included in the final instrument: School officials have available figures on racial composition, subject by subject and class by class, in secondary schools. Several reSpondents felt that there should be included in Section II, Evaluation of Alternative Plans, some alternatives related to inter-district cooperative desegregation plans. The following additional alternatives will be added to suggest to school officials that a plan involving more than one district could be utilized. DeveIOp on a voluntary basis a cooperative plan with one or mo re other school districts utilizing alternatives mentioned above. 106 Initiate Court or legislative action to reorganize school districts on a metropolitan basis so that one or more of the alternatives listed above can be implemented on a broad base. Part A of Section III, Commitment to a Plan of Action—- Attitudes, will have an item added which may appear to be too obvious and perhaps not necessary, but whose exclusion concerned the judges. The plan is consistent with federal guidelines for school desegregation. Part B of Section III, Commitment to a Plan of Action--- Probable Outcomes, will have the following item added to subscale a, Racial Composition: The plan provides for racial balance in the selec— tion of school administrators. Subscale b, Learning Patterns, will have the following additional item: The learning potential of minority students will be publicized in the community and within the school staff. An Instrument to Evaluate Alternative Plans for School Desegregation The instrument as finally developed represents the con- cerns of many groups and people (see Appendix D for the instrument). It reflects the experiences of school districts which have desegregated; the views of writers and researchers in the field have been taken into 107 account. The doctoral students and staff in the Department of Edu- cational Administration at Michigan State University have influenced the selection of criteria. The panel of judges' contributions are many. In the final analysis, however, the writer bears the responsibility for development of the instrument. It could not have been developed without the resources referred to, but it still undoubtedly reflects the biases and interests of the writer. All criteria which were judged by the panel to be neces- sary or desirable have remained in the final instrument. None of those criteria judged to be undesirable or not acceptable have been included in the instrument. Of those items in which the responses were indeterminant, the course of action taken by the writer is as follows: Section II, Examination of Alternative Plans 3. Permissive transfer of minority students--will be included in the final instrument. The panel's dissatisfaction with the item stemmed from their belief that permissive transfer of students has not been accepted to any extent by minority parents. This does not preclude the chances that it could be a solution for some communities. ll. 12. 17. 108 Open enrollment utilizing a lottery system where necessary- -will not be included since it is just a specialized application of items 2 and 3. Allow minority students to attend any school of their choice--will not be used because a Court case apparently would rule this an unfair advantage to minority students. Conduct inter-school seminars-~will be included since it could be considered by some districts to be used as a supplement to another alternative. Establish desegregated supplementary education centers—~will be included as it could be one of the few viable alternatives open to large metropolitan school districts. Maintain neighborhood primary units--will be kept as it may be the only intermediate step available for some de facto segregated systems. Section III, Commitment to a Plan of Action 8. There will be little or no organized opposition-- will be changed to read: Organized opposition to the plan can be identified. It 109 Section IV, Implementation of the Plan 23. The plan provides ways for students to learn appro— priate behavior between and within races--will not be used. This item is negatively loaded and assumes there are differences between races. The final instrument will be administered to a school district in three different stages to a committee of administrators, board members, teachers, and parents selected by the administra- tion or board. The respondents will respond with yes or no answers to Sections 1, III, and IV. Section II will use reSponses of acceptable or not acceptable. Sections I and II will be administered at one sitting. If school officials agree that the responses are positive, then the responses to Section II will be analyzed for general agreement on alternatives. There should be at least 2/3 of the reSpondents favor- able to any alternative selected for further study. Should the response to Section I be negative or inconclusive, local school officials may want to consider a program to change community and personnel atti- tudes toward desegregation before attempting to implement a plan. Plate III—14 describes a flow chart which might be used by school officials in implementing desegregation through use of the instrument developed in this study. It % ' 110 Al OADNHOCVNE 32:88.60 mo madam no cEmUoQ H cofloom mo mflmbmcd. m / d and H mcofioom hmwmflfiavme fi e an NEU 307m Cow umflamkrmm «LIHHH m9NHCD H GOmHOOW 0m: 9. v I IL _IIIIe 9. some. 90 «III I I _ 3...... L /\ .H 05.9.34 on D luv 3.50 e .. 1, OZ \GIoISmmopmomonm new moZoboFO snznosnm Bugaboo: 9.3. on: o... mow sowmfioofl N Tmow 0:9 mgmum Emu—om I SO eat In OZ mamwohmmmmm Op :ofimfiomQ Emmehim 111 635288 3-5 mafia mow fl Edam—H a of cmHnH one. :030 mm HcoEoHQSH mow HGoEoHQEH oo. cumin;- fi :onHooQ magnum m H H we? r I I ouwsHm>mH N. H I oz v J 338630 HoosH mow \ oz “dogmas: mHHsmom / 3 cmHnH HooHom H30 m H I ( OZ \ _ V 1 J mcmHnH I 1, I HH 23383. E H: :oHHoom poH mHmmonHounH :030 mm :38 mm 09.3.23. 3.30on HonHcHSUHw oubmfiw 33960 N. w m o H r e c m m PtaI—d- n.—e¢.H HBjm ll -2 124 N N w.v ms. at. m m. m4. m4. m4. mg. as. ms 38st H .e m .w v .a w W H .m m .m m .m. w .v m .w m .2. 8:65 B B «in m.m m.m W W is H4. as. we mg. mg. 8932 9... ms aim m mm. us as. min 1...... as. ma. Sm? a 820 . . N N . . . . . m N. mm mm m. m mm mm mm mm mm N 3832 O O 1 m.m ms v V m.m as 3. mg as 1 BEES m m m mo. A o.m m.m U U. m.m mtm m.m mtm m.m A 8232 m e e m m .v m .e m m m .e m .2. m .e H .e m .e 8m? m mega mama peas mama mews woos mmmH News HmmH cams mama wmms Hoosom 332 :H memHmHGHEUg mmaoom H3632 hpmfimm usmam>oH£o< $8.?me NIB erHfim 125 we we as m m we as we as as we 38st aim To me m w as Hg. mg mg. Hg. ms SEEQ m4. mg. as m m. as as as as as ms 8932 as. as. as m m 3 m.m ms ms ms Ne 8w? m 380 as as we m m as me. ms as as as $2232 ch as. me W W as ms «5 as as. as Housman on. as We m. m. as we Hg... as as as 893.2 ms as as m m is He. mg. mg we as 8w? m. 380 Acmzfiucouv Nu >H MESA It (a 126 Opportunity, and the Civil Rights Commission' 5 studies for Racial Isolation in the Public Schools. Perhaps the conclusion most difficult to avoid was that compensatory education in racial isolation has not succeeded. This would be consistent with the findings in the Banneker Schools of St. Louis, the Higher Horizons Program and More Effective Schools in New York City. It should be pointed out, however, that other factors, not analyzed in this study, could be mediating the efforts by the school. Certainly the community itself could be such a factor. Nevertheless, this study, as well as the other works cited above, indicate the need for careful evaluation of compensatory edu- cation in racial isolation. Some alternate hypotheses could be developed which would modify the most obvious conclusion: 1. Measures of school achievement, particularly over short term time spans, cannot adequately reflect the gains made by compensatory education. 2. The effect of the community norms and values are so overpowering that unless they are mediated, one cannot expect a compensatory educational program to create Significant differences in educational achievement. It 127 3. The true value of compensatory education cannot be measured until the recipients are in the work force and/ or are parents of school children. Because these hypotheses are not an inherent part of this study, they are only mentioned and recommended for future study by other researchers. Evaluation Strategy At least three alternatives were available for utilizing the evaluation instrument developed in Chapter III for a field test. School officials could respond to the instrument, thus evaluating alternative plans for desegregation. The chief advantage would be their familiarity with the school system. The disadvantage would be the possibility that they might not be completely objective. A second alternative would be to utilize outside consultants to analyze the school system and then apply the evaluation instrument. In this instance the advantage and disadvantage would merely be reversed. A third alternative was selected which would maximize the advantages of both and minimize the disadvantages of each. Four school officials were selected by the superintendent to reSpond to the instrument-—the associate superintendent, the director of plan- ning, director of inner city programs, and the principal of Madison Park Sch ' 001. The writer of the study also responded to the instrument. 1‘3 128 The responses of the five evaluators were analyzed for their concur- rences and disagreements, and the school officials' responses were checked against those by the writer. Analysis of the Responses Section I: Assessment of the Current Status of the Community The evaluators responded to nineteen items in Section I Of those items they responded with seventy-seven yes answers, twelve no answers, and there was one item which had one no response. The 85. 6% favorable response to this section indicates that, in the opinion of the evaluators, the community is in good position to imple- ment a sound desegregation plan. The percentage of yes responses also is more than adequate according to the 66. 7% the researcher had previously established as an arbitrary statistic before moving ahead with evaluation of alternative plans. A. Attitudes Items school officials responded to: 1. School officials and the citizens of the community generally agree that desegregation does not contra- dict their purposes for education. 2. There is an active group of community supporters for school desegregation. ll . 129 Groups which are opposed to school desegregation have been identified. There are few or no groups organized against the present school leadership. School officials are aware of the desegregation policies of other community and public agencies, including city and county planning agencies and model city agencies. State officials demonstrate support for school desegregation. The five evaluators were in complete agreement about the current status of attitudes in the community. All six items received only yes responses. If the respondents correctly read the attitudes of the community, the school district should be able to implement a plan for desegregation. B. Racial Composition Items were: 7. 10. School officials have available information describ- ing the amount and location of residential segrega- tion. School officials have available the building-by- building ethnic-racial percentages of student popu- lation. School officials have available information describ- ing the entire ethnic-racial balance of the district, not just the Negro-white balance. School officials have available a description of the natural barriers (railroads, highways, rivers) within the district which enhance segregation. 11. 12. 130 School officials have available such demographic projections as those predicated on the effects of urban renewal, migrations, open housing, and building programs. School officials have available figures on racial composition subject by subject and class by class in secondary schools. The responses to this section by the evaluators were equally positive. five evaluators . respondents. Items 8 and 9 brought yes responses by four of the All other items elicited a unanimous yes from the (Item 12, which refers to secondary schools, was not used for this evaluation.) C. Current Resources Available to the District Items were: 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. Financial resources are available to provide the educational program the community desires. Personnel are available to implement the educa- tional program the community desires. Facilities are available to implement the educa— tional program the community desires. All existing facilities are now being used. The school district has completed a projection of student population for the next ten years. The school district has completed a projection of school needs for the next ten years. The school district has completed a projection of fiscal resources available for the next ten years. ll 3* 131 The final portion of Section I did not show such congruence. The respondents gave Items 16 and 17 aunanimous yes, white Items 14 and 18 had four yes responses. Item 19 had three of five responses yes. The two criteria which elicited negative responses indi- cate potential problems in any desegregation plan implemented. Three of the evaluators felt facilities are not available to implement the regular educational program the community desires. Only one respon- dent indicated that he felt financial resources are available to pro- vide the educational program the community desires. These criteria, however, would probably elicit similarly negative responses from many school officials throughout the country if they were to evaluate their own communities. Section II: Examination of Alternative Plans School officials were asked to evaluate the following alternatives: 1. Bussing of Negro and other minority students to white schools, but controlling enrollment so as to maintain a racial mix similar to the district average. 2 . Permissive open enrollment of minority students from over-utilized Negro-majority schools to under- utilized white-majority schools, but limiting enroll- ment so as to maintain a racial mix similar to the district average. ll 3* 10. 11. 132 Permissive transfer of minority students from Negro-majority schools to schools of their choice, but restricting enrollment so as to maintain a racial mix similar to the district average. Cross-bussing to transfer minority students from Negro-majority to white-majority schools, and white students from white—majority schools to Negro-majority schools, but restricting enrollment so as to maintain a racial mix similar to the district average. Utilize the Princeton Plan, a pairing of two or more oppositely segregated schools in proximity, placing lower grades in one, middle grades in another, and upper grades in a third, for example, resulting in a better racial mix. Relocate, or gerrymander, school attendance areas so as to attain a better racial mix. Close Negro-majority schools, bus students to other schools, and use the closed facilities for other purposes. Locate new school sites to break down segregation patterns. Conduct inter-school seminars at the secondary schools on a regular basis in order to bring stu- dents from different racial and ethnic backgrounds together to discuss current issues which are of interest to all students. Establish diversified supplementary education centers to which students could be sent for a part of each day for a part of their school curriculum. Establish education parks which could enroll large numbers of students from age three through grad- uate level for college students. There would be open enrollment. l‘ 133 12. Establish magnet schools with very high quality programs and staffs. Students would be selected so as to achieve racial and socio—economic mix similar to the district average. 13. Maintain neighborhood primary units for pre- kindergarten through grade three, use minimal travel intermediate schools (Princeton Plan, for example), and desegregate secondary schools. 14. Develop on a voluntary basis a cooperative plan with one or more school districts, utilizing alter- natives described above. 15. Initiate court or legislative action to reorganize school districts on a metropolitan basis so that one or more of the alternatives listed above can be implemented on a broad base. There are fourteen alternative plans in Section II of the instrument which 'the evaluators were asked to rate. Item 9 refers to secondary situations only, and was not used in this phase of the study. The range of favorable responses was consistent with the way the panel of judges had earlier responded to the original question- naire. Four alternatives were acceptable to all five raters. Items 1, 10, 12, and 13 thus were selected to be evaluated further by the application of Section III of the instrument developed in Chap- ter 111 Items 7 and 8 received four acceptable responses by the PBSpondents. Items 5, 14, and 15 were acceptable to three respon— dents, while items 2, 3, 6, and 11 were acceptable to only two 134 respondents. Item 1 was acceptable to one respondent. No item was perceived to be not acceptable by all evaluators. The lack of congruence in the school officials! reSponses relative to their situation was similar to the way the panel of judges responded to the questionnaire. While the school officials did select four alternatives as acceptable, the panel of judges were neither unanimously in favor or against even one alternative. The lack of agreement about various alternatives may be one factor in the slow- ness of many school districts to plan for desegregation. It may well be that school districts, if they are to act on desegregation at all, must do so knowing full well they will not get anything resembling unanimity of opinion even among their own staff as to the best way to proceed. Section III: Commitment to a Plan of Action Each of the four plans selected by the school officials for further evaluation as a result of analysis of Section II of the instru- ment were expanded to include more specific statements about their adaptation to the Madison Park situation. See Appendix E. Each of the respondents was then asked to evaluate each of the plans accord- ing to the criteria developed in Section III of the evaluation instrument. The respondents reacted to each plan with yes or no--thus evaluating how well each criteria would be met by each plan. ll A. Attitudes 135 Item included: 1. 2. Public acceptance is possible now for this plan. The school staff would accept the plan now. The plan can be easily understood by the staff. The plan would not contradict the schools' stated goals. The plan takes into account desegregation policies of other community and public agencies. The plan would have state leadership approval. There will be an active group of citizens who will support the plan. Organized opposition to the plan can be identified. The plan is consistent with federal guidelines for school desegregation. Plan D (Item 13 of Section II), Cross-bussing, received more favorable responses to the criteria than did the other three plans. See Plate IV-3 for analysis of the items. All nine items for Plan D received a majority of favorable responses. One respondent evaluated three criteria as not being met; all other criteria were judged to be satisfied by all respondents. The evaluators were concerned about acceptance by the public (Item 1) of the other three plans, and generally were not so positive in their evaluation of how well the plans met the other cri- teria. 136 oncommon m Lon—CB m5 mounds? m pm mmH H m HHt m NH Hm H «H Hm H m mm mHmuoH o H m H o o *m o H v.3 o o *m o o *m m o HV m H o o *m o *m m o *m m o 0 an m o m N. H o H *v o o an o H a. o H is N. Ht 0 m H H o *H» H o .3 H o .3. H o *HV 0 o m w H o c an o m *m o 0 an o o a. m o e m H o o a o H .3 o m *m o H is HV 0 H. m H o H is o m *m o *m m o H 1% m H m w H o o *m H H a. o m *m o m *m N o H H m o H v.3 o m tam o m *m o H» *H H xcmHmH 02 wow vEsHmH 02 wow VEmHmH 07H mow xcmHmH 02 we? xstmH 02 wow am So Bissau... was. .nmm .. . humasmEmHadsm . $353. mu>.H maidsdnm Ii B. 137 Probable Outcomes Items were: a. Racial composition 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. The plan will achieve racial mix throughout the school system. The plan will provide desegregation opportunities within the individual schools. The plan provides for desegregation of faculty. The plan provides for minority students to become involved in the total school life. The plan provides for minority parents to become involved in the total activities of the school. The plan provides a time schedule for the inclusion of all schools in the desegregation. The plan provides for racial balance in the selec- tion of school administrators. Learning patterns The plan provides for increased student learning experiences. The plan will have a positive effect on the learning of white students. The plan will have a positive effect on the learning of minority students. The plan provides for compensatory instruction for all low—achieving students. The plan provides for improvement of educational standards for all children. 138 “uncommon m 2333 on“ mopsHo:H* HV 3 mm H N. N H NH NN H 3H ON H 3H ON 3309 0 NH w o m *N o m *N o m *N o m *N mH N 3H 3 o N *m H .3 o o H. *H H .3 o mH o m mH o o *m o H .3 o *N m o *N m 3H o m NH O o *m o H .3 o H .3 o *H 3 NH H N pH H H *m o o *m o o *m o H .3 NH 0 N NH o o *m o H .3 o H .3 o o .3 HH H m 3 o H .3 o N *m H m *H o m *N 3 xeflm oz . mom. xsmHmH 02 mo» ,xsmHmH 02 wow xcmHmH 02 new ,xanmH 02 wow am So Q REA 0 52% m HnH < canH “H kuoH mchmsnummOLU Hoonom uosmmz “3:60 mammsmH . humusogmaasm . :oHuHmoQEoU HmHommuumoEoousO oHnmnoum Hui/H "whim It 139 22. The learning potential of minority students will be publicized in the community and within the school staff. The respondents felt the criteria about racial composition were better met by Plan D. See Plate IV-4. They rated Item 16 in Plan D relating to selection of administrators negatively; all others received positive ratings. Item 15 as well as Item 16 in the other plans was rated negatively. Plan B (Item 10 of Section II), Supplementary Education Center, met the criteria for learning patterns considerably better than others according to the evaluators. See Plate IV-5. Compensa- tory instruction for low-achieving students, Item 20, concerned the respondents in all four plans. Item 21, improvement of educational standards for all students, was rated negatively for Plan D. . C. Resources Items evaluated: 23. Financial resources can be made available to imple- ment the plan. 24. Personnel can be employed to implement the plan. 25. Facilities can be made available to implement the plan. 26. All existing facilities would be used. 27. Travel distance does not consume too much time for students. 140 omcoamou m 78E? 2: mosaics?“ HH oN mm 3 w NH N w 0N N N wN m w NH mHmuoH N H pH H o .3 o H 3 o o *m H o 3 NN o N. mH o *m N o *N m o o *m o N *m HN H mH 3 H m .wH o *m o o N *m o *m 0 ON 3 o oH H o .3 H o 3 H o 3 H o .3 NH 3 o mH H o 3 H o 3 H o .3 H o .3 NH o m pH 0 N *m o o *m o o *m o H .3 pH u33m 02 wow vwhim oz mow u.EmHmH 02 wow ,xstm 02 wow xsmHm 02 new as Em Q canH U :anH m Hm < smHm “H HmuorH. 92mm: immon oo o Hoswm .8360 mama: . n U H n m 2 mnmusoEondsm . mH msumfimm wasnmodunmoaoopso oHnmnoum mu>.H HHjnH 141 28. The plan fits the projection of student population during the next ten years. 29. The plan fits the projection of school needs during the next ten years. 30. The plan fits the projection of school resources during the next ten years. The evaluators reacted more favorably toward all plans with regard to resource feasibility than had been anticipated. See Plate IV-6. Plans B, C, (Item 12 of Section II), Magnet Schools, and D all elicited highly favorable responses. The respondents evaluated Items 28, 29, and 30, relating to projections, quite negatively. This indicates the school district would be well-advised to develop projec- tions of resources, school needs, and facilities. Plan D, Cross-bussing, best met all the criteria accord- ing to the respondents. See Plate IV-7. Plan A, Bussing, received less support than Plan B, Supplementary Center, or C, Magnet Schools. According to the guidelines set down in Chapter IH for selection of a specific plan for implementation, Plan D represents a positive commitment to it by the evaluators. The writer' 8 responses to each item in Section III were listed to analyze what concurrence or lack of concurrence might exist with the school officials. His responses to Items 1, 10, 16, 28, and 29 represented points of difference with the majority of school officials. But these differences were less than the school 142 omsoamms m 2333 of $5305.". pH 0N mNH m m 3m m m Nm m 3 Hm 3 oH mN 230.5 3 N 3H H o .3 H o 3 H o .3 H N *N on 3 m OH H *H m H *H m H *H m H *m H .N 3 m OH H *H m H *H m H *H m H *m H NN o o ON 0 c *m o o *m c o *m o o *m N o o ON C o *m o o *m o o *m o o .3 mN N H NH 0 o *m H o .3 H o .3 o H 33 N o o 0N o o *m o o .3 o o *m o o *m 3N m m NH o H .3 H *H m H *N N H H *m «N 33me 02 93% xcmHmH 02 mo% _xsmHmH 02 wow 333m 02 we? u.EsHmH 02 wow am So D :anH U :mHm mH Hm < smHm HH H308 msHmmsnummonU Hoonom umsmez non—sou mfimmsm . humusoEdeasm . mmousommm mn>.H HHjnH Ii 143 pm OOH 3N3 HN HNH OH Om OOH m mm OOH H3 OOH 2308 NH ON mNH m 3m O O NO O 3 HO OH ON moonnomom 983qu HH ON ON O OH N O ON N N ON O OH 995me soHHHmoHHEoU 3 3 NO H. >N H NH NN H 3H ON 3H ON HmHomm O rm OOH m H3 N NH Hm H OH HO O Om mopsfiafiw u.HsmHmH 02 96% ,xcmHmH 02 no? UEsHmH 02 wow xsmHmH 02 new xstmH 02 mm% cm .8 Q 35 0 Sam m E 3 92m .. m HmHoH mchmsnsmm0pU mHooHHom HmsmmSH smusmu wsHmmsmH . hawasmEoHadsm . noses. .Ho cmHm .m o» “GOEHHEEOU HUB HHEnH a? 144 officials themselves differed with each other. The local school planner' s responses were the most divergent from the rest of the evaluators. See Plate IV-8. Section III: Implementation of the Plan Plan D, Cross-bussing, was rewritten to make it more specific and definitive. See Appendix F. An attempt was made to fit it into the structure of a proposed organization program for Grand Rapids adopted by the Board of Education during the summer of 1968. Section IV of the instrument was administered to the school officials to evaluate possible implementation of the plan. The evaluators responded to twenty items in Section IV. Of the 100 possible responses, eighty were yes, indicating that gen- erally the respondents felt the criteria had been met by the plan of action they had selected. The 80% favorable response was also greater than the arbitrary statistic of 66. 7% favorable responses the researcher had established. This favorable evaluation indicates that the school district could begin implementation of the plan. School officials, however, should analyze carefully those criteria which were evaluated negatively. Modification of the plan to better meet those criteria could result in a better plan. A. Planning and Evaluation It ems evaluated: 145 PLATE IV-8 Analysis of the Evaluators' Responses to the Plans Respondents Response . Principal Assoc1ate Director Planner Writer Sup' t. Plan A, Bussing Yes 14 2 0 23 l 9 24 No 8 1 0 6 11 6 Blank 8 0 1 0 0 Plan B, Supplementary Center Yes 18 24 24 18 24 No 4 6 5 12 6 Blank 8 0 1 0 0 Plan C, Magnet Schools Yes 1 6 25 23 1 8 23 .No 4 5 7 12 7 Blank 10 0 0 0 0 Plan D, Cross-bussing Yes 2 1 2 6 25 2 1 2 7 No 2 4 3 9 3 Blank 7 y 2 0 0 Totals Yes 69 95 85 76 98 No 18 25 21 44 22 Blank 33 o 4 0 0 146 1. There will be sufficient planning time before implementation. 2. Specific Operational steps are clearly delineated. 3. Non-school personnel will be involved in planning. 4. Staff responsibilities are clearly delineated. 5. Student responsibilities are clearly delineated. 6. There will be communication of the plan to the com- munity. 7. There will be continuing evaluation of the plan, its objectives, and how well it meets them. 8. Changes can be made in the plan as a result of con- tinuing evaluation. PLATE IV-9 Planning and Evaluation Item 3 Response Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Yes 4* 3 5* 3 1 5* 5* 5* 31 No 1 2* 0 2* 3* O 0 0 8 Blank 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 the eight criteria having been met. See Plate IV-9. Item 5, *Includes the writer! s response The respondents were in general agreement about five of 147 delineation of student responsibilities, elicited only one positive response. Item 2, delineation of operational steps, and Item 4, delination of staff responsibilities, received two no responses. School officials would be well advised to attempt more clear-cut delineation in relation to these items before the plan is implemented. All other items received a very favorable response. B. Curriculum and Services It ems evaluated: 9. The plan allows for changes and additions to the curriculum when necessary. 10. The plan provides for transitional activities when it is first adopted. (Transitional activities could include weekly seminars, small group discussions, or assemblies in which the desegregation is put into perspective. ) 11. The plan provides curricular additions for white and minority students to learn about the history and culture of minority peoples. 12. The plan provides for supportive services such as counselling and social services for students who lag in achievement. Three of the four criteria were judged by the evaluators to be met by the plan of action. See Plate IV-10. Item 12, provision for supportive services, was judged by three of the respondents as not meeting the criteria. There needs to be further clarification of the plan' 8‘ provision for such supportive services. 148 PLATE IV-lO Curriculum and Services Item ReSponse Total 9 10 11 12 Yes 5* 5* 4* 2* 16 No 0 0 1 3 4 Blank 0 0 0 0 0 *Includes the writer' 3 response C. Attitude Changes Items evaluated: 13. The plan provides ways to develop positive student self-concept. 14. The plan provides ways to help bring about positive attitudinal changes about race by students. 15. The plan provides ways to help bring about positive attitudinal changes about race by faculty. 16. The plan provides ways to help bring about positive attitudinal changes about race by citizens. 17. The plan provides ways for teachers to develop understanding about probable differences in student standards of behavior and cultural background. 18. The plan provides ways for teachers to develop understanding about probable student academic achievement differences. the plan's ability to meet the attitude criteria. 19. 20. 149 The plan provides counselling to white and minority students who have difficulty adapting to the deseg- regated situation. The plan provides counselling for teachers who have difficulty adapting to the desegregated situation. The respondents were very positive in their evaluation of See Plate IV-l 1. Five of the items drew only one negative response each while two items were not responded to by one evaluator. were judged favorably by all five reSpondents. PLATE IV—ll Attitude Changes Three of the items Item Response Total 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Yes 3 4 4* 5* 5* 5* 3* 4* 33 No 1* 1* 1 0 0 0 1 1 5 Blank 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 *Includes the writer! 8 response The evaluators tended to respond to items similarly in all three parts of Section IV. The researcher' 5 responses, as indicated in Plates IV-9, IV-lO, and IV-ll, were consistent with the responses by the school officials. 150 Summary The purpose of Chapter IV was to evaluate the criteria developed in Chapter III in a specific setting. The community of Grand Rapids was selected as being representative of many cities with segregation problems. In order that the concept could be tested, the Madison Park Elementary School served as a school with specific problems which make school desegregation difficult. This phase of the study was only a pilot study, and gen- eralization to a larger population or situation is not intended. The value in such a study was meant to be only an investigation of the feasibility of using such criteria as were developed to aid local school officials in evaluating and implementing a plan for school desegregation. The evaluation instrument was administered to four Grand Rapids school officials. The writer also responded to the instrument to verify the assumption of objectivity by the school officials as well as the writer. Responses to Section 1, Assessment of the Current Status of the Community, indicated that, in the evaluators' opinion, the community attitudes toward school desegregation are generally posi- tive. The responses further indicated that the school district has sufficient information about racial composition for a desegregation plan to be implemented. 151 Evaluation of the resources of the community to imple- ment the educational program the community desires indicates some problems are likely to occur in developing resources. Responding to Section II, Examination of Alternative Plans, the evaluators demonstrated the same lack of congruence the panel of experts had shown in response to the questionnaire developed in Chapter III. The evaluators did agree, however, on four alterna- tives which were acceptable to all of them. After these four alternatives were adapted to fit the spe- cific Grand Rapids setting, the respondents evaluated further the four plans. Utilization of Section III, Commitment to a Plan of Action, helped the respondents select a plan of action. Plan D, involving a modification of cross-bussing for grades four to six, was judged to best meet the criteria of community attitudes. The same plan best met the criteria, in the judgment of the evaluators, of the plan' 8 outcome for racial composition. Plan B, establishment of a diversified supplementary education center, best met the criteria of the learning patterns out- come. Plans B, D, and C, establishment of a magnet school, were all judged as favorably meeting the criteria of resource availability. Plan D best met all criteria in the opinion of the judges. The plan was then modified and refined and Section IV, Implementa- tion of the Plan, was administered. 152 The evaluators responded favorably to the selected plan' 5 ability to meet the criteria. Those criteria which were not met by the plan were noted for attention by the school officials. The findings of this phase of the study were given to Grand Rapids school officials for their evaluation, and hopefully, for imple- mentation. But the main purpose for conducting the study, testing the feasibility of the criteria developed, indicated that such criteria could be used by local school officials to help evaluate and implement a plan for school desegregation. CHAPTER V FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Introduction The purpose of this study was to develop criteria for evaluating alternative plans to reduce school segregation in the inner city. Specifically, the study was an effort to: 1. Identify selected existing and proposed alternative plans for school desegregation. Develop criteria by which alternative plans for school desegregation can be evaluated. Devise a preliminary evaluation process which will assist local school officials in evaluating alternative desegrega- tion plans. Evaluate an inner city elementary school according to the criteria and alternative plans developed. Analyze the apparent advantages and limitations of selected alternative plans for desegregation in one school setting. 153 154 6, Suggest needed additional research in developing evalu- ative criteria. The findings, conclusions, and recommendations will be developed in light of these purposes of the study. The issue is not-- should we desegregate, or can we desegregate? If so, this instru- ment will and could be used to "scientifically" rationalize continued segregation. This study assumes that desegregation and/or integra- tion is an existing valid major goal of public education, and then sets out to accomplish the six purposes outlined above. Findings and Conclusions 1. Identification of Existing and Proposed Alternative Plans for Desegregation The review of the literature revealed that school deseg- regation plans have been proposed, evaluated, and implemented successfully or unsuccessfully since the eighteenth century in America. Many early schools were desegregated by simply allow- ing Negro children, generally in small and controlled numbers, to enroll. Following the Supreme Court decision in 1954, countless plans and variations have been proposed. But analysis of these plans revealed that most all can be categorized into one of ten distinct 155 plans-—and even some of these bear some similarities when imple- mented. Those ten plans include: 1 . Neighborhood schools. 2 . Educational parks. 3. Voluntary transfer plans. 4. Relocating attendance zones. 5. Closing minority schools. 6. Pupil assignment. 7. Organization by grades (variations on the Princeton Plan). 8. Site selection. 9. Supplementary centers. 10. Magnet schools. Every plan reviewed could be either placed into one of these categories or a combination of them. Most plans which have been proposed recently have represented not one approach, but several approaches. Many of the writers in the field are beginning to recommend a more general approach involving all students. It is becoming increasingly clear that there are serious limitations to all organizational plans. They can only exert an external pressure for desegregation. What happens to students within the school, or the internal pressures, must also be planned. Indeed, all the variables must be analyzed and become part of the overall plan. 156 This would then include housing patterns, community attitudes and resources, social class, and many others in addition to the obvious factor of which organizational plan is to be employed. 2. Analysis of the Advantages and Limitations of Selected Alter- natives for School Desegregation in One School Setting 1. Neighborhood Schools While the neighborhood school has come under some attack recently by integrationists, it does offer the best possibility for desegregation in many small communities. Particularly in the small Southern community, because of unique housing patterns, where a dual system has operated, a more efficient, integrated neighborhood school can be established. Many of the first examples of desegregation in the South occurred when the neighborhood school policy was established. The most serious limitation to this method occurs where de facto segregation, usually prevalent in most cities of any size, is the case. Continuation of the neighborhood school concept in these situations, under whatever good intentions, insures continuation of segregated education for years to come. The segregation of the Madison Park School in Grand Rapids is the result of pupil assignment to neighborhood schools. 157 Desegregation cannot occur at Madison Park in the foreseeable future under a neighborhood school policy. 2 . Educational Park The educational park has received much attention during recent years as a potential force for eliminating school segregation. The apparent advantages are many—~more efficient use of facilities, personnel, and resources being a primary one, according to its sup- porters. It also has the possibility for bringing together many diverse populations, cutting across social, economic, ethnic, age, class, educational, and racial groups. The ability to make the school and the community relate more closely and the potential to establish communication between political, educational, and community institutions result from estab- lishment of such a concept, say its supporters. Utilization of the park for non-school related functions is also increased. The disadvantages of such complexes relate to such sub— jective factors as bigness and the impersonal characteristic of a multi-institution. Other factors concerning park opponents are travel distances for students, initial capitalization costs, lack of community-school contacts, and problems of location for such a structure. Probably the greatest limitation in terms of desegrega- tion, however, is characterized by the problem facing Chicago 158 planners. Because such a project requires considerable time to plan, gain financial approval of taxpayers or legislators, and for construc- tion, there exists the real possibility that by the time a park is con- structed, there are no white students in the city left to desegregate with the blacks. In the long run inter-district or metropolitan plans for educational parks may hold the most promise. A second primary limitation has been the emphasis on secondary education in proposed parks. Researchers generally agree that meaningful integration must occur in early elementary years. In the Grand Rapids situation the educational park concept has been explored in great detail. A plan has been developed which could be implemented--however, financing and board approval are lacking. But for the immediate and specific future of Madison Park, the educational park holds little promise. 3. Voluntary Transfer Plans On the surface voluntary transfer plans have much to recommend them. This allows those minority students who wish desegregation to attend desegregated schools. The evidence strongly indicates, however, that where such plans have been adopted, most students will not transfer. Additionally it must be remembered that white students also will 159 have the option to transfer out. And for those minority students who do transfer, there is often little welcome in the receiving school. Voluntary transfer plans have provided some districts the opportunity for token desegregation. This is not to say that the plan could not be successful. Free, rapid transit transportation would go far to improve the plan' s effectiveness. The plan would offer few minority children in Madison Park many real options. The politics of the community situation in any of the receiving schools would discourage all but the most mili- tant parents from sending their children outside the segregated setting. For those children left in the inner city, a higher degree of segre- gation would result. Those students who leave would also very likely leave an academic as well as leadership vacuum in their former schools. 4. Relocating Attendance Zones Gerrymandering school attendance zones received much attention immediately after the 1954 decision. In order for such an alternative to be successful in reducing school segregation at least three conditions must exist: 1) Present attendance zones were originally gerrymandered to preserve segregation, 2) Natural bar- riers, traffic patterns, and school locations are such that more than 160 one attendance zone can be logically drawn, 3) Sufficient white popu- lation adjoining the zone in question. If these conditions exist, gerrymandering could be an effective method. However, in a large city with a concentration of Negroes in a black belt, such as a Detroit, Chicago, or New York, gerrymandering will be unsuccessful except in some fringe areas. Gerrymandering attendance zones will not solve the seg- regation problem at Madison Park, which is surrounded by other black residential areas. 5. Closing Minority Schools Several districts have closed minority schools and suc- cessfully dispersed the students to white schools. There must be additional room in the receiving schools or new schools built. Trans- portation must be available and the taxpayers must be willing to assume the additional costs. Future use of the closed facilities must be carefully planned to avoid the kind of concern by citizens which could ultimately result in placing the whole desegregation program in jeopardy. 6. Pupil Assignment Nearly any of the plans proposed could be classified as a pupil assignment plan, since they ultimately require a different pupil assignment from the prior system. But pupil assignment could occur apart from other plans. 161 Grand Rapids school officials selected a variation of pupil assignment as most promising for the Madison Park situation. Students from five white schools in proximity and Madison Park would be assigned to one of those six schools so as to achieve the best possible socio-economic, racial, and ethnic mix. The advantages of such plans generally include no addi- tional need for facilities, staff, or large sums of additional revenue. Where schools exist in close proximity to each other, some trans- portation may be necessary, butit does not become a major con— sideration. One of the major disadvantages is the emotional climate in the various white communities. The problem of tilt (that point when the whites feel that they are no longer in control of the situation--usually considered to occur when the Negro population reaches 35 to 45%) and the subsequent white migration can undo all that has occurred. For this reason care must be taken to insure that the white students assigned to the previously black schools receive a good education. Madison Park, a relatively new school in excellent condition located in a nice neighborhood, presents a good picture to the casual observer. Additional attention would need to be focused on the instructional program and staff selection to insure that assigned white pupils are indeed receiving as good an education as 162 before. This does not say that the education of black children should not be as carefully planned in their new schools. 7. Organization by Grades The so-called Princeton Plan received its initial impetus in Princeton, New Jersey, where geographical and demographic conditions were present to insure its probability of success. This plan allows two or more schools' students to be reassigned to the schools on the basis of each school housing a limited number of grades--one school housing only grades one and two, for example, another grades three and four, and another housing grades five and six. Conditions in and around Madison Park are conducive to such a plan, and school officials gave it serious consideration. The plan requires no additional facilities (although some remodelling might have been necessary), staffing, or resources beyond minimal transportation needs. The plan does not seem to carry the emotional overtones of some pupil assignment plans, but does have some tech- nical problems in implementation. The lower grade building does not have access to older patrol boy students; use of parent volunteers or paid paraprofessional help, however, can mediate this problem. A more serious one is that the plan may deny broad grouping for non—graded programs, and may mean young children attend school farther from home. 163 It is interesting to note that in many consolidations between very small school districts, such pairing of schools to develop a lower grade building and upper grade building have been quite successful. The Grand Rapids school officials ultimately rejected the Princeton Plan in favor of pupil assignment of a different type. 8. Site Selection Site selection seems to be a desirable supplementary strategy which could be used in some districts. Where a district' 3 student population is expanding rapidly or where replacement of existing facilities is planned, site selection can promote desegrega- tion--just as it can promote segregation. But in districts which cannot, for whatever reason, build new schools, site selection does not offer a means for deseg- regation. Neither is it a viable plan where the outer city expansion receives the only attention, leaving the inner city school children in their current status. Site selection, in any case, offers little immediate relief to segregated schools in any situation where site purchase, school planning, fiscal authorization, and construction usually take four or five years. For several of these reasons, this alternative was not considered favorably as a solution to the Madison Park problem. 164 9. Supplementary Centers Supplementary centers have been built over the years by school districts to provide specialized instruction apart from the desegregation possibilities offered. Many parents who might reject all other plans for desegregation could be convinced of the educa- tional benefits to accrue from such a center. The disadvantages include financing, scheduling, and transporting students for a part of the day, week, or year. The need for specialization at the early elementary grades, where deseg- regation appears to be most valuable, is hard to sell parents and teachers. But the chief disadvantage is that the plan provides only limited desegregation. Students attending the supplementary center are desegregated, but the vast majority of the students are left attending segregated schools. Grand Rapids school officials felt this plan to be one of the four most acceptable plans. But the amount of time before the center could be operational along with the lack of financing ultimately resulted in their turning away from the concept. It should be pointed out that careful examination of con- version of an existing school in a black community to a supplemen- tary center might combine the advantages of plans five and six. 165. 10. Magnet Schools The magnet school seems to have captured the imagina- tion of both university and public school people recently. It could be pictured as a public school constructed. in the image of a private school. Enrollment can be controlled to prescribe rather than pro— scribe socio-economic, racial, and ethnic mix. The quality of the educational program would be stressed rather than operation of the most economical program. The magnet school would have an unique educational feature rather than an appeal to all interests of all chil- dren. White parents could be induced to send their children to such schools in sufficiently large numbers to guarantee desegregation in the magnet schools. The chief disadvantages are nearly the same as for sup- plementary centers and educational parks. Initial cost, the time span from planning to opening is too great, and finally while the magnet school would be desegregated, it would leave students in the existing schools still segregated. The disadvantage of time cited in any plan, however, should be carefully examined. Many Southern schools requested shortly after the Supreme Court decision in 1954 that they be allowed to desegregate a grade per year. The Supreme Court disallowed such a plan on the grounds it would take twelve 166 years for such schools to desegregate. But if such plans had been adopted, these schools would now be entirely desegregated instead of the vast amount of token desegregation which has occurred. Planners faced with the decision of time would do well to evaluate the history of school desegregation before rejecting plans as taking too long to implement. The magnet school plan was viewed favorably by the evaluators of the Madison Park School. But they ultimately rejected it for the same reasons they rejected the Supplementary Center alternative. 3. Development of Criteria for Evaluation of Alternative Plans for School Desegregation The review of the literature established that little has been done in the area of the development of criteria to serve as guidelines for evaluating alternatives for school desegregation. Many factors or principles contributing to the success or failure of plans implemented have been reported. From these factors and recommendations by writers in the field, an original list of thirty- five criteria was developed. These criteria were field tested and then expanded to eighty criteria categorized into three sections: 1. Assessment of the Current Status of the C ommun ity 167 II. Commitment to a Plan of Action III. Implementation of the Plan These criteria were submitted to a panel of judges, rec- ognized authorities in the field, for their response and comment. Analysis of their responses resulted in a final list of sixty-nine criteria-~nineteen under Section I, thirty in Section II, and twenty in Section III. These sixty-nine criteria represent a far more extensive list of criteria for evaluation of desegregation alternatives than the writer found anywhere in the literature. Furthermore, they were written to be used as one tool for evaluation by school officials faced with making decisions relative to desegregation plans. The response of the panel of judges was very favorable to the inclusion of each of the final sixty-nine criteria in such a list. After the criteria had been assessed by the panel they were placed into a format which school officials could use to evaluate a particular school or school district' 8 alternatives for school deseg- regation. The Grand Rapids school officials who used the instrument thus developed were very favorable in their reaction to its application. Further modification and revision of the criteria must be accomplished before the writer can conclude that the list of criteria includes all significant factors to be considered in evaluating alter- native plans for school desegregation. 168 This study has not attempted to consider the problem of weighting the criteria. The writer does not take the position that each criteria is as meaningful as any other criteria, although they do all bear the same weighting in this study. Consideration of all the factors implicit in such weighting made it apparent that this could well be the subject of another study. 4. Development of a Preliminary Evaluation Process Which Will Assist Local School Officials in Evaluating Desegregation Pro- posals It was not initially intended that this study become involved in the development of such a process. Rather, it developed as a by- product of the effort to test the criteria developed. The review of the literature with regard to the process by which most school districts have adopted desegregation plans revealed that a more objective, logical means for making such an important decision is necessary. This phase of the study does not represent more than a preliminary effort to the ultimate development of a more reliable and valid instrument which school districts might consider using. The use of this preliminary instrument to evaluate alternatives for Madison Park, nevertheless, does indicate that such an instrument could be used to good advantage. 169 5. Evaluation of the Madison Park School According to the Alter- native Plans and Criteria Developed The fact that Grand Rapids school officials invited the writer to conduct the study at Madison Park indicates the open attitude with which they View school desegregation. Additionally, the school system has developed plans to desegregate secondary schools in September, 1968. These two facts alone would make de— segregation of Madison Park much easier, even if this study had not been initiated. The responses by the school officials to the instrument with regard to how well the criteria for desegregation are met by their selected alternative plan raise some questions they must an- swer. These potential problem areas were enunciated in Chapter IV Analysis of the data accumulated raises a much stronger question if desegregation does not occur. The current input to Madi- son Park in terms of resources, programs, personnel, or whatever variables one might consider, is very high. The measured output in terms of pupil achievement not only is low, but continues to regress. Because this effect has been demonstrated in other compensatory education programs in racial isolation, school officials may find that adoption of an immediate program to reduce school segregation is the better of the two alternatives. 170 Recommendations The limitations of this study are many. It was not intended to be a statistical study in which tests of statistical signifi- cance should be inferred. The size of the panel of judges is obviously too small to suggest that the criteria developed represent much more than the opinions of a few people. Selection of one elementary school for study does not allow generalization to any population greater than that one school. What the study has done is to investigate a concept--thus its initial definition as a thesis study. This investigation and its findings and conclusions, however, have raised several questions which may suggest further research and study. 1. Is there a clear cause and effect relationship between segregated education and student achievement? 2. Is there a clear cause and effect relationship between segregated education and students' report of self- concept? 3. Can desegregated education mediate the effects of resi- dential segregation? 4. Is there any consistent best plan or alternative for school desegregation ? 171 Are there certain criteria upon which a school district can evaluate the best alternative open to it to ensure the best desegregation plan? Who ought to be involved in evaluating alternative plans for school desegregation within a specific school district or school? Is it possible for compensatory education in racial isola- tion to raise student achievement levels? What are the most meaningful measures for evaluating compensatory education? Several of these questions have been posed by other writers and researchers. But it seems apparent to this writer that the answers to these questions have not yet been clearly provided. areas: Specifically, this study points to needed research in these Testing of the criteria developed in this study over a wider population which would result in both revision and addition to the list developed here. Refinement of the instrument developed to evaluate alter- native methods for school desegregation through testing it over a wider sample of schools and conditions. 172 In the final analysis this study, like many others, points not to its accomplishments, but to further studies which can extend the concept explored here. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Blaustein, Albert P. , and Clarence Clyde Ferguson, Jr. Desegre- gation and the Law. New Brunswick, N. J. : Rutgers University Press, 1957. Brickman, William M. , and Stanley Lehrer (ed. ). The Countdown on Segregated Education. New York: Society for the Advancement of Education, 1960. Coleman, James S. , and others. Equality of Educational Oppor- tunity. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1966. Combs, Arthur. Perceiving, Behaving: Becoming: A New Focus. New York: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1962. Fletcher, John F. , Jr. The Segregation Case and the Supreme Court. Boston: Boston University, 195 8. Gardner, John. Excellence. New York: Harper and Row, 1961. Hoffer, Eric. The Temper of Our Times. New York: Harper and Row, 1966. Leu, Donald, and Carl Candoli. A Feasibilitx Study of the Cultural Educational Park for Chicagfl. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, 1968. Leu, Donald. Planning Educational Facilities. New York: Center for Applied Research in Education, 1965. 173 174 Plamingfor the Future: Grand Leu, Donald, and John McNicholas. East Lansing, Michigan: Rapids Secondary School Needs. Michigan State University, 1966. Leu, Donald. Planning for the Future: Minneapolis Public Schools. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, 1963. Leu, Donald. Racial Imbalance in the Grand Rapids Public School System. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State Univer- sity, 1966. Lieberman, Myron. The Future of Public Education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960. Michigan State University. A Symposium on School Integration. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, 1964. Myrdal, Gunnar. An American Dilemma. New York: Harper and Row, 1944. Newcomb, T. M., and E. L. Hartley (ed.). Readigs in Social Psychology. New York: Holt, 1947. Parsons, Talcott, and Kenneth B. Clark. The Negro American. Boston: Beacon Press, 1965. Paul, James C. N. Law and Government. Chapel Hill, N. C.: Institute of Government, 1954. Pierce, Truman N. , and others. White and Negro Schools in the South. Englewood Hills, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1955. Reiss, Albert J. , Jr. (ed. ). Schools in a Changing Society. New York: Free Press, 1965. Rose, Arnold. De Facto Segregation. New York: National Con- ference of Christians and Jews, 1964. Rose, Arnold. The Negro in America. New York: Harper Torch— books, 1964. 175 Stoff, Sheldon. The Two Way Street. Indianapolis: David—Stewart Publishing Co. , 1 967. Suchman, Edward A. , and others. Desegregation: Some Proposi- tions and Research Suggestions. New York: Anti- defamation League of B'nai B' rith, 1958. Trager, Helen, and M. R. Yarrow. They Learn What Thgy Live. New York: Harpers, 1952. United States Commission on Civil Rights. Racial Isolation in the Public Schools. Two volumes. Washington, D. C. : United States Government Printing Office, 1967. Valien, Bonita H. The St. Louis Story: A Study of Desegregation. New York: Anti~defamation League of B' nai B' rith, 1956. Vander Zanden, James W. American Minority Relations. New York: The Ronald Press Co. , 1966. Weinberg, Meyer. Learnigg Together. Chicago: Integrated Edu- cation Associates, 1 965. Wey, Herbert, and John Corey. Action Patterns in School Desegre- gation. Bloomington, Indiana: Phi Delta Kappa, 1958. 'Wilkerson, Doxey A. Public School Segregation and Integration in the North. New York: National Association of Intergroup Relations Officers, 1963. Periodicals Baron, Harold. ”History of Chicago School Segregation to 1953. " Integrated Education, Volume 1, Number 1 (January 1963), 17-19, 30. Green, Robert Lee. "After School Integration--What? Problems in Social Learning. " Personnel and Guidance Journal (March 1966), 704-710. 176 Lesser, Gerald S. , and others. "Some Effects of Segregation and Desegregation in the Schools. " Integrated Education, Volume 2, Number 9 (June 1964), 20-27. Weinberg, Meyer. "School Integration in American History. " Integrated Education, Volume 1, Number 6 (December 1963). 17-26. Wolman, T. G. "Learning Effects of Integration in New Rochelle. " Integrated Education, Volume 2, Number 12 (December 1964), 30-31. Unpublished Materials Brookover, Wilbur, and Edsel L. Erickson. "The Sociological Foundations of Educability. " East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, 1968. (Mimeographed advance publication copy.) Butcher, Donald G. "A Study of the Relationships of Student Self- Concept to Academic Achievement in Six High Achieving Elementary Schools. " Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1967. C. "A Feasibility Study of the Community College' 3 Potential Role in Combating the Effects of Cultural Deprivation in Metropolitan Areas. " Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1967. Candoli, I. Dentler, Robert A. , and James Elsbery. "Big City School Deseg- regation: Trends and Methods. " Paper read at the National Conference on Equal Educational Opportunities in America' 5 Cities, Washington, D.C. , November 16, 1967. May, Clifford. "Forced Attachment of Two Culturally Differing School Districts: A Problematic Analysis. " Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Wayne State University, 1963. Sullivan, Neil V. "Revolution in Reading. " Paper read at the Inter- national Reading Association, California Regional Coun- cils, Fresno, California, October 29, 1966. 177 Other Sources Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. S. 483. Campbell, Clyde. At a meeting with school superintendents from the Greater Lansing, Michigan, area, May 7, 1968. Grand Rapids, Michigan, Board of Education. Regular board meet- ing of May 27, 1968. Information Please Almanac. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1967. United States Constitution. United States Supreme Court. Record of the District Court Trial in Briggs v. Elliott. Webster' s New Twentieth Century Dictionary. New York: Rockville House Publishers, Inc. , 1965. APPENDICES APPENDIX A QUESTIONNAIRE TO FIELD TEST THE CONCEPT 178 QUESTIONNAIRE FIE LD TEST Attached is a questionnaire which I am field testing. Will you help me by: 1. 2. Responding to each item. Noting questions which are vague, meaningless, or poorly constructed. Place a t/in front of each item number which should be left out and parenthe- sis around words which are ambiguous or vague. If you think of other criteria which should be included, add them at the end. Respond to the appropriateness of an instrument made up of criteria such as these to be used by school districts to assist themselves in evaluating and adopting a plan for school desegregation. Make any other comments which you feel would improve the process of establishing criteria upon which alternatives for school desegregation may be evaluated. THANK YOU 179 Instructions This questionnaire has been devised to develop criteria upon which alternatives for school desegregation may be evaluated. For each criteria listed, will you decide whether it is imperative, desirable, uncertain, not desirable, or should not be included. Will you mark the appropriate place with an X on the continuum according to this scale: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) Imperative Desirable Uncertain Not desirable Should not be included 1. Is ease of adoption realistic? — .— _ _ I- 2. Is the plan consistent with wise utilization of scarce resources? I I _ l-l. 3. Is utilization of existing facilities reasonable ? _ _ 4. Is travel distance for students reasonable? I I I I A 1 2 3 4 5 5. Will it provide maximum socio- economic mix of students? _ ._ _. _. L. 6. Is public acceptance possible or c s r ? I l I l J ne e sa y 1 2 3 4 5 7. Can it gain acceptance by school staff? I I I I J 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 180 Does it account for consequences in school curriculum? Does it account for consequences in student learning? Does it account for consequences in student self-concept? Is the length of time necessary to implement reasonable? Does it depend upon support by non- school agencies ? Is the degree of complexity of the plan reasonable? Is it consistent with the school' 3 stated goals? Will it have a positive effect on white students ? Will it achieve optimum racial mix? Will it provide integrative opportunities within the school? Does it provide flexibility? |_I I II 3 4 5 [_I I II 3 4 5 LI I II 1 2 3 4 5 I_l I I I 1 2 3 4 5 ml I II 1 2 3 4 5 L_I I II 1 2 3 4 5 ml I II 1 2 3 4 5 LI I II 1 2 3 4 5 II I II 1 2 3 4 5 I I I I I 1 2 3 4 5 I1 I II 2 3 4 5 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 181 Does it provide for integration of faculty? Will it provide for attitudinal changes of students and faculty? Will it provide for evaluation? Does it provide sufficient planning time before implementation? Are operational steps clearly spelled out? Are staff responsibilities clearly delineated? Does it consider amount of residential segregation? Does it consider percentage of Negro population of total school district? Does it consider presence of other minority racial or cultural groups? Does it consider desegregation policies of other community and public agencies? Does it consider community backing for schools and regard for school leader- ship within the community? I I I l I 1 2 3 4 5 I I L J I 1 2 3 4 5 I I L L I 1 2 3 4 5 I I I I I 1 2 3 4 5 L I I 4 I 1 2 3 4 5 I I I I J 1 2 3 4 5 L I I I I 1 2 3 4 5 I I I I I 1 2 3 4 5 I I I I I 1 2 3 4 5 I L I I I 1 2 3 4 5 I I I I I 1 2 3 4 5 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 182 Does the plan provide for meaningful communication of the plan to all I J l | J interested groups ? 1 2 3 4 5 Does it delineate student responsibili- ties ? I I I I J 1 2 3 4 5 Does it provide opportunity for teacher understanding of differences in student I I L I I standards and cultural backgrounds? 1 2 3 4 5 Does it provide opportunity for teachers to develop understanding about probable l I I 4 I student achievement differences? 1 2 3 4 5 Does it provide opportunities for students to learn appropriate social behavior L I I I I between and within races ? l 2 3 4 5 Does it involve non—school personnel in planning? I I I I I 1 2 3 4 5 6. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY mummies-maxim 4m: X011 m FOR COW mom COM 0! EDUCATION 0 517 “KISON HALL June 19, 1968 The Mott Institute for Community Improvement in cooperation with Michigan State University is attempting to devise an instrument by which local school officials can evaluate alternate plans for school diversifica- tion of racial and ethnic groups. Because of your recognized expertise and interest in this area we are asking you to assist us as one of a panel of ten carefully selected authorities from throughout the United States to react to the enClosed questionnaire. The anonymity of your reSponseS will be preserved. This questionnaire will help us to select the items which will be the most meaningful in the final instrument. The items of this questionnaire fall under the following headings: 1. Assessment of the Current Status of the Community 2. Examination of Alternate Plans 3. Commitment to a Plan of Action 4. Implementation of the Plan Will you express your judgment as to the relevance of each of the items in this questionnaire for evaluating a diversification plan in an educa- tional setting. If you can think of other operational statements which would be desirable items for the type of instrument we are trying to develop, please add those in the Spaces provided. We will appreciate your completing the questionnaire at your earliest convenience and returning it in the enclosed self-addressed and stamped IN ORDER TO COMPLETE THE STUDY WE MUST HAVE THE envelope. It should take no more QUESTIONNAIRE RETURNED BY JULY 6, 1968. than thirty minutes of your time. If you wish to receive a copy of the final instrument, please return the enclosed post card . Sincerely, flmédo/o X40“ Dr. onaldJ. Leu, Direct7~ 2.27.4 / *2.-. r. Howard W. Hickey, Assis Enclosures APPENDIX B A QUESTIONNAIRE TO ASSIST DEVELOPMENT OF AN INSTRUMENT TO EVALUATE ALTERNATIVE PATTERNS FOR SCHOOL DESEGREGATION 184 QUESTIONNAIRE A FEASIBILITY STUDY OF ALTERNATIVE PATTERNS FOR SCHOOL DIVERSIFICATION Director Dr. Donald J. Leu, Professor Educational Administration and Higher Education Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan and Educational Planning Consultant Chicago Board of Education Chicago, Illinois Assistant Director Mr. Howard W. Hickey, Assistant Director Mott Institute for Community Improvement Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan 185 Instructions The final instrument will be designed to assist local school officials in evaluating alternative patterns for school diversification. The categories of answers available to the school officials will be yes and no, or acceptable and unacceptable. The task for the panel of experts is to rate each item as to its rele- vance for inclusion in the final instrument. Will you circle the number that best describes your feeling about the inclusion of each criterion according to the following scale: I feel this item is absolutely necessary. I feel this item is desirable but not necessary. I feel this item is undesirable but acceptable. I feel this item is absolutely not acceptable. “>me If you rate an item as undesirable or not acceptable and you can reword it so it is acceptable, will you do so on the back of the page and then rate it according to the same scale. Please add any items which you feel should be included at the end of each category of questions, and then rate them. Part I Assessment of Current Status of the Community This part of the final instrument will be designed to assist local school officials to systematically assess the current status of the community with regard to: A. Attitudes B. Racial Composition C . Resources The task for the panel of experts is to rate each item as to its rele— vance for the final instrument. Will you circle the number that best describes your feeling about the inclusion of each criterion in the final instrument. 186 Attitudes 1. School officials and the citizens of the community generally agree that diversi- fication does not contradict their purposes for education. There is an active group of community supporters for school diversification. There is little or no group organization against school diversification. There is little or no group organization against the present school leadership. School officials are aware of the desegregation policies of other com- munity and public agencies. State officials demonstrate support for school diversification. Racial Composition 9. School officials have available informa- tion describing the amount and location of residential segregation H Necessary N Desirable 0° Undesirable a: Not Acceptable Hi 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 187 School officials have available the building-by-building ethnic-racial percentages of student population. School officials have available infor- mation describing the entire ethnic- racial balance of the district, not just the Negro-white balance. School officials have available a description of the natural barriers (railroads, highways, rivers) within the district which enhance segrega- tion. School officials have available such demographic projections as those predicated on the effects of urban renewal, migrations, open housing, and building programs. Current Resources Available to the District 16. 17. Financial resources are available to provide the educational program the community desires. Personnel are available to implement the educational program the com- munity desires. Necessary H N Desirable 0° Undesirable .s Not Acceptable 188 Necessary Desirable 18. Facilities are available to implement the educational program the com- munity desires. 0° Undesirable "5 Not Acceptable H [\3 19. All existing facilities are now being used. 20. The school district has completed a projection of student population for the next ten years. 21. The school district has completed a projection of school needs for the next ten years. 22. The school district has completed a projection of fiscal resources available for the next ten years. 1 2 3 4 23. 24. WHEN YOU HAVE COMPLETED PART I, PLEASE GO ON TO PART II 189 Part II Examination of Alternative Plans This part of the final instrument will be designed to assist local school officials to sort out the diversification plans that they wish to evaluate more systematically. Assume these plans are to be evaluated by a school district serving from 40, 000 to 50, 000 public and private school students in a com- munity of 200, 000 people. Private and parochial schools enroll about 25% of the students. Twenty percent of the total population is Negro and 35% of the public school students are Negro. Five percent of the student population is made up of other minority groups. There is a concentrated area of Negro segregation in the central city with the outer areas of the city largely all white. The other minority groups are housed and attend school in the area between the central city and the outer areas. The task for the panel of experts is to rate the relevance of each item as to its inclusion in the final instrument. Use the same rating scale as you used in Part I. 1. Bussing of Negro and other minority students to white schools, but controlling enrollment so as to maintain a racial mix similar to the district average. Undesirable Necessary A Not Acceptable N Desirable H 00 2. Permissive open enrollment of minority students from over-utilized Negro-majority schools to under-utilized white-majority schools, but limiting enrollment so as to maintain a racial mix Similar to the district average. 1 2 3 4 3. Permissive transfer of minority students from Negro-majority schools to schools of their choice, but restricting enrollment so as to maintain a racial mix similar to the district average. 1 2 3 4 10. 11. 190 Cross-bussing to transfer minority students from Negro-majority to white—majority schools, and white students from white- majority schools to Negro-majority schools, but restricting enrollment so as to maintain a racial mix similar to the district average. Open enrollment allowing all students to attend schools of their choice, using a lottery to determine enrollment in over- requested schools. Allow minority students to attend any school of their choice, restricting enroll- ment so as to maintain a racial mix similar to the district average. Utilize the Princeton Plan, a pairing of two or more oppositely segregated schools in proximity, placing lower grades in one, middle grades in another, and upper grades in a third, for example, resulting in a better racial mix. Relocate, or gerrymander, school atten- dance areas so as to attain a better racial mix. Close Negro-majority schools, bus students to other schools, and use the closed facilities for other purposes. Locate new school sites to break down segregation patterns. Conduct inter-school seminars at the secondary schools on a regular basis in order to bring students from different racial and ethnic backgrounds together to discuss current issues which are of interest to all students. H Necessary N Desirable 0° Undesirable Is Not Acceptable 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 191 :35 4’ as I” <1) 3 +5. :3 r-I Cd (D .0 ‘4 o a) £1 (I) <1 Establish diversified supplementary education 8 :3) 1:3: ,_, centers to which students could be sent for a Z Q p g part of each day for a part of their school curriculum. 1 2 3 4 Establish education parks which enroll large numbers of students from age three through graduate college level students. There would be open enrollment. 1 2 3 4 Establish magnet schools with very high quality programs and staffs. Students would be selected so as to achieve racial and socio- economic mix similar to the district average. 1 2 3 4 Diversify secondary students only, maintain- ing neighborhood elementary schools. 1 2 3 4 Develop schomes (school homes), neighbor- hood primary units which serve pre- kindergarten through first graders; and diversify middle schools for grades six through eight, and high schools serving grades nine through twelve. Primary schools for grades two through five would be neighborhood schools. 1 2 3 4 Maintain neighborhood primary units for pre-kindergarten through grade three, use minimal travel intermediate schools (Princeton Plan, for example), and diversify secondary schools. 1 2 3 4 Accomplish diversification wherever pos- sible without transporting large numbers of students. Diversify faculty everywhere else. 1 2 3 4 192 633300034 52 4 anmnHmoOsD 3 oHnwsHmoQ 2 hemmmmomz 1 19 20. WHEN YOU HAVE COMPLETED PART II, PLEASE GO ON TO PART III 193 Part III Commitment to a Plan of Action This part of the final instrument will be designed to assist local school officials to evaluate each alternative plan to which an accept- . able rating was assigned in Part II. The criteria are grouped according to these categories: A. Attitudes B. Probable Outcomes a. Racial composition b. Learning patterns C. Resources The task for the panel of experts is to rate each item as to its rele- vance for the final instrument. Use the same rating scale you used in Parts I and II. .33 .o 0) cu :>. "" *-’ a) D D. S :5 :2 8 U) m 0H U 3 ‘4 "’ 3 A. Attitudes o a; 8 ,, 0) a) c: o _ 2 D D Z 1. Public acceptance is possible now for this plan. 1 2 3 4 2. The school staff would accept the plan now. 1 2 3 4 3. The plan can be easily understood by the staff. 1 2 3 4 4. The plan would not contradict the schools' stated goals. 1 2 3 4 5. The plan takes into account deseg- regation policies of other com- munity and public agencies. 1 2 3 4 6. The plan would have state leader- ship approval. 1 2 3 4 194 o I... .o 4. .2 :2 .. 2. :3 8 (6 Q L. O a as '53 o a) .51 o ‘3 U 0) "D +4 o a.) :1 0 Z O D Z 7. There will be an active group of citizens who will support the plan. 1 2 3 4 8. There will be little or no organized support against the plan. 1 2 3 4 9. 10. B. Probable Outcomes a. Racial composition 11. The plan will achieve an evenly distributed racial mix throughout the school system. 1 2 3 4 12. The plan will provide diversifica- tion opportunities within the individual schools. 1 2 3 4 13. The plan provides for diversifica- tion of faculty. 1 2 3 4 14. The plan provides for minority students to become involved in the total school life. 1 2 3 4 15. The plan provides for minority parents to become involved in the total activities of the school. 1 2 3 4 195 16. The plan provides a time schedule for the inclusion of all schools in the diversification. 17 . 18. Learning patterns 19. The plan provides for increased student learning experiences. 20. The plan will have a non-negative effect on the learning of white students. 21 . The plan will have a positive effect on the learning of minority students. 22. The plan provides for compensa- tory instruction for all low- achieving students. 23. The plan provides for improve- ment of educational standards for all children. 24. H Necessary N Desirable w Undesirable 4:. Not Acceptable C. 25. Resources 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 196 Financial resources can be made available to implement the plan. Personnel can be employed to implement the plan. Facilities can be made available to implement the plan. All existing facilities would be used. Travel distance does not consume too much time for students. The plan fits the projection of student population during the next ten years. The plan fits the projection of school needs during the next ten years. The plan fits the projection of school resources during the next ten years. H Necessary N Desirable w Undesirable Is Not Acceptable 197 6535.50on “02 oHQmsHmopsD oHnmsHmoQ mummmoooz 35. WHEN YOU HAVE COMPLETED PART III, PLEASE GO ON TO PART IV 198 Part IV Implementation of the Plan This part of the final instrument will be designed to assist local school officials to consider important factors in implementing which- ever plan they have chosen to adopt. The criteria are grouped according to these categories: A. Planning and Evaluation B. Curriculum and Services C. Attitude Changes The task for the panel of experts is to rate each item as to its relevance for inclusion in the final instrument. Use the same rating scale you have used in the first three parts of the questionnaire. .2 .o .2 .2: >> 3 £2 '3 8 .o :4 o :3 c8 '23 o A. Planning and Evaluation 8 .f: cu <3 (I) 3 '8 *5 1. There will be sufficient planning time Z G D Z before implementation. 1 2 3 4 2. Specific operational steps are clearly delineated. 1 2 3 4 3. Non-school personnel will be involved in planning. 1 2 3 4 4. Staff responsibilities are clearly delineated. 1 2 3 4 5. Student responsibilities are clearly delineated. 1 2 3 4 6. There will be communication of the plan to everyone in the community. 1 2 3 4 199 7. There will be continuing evaluation of the plan, its objectives, and how well it meets them. 8. Changes can be made in the plan as a result of continuing evaluation. 10. Curriculum and Services 11. The plan allows for changes and additions to the curriculum when necessary. 12. The plan provides for transitional activities when it is first adopted. (Transitional activities could include weekly seminars, small group discus— sions, or assemblies in which the diversification is put into perspective.) 13. The plan provides curricular additions for white and minority students to learn about the history and culture of minority peoples . 14. The plan provides for supportive services such as counseling and social services for students who lag in achievement. H Necessary N Desirable °° Undesirable "‘ Not Acceptable .p 15. 16. 200 Attitude Changes 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. The plan provides ways to develop positive student self-concept. The plan provides ways to help bring about positive attitudinal changes about race by students. The plan provides ways to help bring about positive attitudinal changes about race by faculty. The plan provides ways to help bring about positive attitudinal changes about race by citizens. The plan provides ways for teachers to develop understanding about probable differences in student standards of behavior and cultural background. The plan provides ways for teachers to develop understanding about probable student academic achievement differences. The plan provides ways for students to learn appropriate behavior between and within races. H Necessary N Desirable 0° Undesirable "> Not Acceptable 201 B .o h .2 :2 a 2 2‘: 8* “3 .o a o a co '5; o (D E: G) <1 - . . U m 'U +4 24. The plan prov1des counseling to white é) a S :2 and minority students who have difficulty adapting to the diversified situation. 1 2 3 4 25. The plan provides counseling for teachers who have difficulty adapting to the diversified situation. 1 2 3 4 26. 1 2 3 4 27 . THANK YOU FOR COMPLETING THIS QUESTIONNAIRE. WILL YOU PLEASE RETURN IT AT YOUR EARLIEST CONVENIENCE IN THE ENCLOSED SELF-ADDRESSED AND STAMPED ENVELOPE. APPENDIX C RESPONDENTS TO QUESTIONNAIRE APPENDIX C RESPONDEN TS TO QUESTIONNAIRE Dr. Wilbur Brookover Professor of Sociology Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan Dr. Daniel Dodson Professor of Education New York University New York City, New York Dr. Jean Grambs Professor of Education University of Maryland College Park, Maryland Dr. George Johnson, Director Center for Urban and Race Studies Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan 202 Dr. Joseph McMillen, Director Inner City Schools Grand Rapids Public Schools Grand Rapids, Michigan Dr. Thomas Pettigrew Department of Social Psychology Harvard University Cambridge, Massachusetts Dr. Vera Pitts Assistant Professor of Education City University of New York New York City, New York Mr. Whitney Young, Executive Director National Urban League 55 East 52nd Street New York City, New York APPENDIX D AN INSTRUMENT TO EVALUATE ALTERNATIVE PATTERNS FOR SCHOOL DESEGREGATION 203 AN INSTRUMENT TO EVALUATE ALTERNATIVE PATTERNS FOR SCHOOL DESEGREGATION Developed by Howard W. Hickey, Assistant Director Mott Institute for Community Improvement Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan 204 Instructions This instrument is designed to assist local school officials in evalu- ating alternative patterns for school desegregation. The instrument can be administered to a committee of administrators, board members, teachers, and citizens who have considerable knowledge of their community and school district. Sections I and II should be administered and then analyzed. If the answers to Section I are positive (there should be at least twice as many yes responses as no responses), Section II should then be analyzed. If there are fewer positive answers to Section I, school officials should analyze carefully whether the community and school district are ready for desegregation. In that event the items in Section I may be used as criteria or guidelines to help the district prepare for desegregation. Analysis of Section II allows selection of plans to be further evaluated. Assignment of a score of one for every acceptable response and a score of zero for every not acceptable response will yield a total score for each alternative. School officials may select the top five alternatives for further evaluation, those which have mean scores above 0. 5, or some other meaningful selection process. Following selection of alternatives for further study, each plan needs to be refined to represent a specific plan for adoption by the district. Section III of the instrument can then be administered to the com- mittee. The same evaluation process can be utilized for analysis of Section III as was used in Section II, assignment of a score of one for every yes response and zero for each no response. Total scores for each plan can then be computed. If one plan scores much higher than all others, it can be selected for implementation. If two or more plans have similar scores, school officials could further refine those plans and then readminister Section III. In the event no plan scores high, consideration should be given to further refinement or modifi- cation of the plans, and Section III can be administered again. After commitment to a plan of action, school officials should develop the specific proposal for implementation and then administer Section IV. Analysis of this section should indicate how workable the plan is in terms of meeting the objectives the school officials have set up for desegregation. If the favorable responses are twice as many as the negative responses, implementation can begin. If not, the plan should 205 be modified, using the criteria in Section IV as guidelines. Section IV can then be readministered. As the plan is implemented, continual evaluation will determine if the plan is meeting its objectives. Section I Assessment of Current Status of the Community This part of the instrument is designed to assist local school officials to systematically assess the current status of the community with regard to: A. Attitudes B. Racial Composition C. Resources Respond to each item with yes or no by circling 1 for yes and O for no. Yes No A. Attitudes 1. School officials and the citizens of the com- munity generally agree that desegregation does not contradict their purposes for educa- tion. 1 0 2. There is an active group of community supporters for school desegregation. 1 0 3. Groups which are opposed to school desegre- gation have been identified. 1 O 4. There are few or no groups organized against the present school leadership. 1 0 5. School officials are aware of the desegregation policies of other community and public agencies, including city and county planning agencies and model city agencies. 1 0 6. 206 Yes No State officials demonstrate support for school desegregation. 1 0 Racial Composition 7. 10. 11. 12. School officials have available information describing the amount and location of residential segregation. 1 0 School officials have available the building—by- building ethnic-racial percentages of student population. 1 0 School officials have available information describing the entire ethnic-racial balance of the district, not just the Negro-white balance. 1 0 School officials have available a description of the natural barriers (railroads, highways, rivers) within the district which enhance seg- regation. 1 0 School officials have available such demographic projections as those predicated on the effects of urban renewal, migrations, open housing, and building programs. 1 0 School officials have available figures on racial composition subject by subject and class by class in secondary schools. 1 0 Current Resources Available to the District 13. 14. Financial resources are available to provide the educational program the community desires. 1 0 Personnel are available to implement the edu- cational program the community desires. 1 0 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 207 Facilities are available to implement the educational program the community desires. All existing facilities are now being used. The school district has completed a projection of student population for the next ten years. The school district has completed a projection of school needs for the next ten years. The school district has completed a projection of fiscal resources available for the next ten years. Yes No 1 O 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 WHEN YOU HAVE COMPLETED PART I, GO ON TO PART II 208 Section 11 Examination of Alternative Plans This part of the instrument is designed to assist local school officials to sort out the desegregation plans that they wish to evaluate more systematically. Analyze each alternative as it applies to your com- munity. Rate each item as acceptable or not acceptable by circling 1 for acceptable and 0 for not acceptable. Ac ceptable Not Acceptable 1. Bussing of Negro and other minority students to white schools, but controlling enrollment so as to maintain a racial mix similar to the district average. 1 0 2. Permissive open enrollment of minority students from oven-utilized Negro-majority schools to under- utilized white-majority schools, but limiting enroll— ment so as to maintain a racial mix similar to the district average. 1 0 3. Permissive transfer of minority students from Negro—majority schools to schools of their choice, but restricting enrollment so as to maintain a racial mix similar to the district average. 1 0 4. Cross-bussing to transfer minority students from Negro-majority to white~majority schools, and white students from white-majority schools to Negro-majority schools, but restricting enrollment so as to maintain a racial mix similar to the district average. 1 0 5. Utilize the Princeton Plan, a pairing of two or more oppositely segregated schools in proximity, placing lower grades in one, middle grades in another, and upper grades in a third, for example, resulting in a better racial mix. 1 0 10. 11. 12. 13. 209 Relocate, or gerrymander, school attendance areas so as to attain a better racial mix. Close Negro-majority schools, bus students to other schools, and use the closed facilities for other purposes. Locate new school sites to break down segregation patterns. Conduct inter-school seminars at the secondary schools on a regular basis in order to bring students from different racial and ethnic backgrounds together to discuss current issues which are of interest to all students . Establish diversified supplementary education centers to which students could be sent for a part of each day for a part of their school curriculum. Establish education parks which could enroll large numbers of students from age three through graduate level for college students. There would be open enrollment. Establish magnet schools with very high quality programs and staffs. Students would be selected so as to achieve racial and socio-economic mix similar to the district average. Maintain neighborhood primary units for pre- kindergarten through grade three, use minimal travel intermediate schools (Princeton Plan, for example), and desegregate secondary schools. Acceptable H Not Acceptable O 14. 15. 210 Develop on a voluntary basis a cooperative plan with one or more school districts, utilizing alternatives described above. Initiate court or legislative action to reorganize school districts on a metropolitan basis so that one or more of the alternatives listed above can be implemented on a broad base. STOP HERE -- DO NOT GO ON TO PART III Acceptable Not Acceptable O 211 Section III Commitment to a Plan of Action This part of the instrument is designed to assist local school officials to evaluate each alternative plan to which an acceptable rating was assigned in Section II. The criteria are grouped according to these categories: A. Attitudes B Probable Outcomes a. Racial composition b. Learning patterns C. Resources Respond to each item with yes or no by circling 1 for yes and 0 for no. Yes No A. Attitudes 1. Public acceptance is possible now for this plan. 1 0 2. The school staff would accept the plan now. 1 O 3. The plan can be easily understood by the staff. . l 0 4. The plan would not contradict the schools' stated goals. 1 0 5. The plan takes into account desegregation policies of other community and public agencies. 1 0 6. The plan would have state leadership approval. 1 0 7. There will be an active group of citizens who will support the plan. 1 0 B. 212 Yes No Organized opposition to the plan can be identified. 1 0 The plan is consistent with federal guide- lines for school desegregation. 1 0 Probable Outcomes a. Racial composition 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. The plan will achieve racial mix throughout the school system. 1 O The plan will provide desegregation oppor- tunities within the individual schools. 1 0 The plan provides for desegregation of faculty. 1 0 The plan provides for minority students to become involved in the total school life. 1 0 The plan provides for minority parents to become involved in the total activities of the school. 1 0 The plan provides a time schedule for the inclusion of all schools in the desegrega- tion. 1 O The plan provides for racial balance in the selection of school administrators. 1 0 Learning patterns 17. 18. The plan provides for increased student learning experiences. 1 0 The plan will have a non-negative effect on the learning of white students. 1 0 213 Yes No 19. The plan will have a positive effect on the learning of minority students. 1 0 20. The plan provides for compensatory instruction for all low-achieving students. 1 O 21. The plan provides for improvement of educational standards for all children. 1 0 22. The learning potential of minority students will be publicized in the community and within the school staff. 1 0 C. Resources 23. Financial resources can be made available to implement the plan. 1 0 24. Personnel can be employed to implement the plan. 1 0 25. Facilities can be made available to imple- ment the plan. 1 O 26. All existing facilities would be used. 1 O 27. Travel distance does not consume too much time for students. 1 0 28. The plan fits the projection of student population during the next ten years. 1 0 29. The plan fits the projection of school needs during the next ten years. 1 0 30. The plan fits the projection of school resources during the next ten years. 1 0 STOP HERE -- DO NOT GO ON TO SECTION IV 214 Section IV Implementation of the Plan This part of the instrument is designed to assist local school officials to consider important factors in implementing whichever plan they have chosen to adopt. The criteria are grouped according to these categories: A. Planning and Evaluation B. Curriculum and Services C. Attitude Changes Respond to each item with a yes or no by circling 1 for yes and 0 for no. Yes No A. Planning and Evaluation 1. There will be sufficient planning time before implementation. 1 0 2. Specific operational steps are clearly delineated. 1 0 3. Non-school personnel will be involved in plan- ning. l 0 4. Staff responsibilities are clearly delineated. 1 0 5. Student responsibilities are clearly delineated. 1 0 6. There will be communication of the plan to the community. 1 0 7. There will be continuing evaluation of the plan, its objectives, and how well it meets them. 1 0 8. Changes can be made in the plan as a result of continuing evaluation. 1 0 215 Yes No Curriculum and Services 9. The plan allows for changes and additions to the curriculum when necessary. 1 0 10. The plan provides for transitional activities when it is first adopted. (Transitional activities could include weekly seminars, small group discussions, orassemblies in which the deseg- regation is put into perspective.) 1 O 11. The plan provides curricular additions for white and minority students to learn about the history and culture of minority peoples. 1 O 12. The plan provides for supportive services such as counselling and social services for students who lag in achievement. 1 0 Attitude Changes 13. The plan provides ways to develop positive student self-concept. 1 0 14. The plan provides ways to help bring about positive attitudinal changes about race by students . 15. The plan provides ways to help bring about positive attitudinal changes about race by faculty. 16. The plan provides ways to help bring about positive attitudinal changes about race by citizens. 17. The plan provides ways for teachers to develop understanding about probable differences in student standards of behaviour and cultural back- ground. 18. The plan provides ways for teachers to develop understanding about probable student academic achievement differences. 19. 20. 216 The plan provides counselling to white and minority students who have difficulty adapting to the desegregated situation. The plan provides counselling for teachers who have difficulty adapting to the desegregated situation. Yes No 1 0 1 0 APPENDIX E PLANS EVALUATED APPENDIX E PLANS EVALUATED Plan A: Bussing There are fifty—two elementary schools in Grand Rapids, nine of which enroll predominantly minority student bodies, and forty-three which enroll predominantly white student bodies. A solution to desegregation of Madison Park' 5 student body involves automatically all other schools. A solution for Madison Park must not preclude a solution for the other eight minority schools. Accordingly, the plan of bussing Madison Park students will be restricted to five white schools to allow possible solutions for the other eight minority schools. Selection of these white receiving schools should be determined so as to allow maximum flexibility for desegregation of the remaining schools. The pre-kindergarten and. Morris Primary classes would not be part of the plan. Easier methods are available for desegre- gating them. 217 218 Dispersal of all Madison Park students to white schools is not desirable for two reasons: the. inability of the five receiving schools to house an additional 800 students, and if they could Madison Park would then not be utilized. The five schools would each receive an additional 100 minority students, spread across five grade levels. Thus 500 minority students at Madison Park would be bussed out of their area. The remaining 250 minority students and fifty white students would form the basis of a school which would allow permissive transfer for 300 students to Madison Park. Madison Park would be set up as an experimental school. While students from the five receiving schools would be encouraged to transfer, in the event enough of them don't, transfers from other white schools would be permitted. The five receiving schools would enroll 15 to 20% minority students while Madison Park would enroll about 40% minority students. Additional costs would be transportation for all transfer students and additional costs of smaller student-teacher ratios at Madison Park. Plan B: Establishment of Diversified Supplementary Education Center A parochial school near Madison Park could be purchased by the School District and would serve well as a supplementary 219 education center to which students from five surrounding white schools and Madison Park could be sent for a part of each day. Students from Brookside, Dickinson, Fountain, Hall, and Oakdale (not adjacent, but all within two miles of Madison Park) could be included with Madison Park in the population which would be served by the Supplementary Education Center. All compensatory education activities for the six schools would be housed in the supplementary center--reading, language, and arithmetic. An instructional resource center, including ample library facilities, would be available to regular classroom teachers on an assigned basis once a week. All regular music and art instruc- tion would be given at the Supplementary Center for the sic student bodies. In all instances, students would be brought together in deseg- regated groups. The supplementary center staff would be selected so as to be representative of racial and ethnic groups. Many activities would be scheduled under the direction of the regular classroom teachers but in the Supplementary Education Center. The initial cost would include purchase of the parochial school, remodeling, and purchase of equipment. Operational costs on a yearly basis should be relatively small. Special personnel, for the most part, would be reassigned from the six sending buildings. 220 A center director, secretary, and two additional certified personnel should handle all additional duties. Transportation of students would represent the only additional operational cost. Plan C: Magnet School A magnet school could be developed for the Madison Park area under many of the same conditions as a supplementary center. The Board would purchase the parochial school. Students would be recruited for full time attendance from the Brookside, Dickinson, Fountain, Hall, and Oakdale schools--95% or more white--and Madison Park. Morris Primary School and the pre-kindergarten separate addition at Madison would be part of the Magnet School complex. The magnet school would serve as an experimental school and could emphasize the humanities, utilizing one of several new curricular designs. It could also incorporate elementary economics courses which have been designed recently. Students would be selected to represent a wide socio- economic as well as racial background. All classes would be desegregated. Staffing would require a desegregated, outstanding faculty of experienced and new teachers. Capitalization requirements would necessitate purchase of the parochial school, remodeling, and purchase of equipment. 221 Operational costs would consist of staffing costs for a principal, secretary, and some additional teachers. Some reduction of staff at the other six schools should reduce teacher costs at the magnet school. Transportation costs for at least the younger children who live more than a mile away should be borne by the district. Plan D: Maintain Neighborhood Primary Units, with a Minimal Travel Plan for Intermediate Grades The five white schools and Madison would operate pre- Kindergarten through grade three as they do now. Pupils in grades four through six would be reassigned to achieve a ratio of approxi- mately 15-20% minority students in every classroom. Special care would be taken to select an outstanding staff for Madison Park to ensure that its reputation is as good as the "white" schools. Extra costs would be minimal and would include transpor- tation and cost of a project coordinator and secretary to handle physical arrangements. APPENDIX F PLAN OF ACTION APPENDIX F PLAN OF ACTION This plan could be implemented in September, 1969. It would provide desegregation opportunities for Madison Park with five white schools--Brookside, Dickinson, Fountain, Hall, and Oak- dale. The six schools are located within two miles of each other. The existing school organization would hold for pre- kindergarten through grade three. Every possible program of com- pensatory and enrichment activities that is economically feasible would be utilized in the primary grades. Faculty for the early grades in each school would be representative of the racial mix within the city of Grand Rapids. Pupils in grades four through six (grades four and five when middle schools are in operation) would be dispersed throughout the six school community. A ratio of 15-20% minority students per classroom would be maintained. Students would be assigned to the nearest school to their home consistent with the maintenance of the racial mix. 222 223 Particular attention would be given to ensure that Madison Park would have an outstanding staff. Administrative and teaching positions in all six schools would be desegregated. Compensatory and enrichment activities would be pro- vided all children who have need of them. Use of "area" specialists for the six schools would decentralize supervisory and staff person- nel. Each school would be organized to provide some experi- mental programs so that the spirit of the school would be similar to suburban schools. Parental involvement in extra curricular activities as well as more traditional parent undertakings would be encouraged. Community councils could be formed to look at problems common to the area. These councils and PTA groups should be formed during the year prior to the start of the desegregation plan. A year! 5 lead time also will allow planning time to delineate objectives, activities, and responsibilities of all concerned with the desegregation. Integrated curricular materials should be used wherever possible. Additional materials to relate achievements of minority people in our culture should be provided. A concentrated public relations program could also be implemented to inform the community of the program. Staff 224 selection and pre-service workshops to discuss the new program could occur during this period. Evaluation procedures could be set up during the planning year so that continuous evaluation of the objectives of desegregation could be accomplished . "1111711711111111111I