Is 201--An Educational Landmark
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
REPORT RESUMES ED 011 911 U0'003760 I.S. 201 - -AN EDUCATIONAL LANDMARK. BY- GOLDBERG, GERTRUDE S. YESHIVA UNIV., NEW YORK, N.Y., ERICCLEARINGHOUSE ECRS PRICE MF$0.09 HC -$0.64 16P. DESCRIPTORS- COMMUNITY ACTION, *SCHOOL COMMUNITYRELATIONSHIP, COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT, *COMMUNITY INFLUENCE,*SCHOOL SEGREGATION, PERSONNEL SELECTION, PRINCIPALS,*EDUCATIONAL QUALITY) PARENT ATTITUDES, BOARD OFEDUCATION ROLE, BOARD OF EDUCATION POLICY, *DECENTRALIZATION,EDUCATIONAL POLICY, URBAN SCHOOLS, PARENTS, COMMUNITY SCHOOLS,SCHOOL BOYCOTTS, NEW YORK CITY, EAST HARLEM CONTROVERSY OVER NEW YORK CITY'S INTERMEDIATESCHOOL 201 RAISED SOME EDUCATIONAL ISSUES RELEVANTTO ALL SCHOOL CHILDREN:AS WELL AS TO THE SOCIALLYDISADVANTAGED. CONVINCED THAT THE SCHOOL WOULD PROVIDE NEITHERINTEGRATION NOR QUALITY EDUCATION, SOME GHETTO PARENTS SOUGHT "QUALITYSEGREGATED EDUCATION," BASIC TO WHICH WAS COMMUNITYCONTROL OVER EDUCATIONAL POLICY. JOINT RESPONSIBILITY WITHREPRESENTATIVES OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION FOR ALLASPECTS OF SCHOOL POLICY WOULD, THEY MAINTAINED, GIVE GHETTOPARENTS POWER COMPARABLE. TO THAT OF WHITE MIDDLECLASS PARENTS. SUCH POWER, PROBABLY NOT EXERCISED BY ANY URBAN PARENTS, WOULDNOT JEOPARDIZE PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS BECAUSE THE BOARD WOULDRETAIN JOINT AUTHORITY, AND THE PRESSURES OF FUNDINGAND ACCREDITATION AGENCIES WOULD PERSIST. OPPOSED BY NEARLYALL CITY -WIDE EDUCATIONAL POWER GROUPS, THE DISSIDENTSBECAME A NEIGHBORHOOD PRESSURE GROUP AND PRESSEDTHEIR ,DEMAND -- UNCONTROVERSIAL PER SE - -FORA BLACK PRINCIPAL AFTER A COMPETENT WHITE PRINCIPAL HAD BEEN APPOINTED. DEFEATED IN AN INITIAL BOYCOTT, THE GROUP SEEMS TOBE GENERALIZING ITS PROTEST TO OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS TOCOMPETE WITK THE CITYWIDE GROUPS WHICH DEFEATED THEM.FRAUGHT WITH DANGERS (CHIEFLY THOSE WHICH WEAKEN THE PRESSUREFOR INTEGRATION), THE STRATEGY OF QUALITY SEGREGATEDEDUCATION THROUGH COMMUNITY CONTROL REPRESENTS "ONE SOUNDALTERNATIVE" TO SOME BASIC PROBLEMS IN URBAN EDUCATION. THISARTICLE WAS PUBLISHED IN "IRCD BULLETIN," VOLUME 2, NUMBER5 AND VOLUME 3, NUMBER 1, WINTER'19661967. (AUTHOR) PROJECT BEACON FERKAUF GRADUATE SCHOOL OF HUMANITIES AND IRCD BU I SOCIAL SCIENCES A BI-MONTHLY PUBLICATION 55 Fifth Avenue New York, N. Y. 10003 FROM THE ERIC INFORMATION RETRIEVAL CENTER ON THE DISADVANTAGED Volume IINo. 5 and Volume III No. 1 DOUBLE ISSUEWINTER 1966-1967 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION &WELFARE ED011911 OFFICE OF EDUCATION I.S. 201: AN EDUCATIONAL LANDMARK THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED EXACTLYAS RECEIVED FROM THE I.S. 201 has become a landmark for reasons other than PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGINATING IT.POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONS those which won it an architectural award. The conflict over STATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENTOFFICIAL OFFICE OF EDUCATION one of the New York's new intermediate schools,' a window- less brick bastion in Harlem, has spread far beyond the walls 'or onePOSITION or uotn OR ozPOLICY. tide ionowing reasons: uecause lE aparea of the ghetto. A controversy which has altered existing to be too deep within the ghetto to be Successfully interated; coalitions and polarized its principals is difficult to analyze or because it was a depressing site, opposite railroatracks without the resources of time and systematic study. (Despite and amidst rundown tenements and storefronts. e Board these inherent handicaps, there have already been several assured them of a creative building and of itegration. perceptive reportorial accounts of the conflict.2 ) But the During the fall of 1965 and early months of 16, parents outlines of the controversy are sufficiently clear to attempt of children who would attend what would betermediate to determine why 201 is a landmark or what about the School 201 and members of interested cornunity groups goals, strategies, and tactics of its actors represent de- pressed the Board for plans of integratioand details of partures from previous efforts to improve the education of the school's program. As it became cle that the school socially disadvantaged children. would be segregated and they were unabto learn definite program plans, these community persos began to develop Quality, Segregated Education: Goal, Sub -Goal, or Strategy? a set of proposals for the new scho1.In the absence of integration, they pressed for "quality gregated education," While attempts to upgrade segregated ghetto schools have which was to be gained through cornnity control over such burgeoned since 1954, the goal of Negro activists and their important aspects of the school's opation as staff selection, white allies has been quality, integrated education. The two curriculum, and evaluation of thecademic program. They aims have been seen. as complementary and, at least in demanded a Negro or Puertoican principal to supply the long run, inseparable. As Whitney Young has stated, the proper image for minority-oup pupils, a well-trained, "There can be no integration of education without quality; integrated teaching staff, welstocked library, etc. They nor can there be any meaningful quality of education without attempted during the springnd summer to obtain support integration." While some figures prominent in the civil rights from powerful allies outsidthe New York City Board of movement have viewed the quest for quality in the ghetto as Education, when it appearethat the Board was not willing a means of making segregation palatable, the majority to negotiate seriously withem. They received no definite position, particularly among educators, has been that commitment of help froany organization or individual emphasis on one of the two interdependent goals is necessary capable of influencing thBoard's decisions. As a result of at any given time or situation. Kenneth Clark, for example, demonstration and protet by Harlem and East Harlem corn- has argued that, "given the intransigence of the white munity groups, the Bord cancelled its plans for opening community and the impossibility of immediate integration," the school on April 1 ay 1, and June 1. to seek higher standards in the ghetto is a "decision to save A week before thopening of school, on September 12, as many Negro children as possible now." Indeed, he main- 1966, serious negotitions began between the Superintendent tains, along with others, that meaningful desegregation can of Schools and me ers of the Board of Education, and what only take place if all of the schoolS involved are raised to became a formalegotiating Committee representing par.. the highest standards. Improvement of ghetto schools is ents and commuty organizations. Since discussions began seen as either a prelude or concomitant of integration. too late to reaca settlement before school opened, during During a period when integration has been the express the first weeof school, children were assigned to the goal of many Northern school systems and compensatory elementary sools which they had attended the previous efforts have been numerous, neither quality nor integration year.Begi ng Monday, September 19, children were has measurably increased. On the contrary, segregation in assigned wi their teachers to an old school which still the schools of the North has increased and achievement had furnitue. However, most of the 201 teachers, acting (continued on page 2) through thlocal chapter of their union (the United Federa- tion of achers) refused to conduct classes in the old 'An intermediate school serves children from fifth through school. eighth grades. This type of school has been developed in An reenient between the Negotiating Committee and accordance with the New York City Board of Education's the Bo rd was reached Monday afternoon. Basically, corn- "4-4-4 plan" for reorganizing the grade structure of the munitrepresentatives would be jointly responsible along school system in order to facilitate racial integration. withersons designated by the Board of Education for oper ting I.S. 201. The Board first reftised, then evidently 2lmmediately following this discussion is a bibliography acq iesced in the demand of the Negotiating Committeethat of articles dealing specifically with the conflict over I.S. (continued on page 2) 201. A Summary of the Controversy at I.S. 201 (continued from page 1) alternative plan for operating LS. 201. A boardcomposed of university representatives and representatives ofparents the appointed white principal be replaced bya Negro or and community groups would constitute a nine-member Puerto Rican. It was reported that the appointee hadvol- operation board for the schools. The school system would untarily requested reassignment, and the ranking assistant contract with the board to run L S. 201 and its feedersele- principal, who happened to be Negro, was toserve as the mentary schools. The Board subsequently turned downthe acting principal. Following the Monday agreement, the Super- key portion of the Clark plan, for it refused to acquiescein intendent of Schools and the Chairman of the Negotiating "selection and transfer of personnel or authority to direct Committee announced that a settlement had been reached, the work of the School." On October 20, the Board issued and the latter pledged to bring her child to 201the next a statement in which the community group was offeredan day. advisory role in relation to LS. 201, and it also 'proposed The 201 teachers meanwhile urged the Board.not to to appoint a high-level Task Force to Advance Education in accept the appointed principal's request fora transfer and Disadvantaged Areas. The Task Force would be asked to on Tuesday, September 20, picketed I.S. 201 and the Board