University of Cincinnati

Home , The Cincinnati Enquirer, Winton Woods High School

UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI

Date:______

I, ______, hereby submit this work as part of the requirements for the degree of: in:

It is entitled:

This work and its defense approved by:

Chair: ______

The Evolution of an Integrated School District

in Southwestern Ohio:

The Winton Woods School District, a Case Study

A dissertation submitted to the

Division of Research and Advanced Studies

Of the University of Cincinnati

In partial fulfillment of the

Requirement for the degree of

DOCTOR OF EDUCATION (PhD)

In the Department of Educational Foundations

in the College of Education, Criminal Justice, and Human Services

2007

Susan Mary Smith

B.S. Ohio University, 1971 M. Ed. University of Cincinnati, 2001

Committee Chair: Dr. Leo Krzywkowki

Abstract

This is an historical study of the Winton Woods City School District. The District began as the Greenhills Rural School when the Roosevelt administration constructed

Greenhills, in northern Hamilton County in southwestern Ohio, as part of the greenbelt project. After World War II, the government sold the undeveloped land, at which time

Forest Park was developed and the district became the Greenhill-Forest Park District.

The district experienced rapid growth, followed by a decline in enrollment. Throughout this period the district faced many challenges faced by other districts, including overcrowding, school prayer, racial integration, declining enrollment, changing economic demographics, and funding issues. Greenhills was an all white community when it was established in 1938 because of limitations on who could apply for residence stipulated by the federal government. This was probably due to opposition from surrounding communities who opposed the construction of the greenbelt town. When Forest Park was developed communities were becoming more integrated and the community emerged as an integrated community. According to the 2000 Census, Forest Park was 56.26%

African American and 36.7% White, (population 19,463) while Greenhills was 2.7%

African American and 93.7% White (population 4,103). The difficulties the district faced, the community’s reaction, and the solutions to the problems are presented. Today the district faces challenges because of changing economic demographics from a middle class community to one with approximately 30% of families of students receiving Aid to

Dependent Children. It is hoped this study will be beneficial to other school districts that face similar problems.

ii Acknowledgments

The pursuit of a doctoral degree is a long and difficult path. When I returned to

college after more than thirty years, I did not intend to continue on this far. It was the

encouragement from Dr. Berlowitz, who was also my advisor when working on my

Masters, that led to my decision. I thank him and the professors that I studied with who

shared their knowledge, leading me toward new ways of thinking. There is a part of each

professor in this work.

I would like to thank Dr. Swanson, Judy Richardson, and Phyllis Sadler, who helped

me through my darkest periods. Without your help I could not have begun this journey.

My sons, Casey, Chris, and Ben, who attended school in the Winton Woods City

School District, also gave me insight into education today. We can learn a great deal

from students, we only need to listen to and observe them. You are all extraordinary

individuals and I am proud of each of you. Your are my biggest accomplishment and the

best part of me.

I would also like to thank my committee members, Dr Marvin Berlowitz, Dr. Eric

Jackson, Dr. Pat O’Reiley, and Dr. Leo Krzywkowski. I thank you for the many hours each of you has spent reading my work, advising, and offering advice. You each possess a body of knowledge that has influenced my thinking. You are my village.

I would like to especially thank Dr. Krzywkowski whose challenging courses taught me so much. He challenged all his scholars to achieve beyond what the felt they could. I know he spent many hours going over my work with a fine tooth comb. His diligent work in editing my dissertation was often frustrating, but necessary, to complete this final document. “Better days are coming,”

iii Finally I would like to thank my father, William Luken, who instilled in me an appreciation for knowledge and learning. Although he is no longer here to share this accomplishment with me, I miss him and dedicate this to him. Thanks Dad.

iv CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS……………………………….……………………………….iii

LIST OF TABLES…………………….………………………………………………….vi

CHAPTER

1. Introduction………………………………………………………………….……1

Overview of the Study……………………………………………………….….1

2. A New Kind of Community……………………………...………………...….….4

Henry George’s Influence on the Rexford Tugwell…….………………….…..4

Edward Bellamy’s Influence on Rexford Tugwell…………...…………………8

Ebenezer Howard and the Garden City Movement………………………...... 12

3. The Development of Greenhills…………………………………………………..17

Controversy over Construction of Greenhills………….……………...………17

Greenhills……………………………………………………………………..23

North Greenhills becomes Forest Park………………………...……………..32

Changes in Housing Patterns………………………………….……………..44

4. The Evolution of the School District……………………………..……………..56

Effects of Development in Forest Park……………………………………….62

The Need for Additional School Buildings…………………………………..70

Prayer in Schools……………………………………………………………..75

5. Desegregation……………………..………………………………….………….80

Fleming Meadows……………………..……………………………………107

6. Declining Enrollment, Race, and the Closing of a High School………….……115

The District Today…………………………………………………………..151

v 7. Conclusions……………………………………………………………………..163

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY…………………………………………………….170

APPENDIX

1. Housing Questionnaire………………………………………………...…….181

2. Correspondence from John Pennycuff…………………………...…………..185

3. Correspondence from Superintendent Camille A. Nasbe……………...…….186

4. Theodore Berry Papers on Housing……………………………………….....187

5. Winton Woods City School District Map………………………………….Insert

vi TABLES

Table

1. Characteristics of Forest Park Neighborhoods (1974)……………………………49

2. Greenhills and Forest Park Racial Demographics (2000 Census)………………..54

3. Greenhills and Forest Park Median Household Incomes (2000 Census)…...……54

4. Enrollment 1938 to 1952…………………………………………………………60

5. Enrollment Increase from 1947 to 1959…………………………….…………....64

6. Percent Increase at each grade level from 1950-1951 to 1959-1960………….....65

7. School buildings in the district with opening dates and locations…………...…..71

8. Percentage of African-American Students………………………………..……..81

9. Racial Composition Comparison………………………………………………..109

10. Elementary School Closings…………………………………………………….116

11. 1989 Elementary Enrollment Figures……………………………..…………….123

12. 1989 Middle and High School Enrollment Figures……………………………..124

13. 1989 Minority Population at District Schools…………………………..………124

14. District Enrollment, Students Receiving Aid to Dependent Children (ADC), and Students Being Bused to Non-Public Schools…………………….….…...153

15. Ohio Graduation Tests-Grade 10, Winton Woods City School District (Preliminary Results)…………………………………..………………….……154

16. School District Comparison………………………………………………..……155

17. 2005-2006 School Year Report Card Comparison………………………….…..156

18. Ohio Achievement Test Results, Winton Woods City Schools…………………157

19. Students Scoring Proficient or Above on 2007 Ohio Achievement Tests Comparison………………………………………………………………..……158

20. Graduation Rates and Per Pupil Expenditures……………………………..……159

vii 1

INTRODUCTION

History is a study of change. Often the most in depth study we do is of the change brought about by violent means in war. Change occurs by other means as well.

Literature, art, theater, and scientific progress bring about change also. Social movements, peaceful and otherwise, and economic conditions bring about change as well. This study will look at social events that brought about social change

The world was experiencing economic upheaval in the 1920’s. The situation in the

Unites States was desperate for many people as well. Unemployment was high, agriculture was hurt by overproduction in some areas and the dust bowl that ruined crops in other areas, and industry was hurting. The crises escalated until the stock market crash in October, 1929. The country’s dissatisfaction with the policies of the Hoover

Administration led to the election of Franklin Roosevelt in 1932, the New Deal, and other changes, such as the greenbelt towns. The greenbelt towns were the project of Columbia

University economist and Roosevelt Brains Trust advisor Rexford Tugwell. One of these towns was Greenhills, located in Hamilton County just north of Cincinnati, Ohio. The

Winton Woods City School District would come to serve the village of Greenhills as well as the community of Forest Park which was developed from the land purchased for

Greenhills but not developed in the 1930’s. The purpose of this project is to study the evolution of Greenhills and Forest Park and their schools. It is a transformation that looks at topics such as race, racial steering, community pride, and losses to the communities. Change has not always been easy in the communities, and often the ones most affected were those with the least power. In areas pertaining to race it was often the

African American population that had the least power but was negatively affected the 2 most. Where changes in the schools occurred it was the students who were most immediately affected, although they had little power. The transformation has been an interesting but often painful one for the communities.

History is affected by what has happened in the past. Everything springs from what has occurred previously. A dramatic change occurred with the Industrial Revolution of the eighteenth century. New technologies signaled an opportunity for an improvement in the lives of everyone, especially the lower classes who were mired in poverty. Adam

Smith, the first political economist, felt that if governments would remove their repressive restrictions business and industry would flourish with the wealth generated trickling down to the poor. He had a moral viewpoint that believed man would do what is best not only for himself, but his fellowman as well. Smith’s philosophy of laissez faire is still an important economic principal today.

Things did not evolve as Smith predicted to benefit all mankind. Just as Smith observed what was happening in the world during his time, others also did. Three of these men who influenced what happened in the Roosevelt administration were Henry

George, Francis Bellamy, and Ebenezer Howard. They spent their lives working to improve the conditions they observed in society. Although many are not familiar with their work today, they were influential in their lives and shaped the development of society. They influenced Rexford Tugwell, either directly or indirectly, and helped shape his ideas that resulted in the greenbelt towns. Tugwell had a vision that peoples lives and the conditions they lived in could be improved.

Knowledge is evolutionary. No one develops a perfect idea from nothing. This is true in science, music, the arts, and society. All knowledge builds on previous knowledge. 3

Hopefully we learn from our mistakes and continue to work on evolving society toward a higher plain. Tugwell, who envisioned hundreds of greenbelt towns, believed a community based on the principles embodied in these towns would improve lives and help society to evolve toward a more just society. Although he has often been criticized, in his own time and in more current times, Roosevelt also wanted to improve the lives of less fortunate members of society. The greenbelt towns would not have been developed without his support and they owe their existence, in part, to him.

The Winton Woods City School District, like most districts today, still faces many challenges. Things are reasonable calm compared to the turbulence of the past which will be addressed in this project. The growing pains, which began in 1939 when the

Greenhills Rural School District was created, will continue. The changes have at times shared the same problems as other school systems in areas such as school financing. In other areas the challenges have been more unique, such as when dealing with issues of race and community identity.

I will be documenting the evolution of the school district and how the efforts of many individuals affected the struggles of this district. 4

A New Kind Of Community

The development of Greenhills and the other greenbelt towns was due to the efforts of

Rexford Tugwell, an influential member of the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Tugwell’s plans for this new type of community were influenced by the work of others who came before him, most notably Henry George (1839-1897), Edward Bellamy (1850-

1898), and Ebenezer Howard (1850-1928). All three men lived in the era preceding the

Great Depression, were interested in social reform, and influenced the thinking of the time.

Henry George’s Influence on Rexford Tugwell

To those who, Seeing the vice and misery that springs from the unequal distribution of wealth and privilege, feel the possibility of a higher social state and would strive for its attainment.

Henry George San Francisco, March 1879

Henry George was a political economist and the most influential advocate of the

“Single Tax” on land.1 George gained fame after the publication in 1879 of his book

Progress and Poverty.2 It became a publishing sensation in the 1880’s and became the largest selling book on political economy published in the United States. George was at

1 In George’s time political economy was the study of the production, distribution, exchange, and consumption of goods and services. It is the study of how people make a living. During George’s life it was a social science in its infancy, having been developed in the eighteenth century as the study of states, or politics. Late in the 18th century the term economics replaced the term political economy as the study took on a more mathematical basis. Today the term political economy refers to the interdisciplinary study of economics, law, and political science.

2 The edition of Progress and Poverty used in this research as printed in 1929 by the Robert Schalkenbach Foundation. “The Robert Schalkenbach Foundation was incorporated in 1925 to administer a Trust Fund left by the will of the late Robert Schalkenbach, former president of the New York Typothetae, and such other funds as may be donated to it, for the purpose of spreading among the people of this and other countries a wider acquaintance with the social and economic philosophy of Henry George.” The book was in its second printing in January 1930 and was available for purchase, along with George’s Protection and Free Trade (both unabridged) for the price of $1.00, postpaid. 5 odds with mainstream academic economists of the period because his land tax theory was in opposition to classical economics (which advocated the doctrine of laissez faire advocated by Scottish economist Adam Smith) as well as the newer Austrian and German economic theories,3 and because he lacked even a secondary education. George believed it was possible for society to address and solve issues such as poverty as opposed to those who believed society had to go through evolutionary change similar to what happened in nature.

After the publication of Progress and Poverty, George became a celebrity in the parlors of the rich who listened to his ideas. The publication of Progress and Poverty and successive books made George immensely popular and, according to his grand- daughter, Agnes George deMille, George was the third most famous man in the United

States at the time, after Mark Twain and Thomas Edison. At this time he unsuccessfully attempted to organize support among workingmen for the single tax. In 1886, with the backing of labor union leaders in New York, George ran for mayor of New York City on a third part ticker. He came in second, garnering more votes that the Republican candidate, Theodore Roosevelt. Some historians believe that George actually won the race and attributed his defeat to the corruption of the Tammany Hall political machine. It was the campaign of 1886 that changed George’s thinking from fighting the evils of poverty toward promotion of the single tax on land. It was also at this time that most of his support came from the middle class. George unsuccessfully tried to organize a

3 The Austrian economic theory shifted emphasis to value, price, and demand as opposed to wealth, cost, and supply, and allowed for the use of mathematics for the expression of theory. The German school of thought saw economics as an evolutionary science and emphasized the government as an economic agent, particularly in the distribution of wealth. Because they saw economic laws as differing from society to society, conclusion needed to be based on empirical investigations rather than speculation. 6 workingman’s crusade in support of the single tax. George again ran for mayor of New

York City in 1897, but died four days before the election.

George believed that the private ownership of land was unethical. Only things produced by labor should be privately owned. Further, if all men are created equal, as stated in the Constitution, then all should have equal rights to what was offered by nature, such as the land, as well as air and water. George did not, as some of his critics argued, advocate confiscation of land. The same ends could be achieved by the collection of land-rent through taxation to meet the costs of government. George felt that the collection of land-rents would be more than adequate to cover the costs of government, giving us the term single tax.

Many notable people have been influenced by George, including George Bernard

Shaw, Leo Tolstoy, and British Prime Minister David Lloyd George. “Literally dozens of Progressive leaders of the following generation attested that they owed their initial interest in reform to the reading of Henry George’s books.”4 In 1904, Lizzie Magie, a follower of Henry George, created the game, “The Landlord’s Game,” a precursor to the game of Monopoly, to demonstrate his theories.5 The purpose of the game was to demonstrate the effects of Henry George’s laws on political economy.

4 Steven B. Cord, Henry George: Dreamer or Realist (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1965), 204.

5 Elizabeth “Lizzie” J. Magie was a Quaker from Virginia who acquired the patent (U. S. Patent 748626, January 5, 1904) on a board game she titled “The Landlord’s Game.” Magie received another patent (U. S. Patent 1509312) in 1924 on a revised version of the game. In 1936 she sold the rights to the game to Parker Brothers for $500, ho promised to market some of the games under the original title. Magie’s sole purpose in inventing the game was to promote Henry George’s single tax theory and she stated to a reporter for The Washington Star in 1936 that after selling the rights she did not care if she never made a dime as long as George’s message as spread across the country. After acquiring the patent rights, Parker Brothers marketed the game under the name of Monopoly and stated that Charles Darrow had invented the game of Monopoly. Monopoly came to be the largest selling board game in the world. It is sold in 80 countries in 26 languages. Magie is not mentioned in the Hasbro, now owner of Parker Brothers, internet site on Monopoly, 7

Scott Nearing (Poverty and Riches, The American Empire, Democracy is Not Enough) acquired a copy of “The Landlord’s Game” about 1910 and took it with him to the

Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. Nearing was a socialist economist and an early supporter of child labor laws.6 Rexford Tugwell, who in 1915 was a student

at Wharton, was an early player of the game. It is likely that this was influential in

having the greenbelt towns built in the late 1930’s being owned by the federal

government.

In Cincinnati, Herbert Seely Bigelow (1870-1951), became a convert to George’s

Single Tax Theory while a student at Lane Theological Seminary when he converted to

the Social Gospel. While at Lane he worked in the settlement houses in the basin area

and his search for how to create a better society led him to Progress and Poverty.

In it the author advanced the theory that profit made through holding land merely to gain the increased value given it by society was unjust, destroyed competition, and led to monopoly or undue concentration of wealth. If these profits were taxed away and returned to society, he wrote, monopoly would be unprofitable, equality of opportunity would be restored, and small businessmen rescued from approaching oblivion.7

Bigelow’s Progressivism led him to enter politics and he and his supporters founded

the Direct Legislation League. He served as President of the Ohio Constitutional

Convention of 1912 which wrote forty-one potential amendments to the state

constitution. Although voters approved thirty-three of the amendments, they rejected

6 Andrew Carnegie was a University of Pennsylvania board of trustee member who acquired his fortune, in part, through the use of child labor in his factories. Carnegie required the University to fire Nearing as a condition of his funding the school.

7 Daniel R. Beaver, Bulletin of the Historical and Philosophical Society of Ohio, Cincinnati, “Herbert Seely Bigelow: Reformer and Politician 1870-1951.

those that would have given equal rights to women and African Americans.8 Bigelow

served in the Ohio House of Representative in 1913 and 1914. He was elected to the

Cincinnati City Council in 1936. The same year he was elected to the United States

House of Representatives as a Democrat but was unsuccessful in his bid for re-election in

1938. After serving in Washington Bigelow returned to the Cincinnati City Council in

1940 and 1941.

Edward Bellamy’s Influence on Rexford Tugwell

Edward Bellamy was a philosopher, social reformer, and writer of works of fiction

based on psychological studies. In his notebook he wrote on the nature of man with

himself through the various stages of his life as well as the nature of man’s personality

and on the subject of nemesis. In 1888, Bellamy published Looking Backward in which

he presents an organized concept of how he sees man relating to each other to achieve a

good society. Looking Backward became the third largest bestseller of the period, after

Uncle Tom’s Cabin and Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ. Arthur E. Morgan,9 in his book,

The Philosophy of Edward Bellamy ranks Bellamy alongside Freud in his thinking.

Morgan goes on to state Bellamy

“….is saner, better balanced and more fundamental than Freud, more penetrating and more objective. Should the point of view he presented come to prevail generally, the

8 “Ohio Constitutional Convention of 1912,” Ohio Historical Society, 1982 Velma Ave., Columbus, Ohio 43211, 2008. Available from: http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/entry.php?rec=526&nm=Ohio- Constitutional-Conventi... 9 Morgan was born in Cincinnati, Ohio, and grew up in St. Cloud, Minnesota. While walking in the woods at the age of seventeen, he had a vision of an ideal utopian community that would direct the rest of his life. He was appointed President of Antioch College, even though he lacked a college education, and began his experiment in higher education devoted to educating men and women dedicated to the welfare of humanity. During his tenure he instituted a co-op program and built Antioch College up to one of the top three colleges in the nation. “Morgan’s goal was to produce philosopher-engineers by an ‘enlightened moral enthusiasm.’” (See Tennessee Valley Authority, The Visionary. Accessed at http://www.tva.gov/heritage/visionary/index.htm.) President Roosevelt appointed Morgan to head the development of the TVA in 1933. It was during his time in Tennessee that he finished his lifelong work on a biography of Edward Bellamy.

resulting liberation from mental and spiritual servitude might dwarf to relative insignificance the relief resulting from physical emancipation of American slaves.”10

Bellamy advocated the gradual introduction of changes in society to achieve a more egalitarian society. He believed if the ideals stated in the preamble to the Declaration of

Independence were to be realized the current capitalist structure needed to change to a democratic socialist system which would extend freedom and liberty to all. Bellamy advocated many changes, which included:

1. Complete equality in economic, political, and social life resulting in an end to

racial, class, and gender prejudice.

2. Expanding the definition of work to include all work performed in the national

sector as well as in the social sector (child care, caring for the ill and elderly, etc.).

Full employment would be guaranteed.

3. The number of hours worked would be reduced to the number that were required

to meet the needs of society. Retirement would come after twenty to twenty-five

years of service.

4. All types of lifestyles would be practiced as each individual would be able to

spend his share of the national wealth as he or she saw fit.

5. There would be complete freedom of expression.

6. Women would marry only for love since women would have economic security.

7. Comprehensive free education would be provided to all through grade 16.

8. Upon the completion of ones education all would participate in the National

Service Corps (NSC) for a period of time to do the so-called “dirty-work,”

cleaning, trash collection, child care, domestic service, etc. Citizens would rotate

10 Arthur E. Morgan, The Philosophy of Edward Bellamy (New York: King’s Crown Press, 1945), 1-2. 10

through various jobs to discover what they were best suited for. At this time they

could remain in the NSC until retirement or receive further education or training

to enter another field of the individuals choosing.

9. The quality of products would improve due to the adoption of national

specifications. Items would be purchased through regional warehouses.

10. More time would be available for study and reflection leading to discussion on the

attainment of a good society.

11. Citizens would be more civil toward one another because of the elimination of

economic competition. Public dining would be common in cheerful surroundings.

12. Individuals would be able to select their occupation of choice based on individual

skills and temperament as well as where they desired to live based on the needs of

the country.

13. Technology and invention would flourish improving people’s lives.

14. Universal health care would be provided for all with individuals taking a role in

maintaining their own health.

15. The cities and countryside would be beautiful due to the decentralization of

manufacturing, education, and recreation.

16. Scientific methods would be used to improve agriculture.

17. Scientific control over production would eliminate overproduction and want.

International trade would be based on a fair exchange of goods.

18. Immigration between countries would be allowed with the receiving country

paying for the investment of educating the worker to the originating country. 11

19. There would be little need for accountants and lawyers because there would be no

taxes, mortgages, or banking. Only sentimental items could be transferred by

inheritance.

20. Political institutions would meet less frequently due to the elimination of most

laws. Legislative and judicial officers would be subject to referendum to prevent

corruption and malfeasance.

21. Furniture, clothing, and consumables would be made from disposable and

recyclable materials eliminating the need for cleaning, maintenance, and repair.

22. Cooperative control would ensure the supply of safe water, air, and food.

23. Free services available to citizens would include light, heat, power, water, news,

operas, plays, libraries, roads, parks, rapid transit, gymnasiums, and natatoriums.

The hours would be convenient with citizens being able to select what they

wished to enjoy.

Edward Bellamy’s influence extended well beyond his life through his books Looking

Backward and Equality. John Dewey and historian Charles Beard would call Looking

Backward one of the two most influential books published between 1885 and 1935.

Looking Backward was ranked just below Das Kapital, by Karl Marx and some

economists would call his two books the most influential books on economics published

in the nineteenth century. Dewey saw the importance of schools in shaping society and

considered Edward Bellamy the “Great American Prophet.” William Dean Howells,11

who would later follow Tolstoy’s Christian Socialism, would say it moved the country

more than any other American work. Bellamy’s vision of Boston in the year 2000

11 William Dean Howells (1837-1920) was an author and literary critic who wrote his own utopian novel, A Traveler from Alturia, in 1894. Howells, along with his close friend, Mark Twain, was involved in the anti-imperialism movement. 12

influenced the Garden City movement that led to the development of the New Towns and

Garden Suburb movement in England. This would influence American city planning and

development and Tugwell’s greenbelt towns.

….This is seen today in the New Deal town of Greenbelt, Maryland, and more recently in the privately built Reston, Virginia, and Columbia, Maryland. Both Rexford Guy Tugwell, who led the construction and planning of Greenbelt, and his President, Franklin Roosevelt, recognized the influence of Looking Backward on their lives.12

Ebenezer Howard and the Garden City Movement

Town and country must be married, And out of this joyous union will spring a new hope, a new life, a new civilization. (Ebenezer Howard, 1898)

Ebenezer Howard and the Garden City movement have played an important

and continuing role in the area of urban planning. Howard’s ideas influenced not

only Tugwell’s thinking on the greenbelt towns of the 1930’s but on urban

planning today. After observing the slums of cities such as London, created by

industrialization, Howard believed that many of the ills of society could be

addressed by more humane living conditions. Howard sought to use technology

and capitalism to enhance the lives of workers and bring about a more humane

society. He saw himself as an inventor and presented his plan for a new type of

city in meticulous detail in his book, To-morrow, first published in 189813 In it he

addressed the problems of land use, design, transportation, housing, and

financing, presenting a systematic plan for an alternative society. The book

12 Dr. John W. Baer, “Chapter Three: American Socialists and Reformers.” From The Pledge of Allegiance: A Centennial History, 1892-1992, by Dr. John W. Baer. (John W. Baer, Annapolis Md., 1992), 10. Available from http://history.vineyard net/pdgech3.htm. Accessed 10 June 2006.

13 The title would be changed to Garden Cities of Tomorrow in 1902. 13

received modest praise in the London press as an attractive utopian scheme which

would be impossible to realize. Although the experimental towns of Letchworth

and Welwyn are considered utopian communities, they are not utopian in the

impossible dream sense in which we typically think of the term. Instead they are

utopian in the sense defined by Karl Mannheim’s classical definition; “a coherent

program for action arising out of thought that ‘transcends the immediate

situation,’ a program whose realization would ‘break the bonds’ of the established

society.”14

In 1871, at the age of twenty-one, Howard immigrated to the United States

with two companions where they took up homesteading on 160 acres in Nebraska.

Throughout his life Howard gave many reasons for his move to the United States

but the most plausible reason is probably the one he gave to a young Frederick

Osborn. Howard “had begun to acquire democratic tendencies and was drawn to

America by its open society rather than its open spaces.”15 He soon found he was

not suited to farming and moved to Chicago where he again took up his shorthand

profession. He would remain in Chicago for four years where he became friends

with a Quaker, Alonzo Griffin, who influenced Howard to read Whitman, Lowell,

Emerson, and Hawthorne. Howard was particularly interested in the writings of

Ralph Waldo Emerson and Transcendentalism, which is evident in some of

Howard’s later writings. Perhaps more influential were W. H. Draper’s,

14 Robert Fishman, Urban Planning in the Twentieth Century: Ebenezer Howard, Frank Lloyd Wright, and Le Corbusier (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1977), x.

15 Ebenezer Howard interview with Frederick J. Osborn, Sir Frederick Osborn Archive, Central Library, Welwyn Garden City, cited in Robert Beevers, The Garden City Utopia: A Critical Biography of Ebenezer Howard, (London: The Macmillan Press, Ltd., 1988), 5.

Intellectual History of Europe,16 and Tom Pain’s Age of Reason. He became

interested in the conflict between religion and science, common during the

nineteenth century, and, according to close friend, F. J. Osborn, became a

freethinker. Howard continued to attend the Congregational church (the Society

of the Golden Fleece) and considered himself a religious man, although not in the

traditional sense.

In 1871 Chicago had been devastated by the great fire which killed 300 people,

left 90,000 homeless, and caused $200 million in property damages. Chicago was

experiencing a real estate boom after this devastating event when Howard lived

there. Because of its public parks, Chicago was known as the garden city at the

time. Although Howard was certainly influenced by his stay in Chicago, many

have inferred that this is where the title of his utopia originated. Howard, during

his lifetime, denied this, and, in fact, did not use the term in earlier drafts of his

book. It was while in Chicago that he became aware of the planned community

concept through Dr. Benjamin Richardson’s book, Hygeia, or the City of Health.

By the time Howard returned to England he had “a defined conception of an

intelligently arranged town, a sort of marriage between town and country,

whereby the workers would be assured the advantages of fresh air and recreation

and nearness to their work.”17

Howard summarizes his proposal in Garden Cities of Tomorrow:

….My proposal is that there should be an earnest attempt made to organize a migratory movement of population from our overcrowded centres (sic.) to

16 The message of Draper’s book was that churches, especially the Catholic Church, were the enemies of scientific enlightenment. 17 Ebenezer Howard interview with F. Yeats-Brown, The Spectator, June 5, 1926, 943, quoted in Beevers, 9. 15

sparsely settled rural districts; that the mind of the public should not be confused, or the efforts of organizers wasted in a premature attempt to accomplish this work on a national scale, but that great thought and attention shall be first concentrated on a single movement yet one sufficiently large to be at once attractive and resourceful; that the migrants shall be guaranteed (by the making of suitable arrangements before the movement commences) that the whole increase in land values due to their migration shall be secured to them; that this be done by creating an organization, which, while permitting its members to do those things which are good in their eyes (provided they infringe not on the rights of others) shall receive all ‘rate-rents’ and expand them in those public works which the migratory movement renders necessary of expedient—thus eliminating rates, or, at least, greatly reducing the necessity for any compulsory levy; and that the golden opportunity afforded by the fact that the land to be settled upon has but few buildings or works upon it, shall be availed of in the fullest manner, by so laying out a Garden City that, as it grows, the free gifts of Nature—fresh air, sunlight, breathing room—shall be still retained in all needed abundance, and by so employing the resources of modern science that Art may supplement Nature, and life may become an abiding joy and delight. And it is important to notice that this proposal, so imperfectly put forward, is no scheme hatched in a restless night in the fevered brain of an enthusiast, but is one having its origin in the thoughtful study of many minds, and the patient effort of many earnest souls, each bringing some element of value, till, the time and the opportunity having come, the smallest skill avails to weld those elements into an effective combination.18

Howard’s initial impetus for devoting his life to the development of the

Garden City was the improvement of the living conditions of the poor. On this

point the Garden City at Letchworth was not a success. The typical Garden City

factory worker was skilled or semi-skilled, and unable to afford the rents in

Letchworth. Unskilled labor generally settled in the areas outside the city in

cottages that were often unsanitary and unhealthy, but which they could afford.

Howard considered this absence of the working class a serious defect in the social

structure of the town.

The works of Henry George, Edward Bellamy, and Ebenezer Howard greatly

affected thinking in the later part of the nineteenth and early twentieth century.

18 Ebenezer Howard, Garden Cities of Tomorrow, (Great Britain: Faber and Faber Ltd., 1902), 126-127. 16

All of this influenced Rexford Tugwell, a member of Franklin Roosevelt’s Brains

Trust, as well as an influential member of his administration, who was the

architect and force behind the development of the greenbelt towns. Although

Tugwell envisioned hundreds of these towns, only three partially completed

towns were constructed. The government purchased and owned the land where

the towns were built, as advocated by Henry George. Tugwell, as an economist,

believed the capitalist economic system needed to change in order for society to

be more egalitarian and to eliminate the cyclical depressions that greatly affected

the poor. Much of his writing reflects the principles advocated by Edward

Bellamy. Similarities between the greenbelt towns, and Howard’s Garden Cities,

can also be seen.

The following chapters will chronicle the development of the two main communities in the Winton Woods City School District. Each was developed

during two very different times along very different principles leading to two

distinct communities. This would lead to challenges for the school district which

can be seen in later chapters.

The Development of Greenhills and Forest Park

….The Green Towns Program” was a direct attempt by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s “New Deal” administration to address the problem of deteriorating urban conditions (with the industrial revolution and then the Great Depression, the cities were bombarded with people trying to find work). The idea was to create better living environments in rural and suburban areas for the urban poor and working classis. The government conducted a nationwide search and stringent screening process to determine who the original Greenbelt residents would be. Prevailing prejudice at the time probably excluded blacks and many minorities from the selection process….1

Controversy over the Construction of Greenhills

Franklin Roosevelt established the Resettlement Administration (RA) by Executive

Order No. 7027 on May 1, 1935, naming Tugwell as administrator. Suburban

Resettlement was part of the RA and involved building communities on the outskirts of cities to house low-income workers. These “Greenbelt Towns” were built on the outskirts of Washington, D.C. (Greenbelt), Cincinnati, Ohio (Greenhills), and

Milwaukee, Wisconsin (Greendale). A fourth community near Bound Brook, New Jersey was not built due to local opposition. The purpose of these communities was to provide jobs for unemployed workers and to provide affordable communities for low income workers. 2

Rexford Tugwell was the driving force behind the development of the Greenbelt

Towns which he saw as models for a new type of community that would be developed across the United States. Tugwell

1“Background information on the city of Greenbelt, MD.” Available from http://www.otal.unmd.edu/~vg/msf97/ms09/gb/backgrou.thm; accessed 10 November 2006.

2“Confiscation Seen in Rural Aid Plan,” New York Times, 11 December 1935, 11. “Confer on New Jersey Plan,” New York Times, 27 February 1936. “Tugwell Explains Bound Brook Plan,” New York Times, 4 March 1936. “Tugwell Explains Bound Brook Plan,” New York Times. 4 March 1936. “Jersey Housing Halted,” New York Times, 19 May 1936. “Tries New Tactics in Upset of the RA,” New York Times, 15 July 1936. “Tugwell To Spend $6,000,000 on ‘City,’ New York Times, 3 November 1936.

….believed that the classical ‘free market’ concept was useless in an economy dominated by large corporations. He felt that it was institutions that needed shaping, not men. Tugwell looked to planning as the means of controlling the large corporations for the benefit of the individual and society as a whole.3

Tugwell saw planning as a tool that could be used by government as well as

corporations. “Government, Tugwell felt, needed to outlaw conflict and enforce

cooperation, thus ensuring maximum efficiency.”4 This philosophy, as well as the fact

that the country was going through the depression, were key factors in the development

of Greenhills. Because of Tugwell’s involvement, they became know as

“Tugwelltowns.”5

Although the New Jersey town was not constructed, work on the other three greenbelt

towns continued amid local controversy. Residents in surrounding communities feared

the new towns would locate undesirable tenants near their communities thus lowering

their property values. There was also controversy over the loss of tax revenues from the

land purchased by the RA for the construction of the towns. In Milwaukee, where

Greendale was built, lawsuits were brought against the government attacking the

constitutionality of the housing provisions in the Emergency Relief Appropriations Act.

Local landowners feared the new construction would glut the housing market leading to

rental vacancies and loss of income.6

As soon as Tugwell gained permission from Roosevelt to proceed with the Greenbelt

Towns he enlisted the help of John Lansill and Wallace Richards in Mid-March of 1935.

3Charles Bradley Leach, “Greenhills, Ohio: The Evolution of an American Town” (PhD. Diss., Case Western Reserve University, 1978), 49.

4 Ibid., 49.

5 “Greenbelt, An Experimental Town Starts Off,” The New York Times, 10 October 1937, 3.

6 “Taxpayers Seek a Ban on Housing Projects,” New York Times, 1 September 1936, 4. 19

The three men began the steps to build the model towns and set four stipulations for them:

1. Work was to be provided for relief to the unemployed.

2. Low-cost housing would be provided for slum families.

3. There would be long-range planning within the communities.

4. Subsistence farming would be part of the communities.7

Land acquisition was seen as a chief obstacle and was the focus of much of their early attention. By July 1935 Cincinnati was selected as the site of one of the towns.8 Of the land under consideration, Tugwell decided on 6,850 acres in northern Hamilton County which was purchased for $268.58 an acre. During this time a social survey of Cincinnati was taken to determine who potential residents would be. The field researchers surveyed resident of the nearby community of Mt. Healthy, which was seen as representative of the population on the outskirts of Cincinnati.

Concerns over the development surfaced in many areas in Cincinnati. Early in

November property owners living North of Mt. Healthy held a meeting at the Hotel

Gibson, presided over by Banning Road resident John J. O’Rourke, to protest the project.

Rumors had circulated that owners who were unwilling to option their land would have their land optioned in the name of the United States. Officials “denied that ‘high pressure’ methods had been used to obtain options.” One attendee, William E. Hess, reported he had read an article in the October 19 issue of Business Week, referring to the

7 Leach, Greenhills, Ohio, 80.

8 Cincinnatian Charles Strum, an engineer on the project, believed that one of the reasons Cincinnati was selected was that the Democratic administration wanted to gain support in a Republican stronghold. (Leach, 82).

Cincinnati project, “that it would be a Negro settlement.” Hess immediately wired

Tugwell who replied stating “the magazine article had been unauthorized and that plans

for the project had not been completed.” Another attendee, Herbert A. Faber, of Colerain

Avenue, said he had discussed the proposed project with Tugwell assistant, Will R.

Alexander.

According to Faber, Washington officials were “very vague about the whole thing.” He said they had no idea as to what kind of people would settle in the development and that “in one breath they spoke of Negroes who would have to find new homes when the West End project got under way and in the next breath they thought it might be a good idea to put young college graduates “who had difficulty in getting started” on the property.

Miss Nettie Nieman, who owned 185 acres in the proposed area, stated she had started

a petition against the project. Miss Nieman expected to collect 15,000 signatures with the

support of garden clubs and civic organizations.

Those in attendance “adopted a resolution protesting the project on the grounds that

there was no need for additional housing facilities in the district in question; that the

project, if carried out, would lesson the value of surrounding property; that fulfillment of

the plan would work a hardship on building associations and lending institutions, and that

the plan was detrimental to labor and the building supplies industry.”9

The following week the Cincinnati Enquirer reported that Real Estate Board President

James P Mulford had sent a letter to Tugwell requesting “complete information concerning the Government’s plans for a resettlement project…” Mulford’s letter expressed concern that the Government’s project would “seriously retard private industry in Cincinnati and work a considerable hardship on labor and housing material concerns.”

It was further expressed that banks and building association banks had millions of dollars

9 “Acreage is Under Option and Government Ready to Forge Ahead,” Cincinnati Enquirer, 2 November 1935, 1. 21

to lend for houses in all price ranges, which was going untaken. He asserted that the

building of the proposed 1,000 to 1,500 homes would glut the market and lead to

“vacancy after vacancy.”

It would particularly be a hardship on such home building enterprises for the Government to come in and compete with a promiscuous lot of home building, that is to say, houses of various sizes and values, when the market is just beginning to show some stimulation. Naturally, the various building industries of the city are also deeply concerned, for it has been reported that the Government will pay but little attention to local enterprises in putting over this project. I am sure you will readily see that if this market is overbuilt, the stimulation will only be of value for a few months and then we shall have a greater number of men of mechanical skill and labor in involuntary idleness than exists today, whereas the building on the part of private enterprises will greatly absorb idle workers and there will be a natural improvement such as had existed heretofore.

Mulford went on to point out that the amount of land the government was buying amounted to an area one fourth the total area of the city of Cincinnati.10

On November 20, a delegation met with Hamilton County Commissioners to protest

the resettlement project. The group of approximately 150 persons represented property

owners, real estate organizations, building and loan associations, building contractors,

and similar organizations. Many in attendance referred to the project as “Government

experimentation by Professor Tugwell.” Those in attendance characterized the federal

government’s project as “a menace to Hamilton County’s self-government and to the

rights of citizens.” They questioned the legality and constitutionality of taking the land

of the proposed settlement off the property tax duplicate, making the land non-taxable. A

spokesperson for the delegation stated, “We cannot wait until this has been done and then

try to attack it.”

County Auditor George Guckenberger stated the situation was the same as that of the

10 “Housing Data Asked from Tugwell,” Cincinnati Enquirer, 8 November 1935, 14.

West End housing arrangement. He stated he indented to refuse to remove the property in question from the tax duplicate, forcing the federal government to sue him.

I shall take the stand that I will not take this property off the tax duplicate, and place it on the exempt duplicate, unless compelled to. I will not take it off and then try to get it back on; I shall make them sue me instead.

Randolph Sellers, executive director of the Property Owners’ Association asked

County Commissioners to “denounce the project as unwarranted, unsound, and a great menace to this county.” They feared the project of 1,500 homes, costing approximately

$7,000 dollars and selling for $5,000, would wreck the housing industry and leave 1,500

homes already occupied, vacant.

“All our property owners are involved in this, and affected by it,” Sellers asserted. “Professor Tugwell looked over the country and found that Cincinnati and this county were in pretty good shape. Now he wants to put us in the same position as the others throughout the country. The result will be that values will drop and mortgage companies will go to the wall. I wrote to the Government authorities for information about the matter, and all I got was a two-line reply saying: ‘This Administration gives out no information. Very truly yours.’ Therefore, before the county finds another such case on its hands, we ask that you, as County Commissioners, denounce the project as unwarranted, unsound, and a great menace to this country.”

Others in attendance expressed their opposition to the project as well.

Fred Tuke, President of the Eagle Savings and Loan Association and Secretary and manager of the Taxpayers Association, said the exemption of the 11,000 acres from the tax duplicate would throw a great burden upon the other tax-paying property in the county. He declared it will not help the unemployed, adding that the Government had better “help eliminate grade-crossings instead of doing ditch- digging.”

On behalf of the contractors, Joseph H. Blecker, builder, declared the propositions being put forward by the Government are wrecking this industry. He declared that many of the options on property had been obtained under duress. Where some owners were given $1,000 an acre for options, others were forced to accept $200 an acre, he said. “Must we wait until this project has been completed before it is declared illegal and unconstitutional?” he demanded.

Ray Skirvin presented commissioners with a resolution passed by the Greater

Cincinnati Savings and Loan Association. The resolution declared,

….that since the purchase of the property by the Government will take it off the county’s tax duplicate at once, thereby increasing the relative taxes of all other home owners in the county with no provisions made to replace the taxes lost, or to provide for police and fire protection for the district, the Commissioners should protest.

County Commissioners Dr. Fred C. Swing, Dr. C. R. Campbell, and Thomas M.

Geoghegan stated they did not feel the commission should take any action before giving the government an opportunity to present its side. “Commissioner Geoghegan moved for the board to ‘communicate with the Government and ask that its side be presented, always having in mind that it is our duty to protect the rights of the citizens of this county.’ This was concurred in by the other members of the board.”11

Greenhills

Despite the opposition the Cincinnati project went forward. The information opposition groups had contained several important errors. The government purchased only 6,850 acres, not the 11,000 acres the opposition stated. The average price per acre was only $268.58 and the government did not forcibly take land in the name of the federal government. In the end, due to financial constraints, housing for only 450 families was completed by 1938. Contrary to fears at the time, no “Negroes” were permitted in the community.

Once land acquisition was complete other problems needed to be resolved. These included agreements with electric, gas and water companies; where workers would be housed; and what type of governmental authorities would be established in surrounding

11 “Resettlement Again Under Fire, County Board Listens to Bitter Protest,” Cincinnati Enquirer, 21 November 1935, 10. 24

communities. By December 7, 1935 a general scheme for Greenhills showing five

neighborhoods and their order of construction had been completed. Plans also “depicted

a system of freeways, or arterial highways, surrounding the neighborhoods, a regional

shopping and cultural center to the northwest of the first construction site, a greenbelt-

park system which separated the neighborhoods from each other, a neighborhood

business facility in each neighborhood, and a rudimentary system of superblocks.”12

When it became evident that the allocated money would not stretch to complete one

neighborhood in each of the Greenbelt Towns, plans were scaled back. A preliminary

budget of $10,316, 500 was made on December 23, 1935 for the Cincinnati project. With

these funds planners felt they could build a neighborhood consisting of 1,000 dwelling

units; non-residential buildings to serve a community of 5,000; roads; utility systems; a railroad siding for later industrial development; parks and a playground; and landscaping for the neighborhood. These plans were revised numerous times to take into account changes in the budget and topographical considerations. On June 3, 1936 the final budget of $9,206,272 was approved by Tugwell.13

The type of housing units also created controversy, most notably the less expensive

“S” type house. These houses were of the “international architecture” style and had no

basements, terraces, porches, or garages and had flat roofs. Local protest arose over this

style of housing because it was thought this type of housing was not appropriate for

Cincinnati. The “S” type house plan was approved for construction in Greenhills in

12 Leach, Greenhills, Ohio, 118. Superblocks referred to a system of planning with cul de sacs and non through streets which set up neighborhoods within the community. This is in contrast to the grid system of street layouts that was common.

13 Leach, 119

November 1936. By this time it was apparent that there would only be enough funds for the construction of one of the five planned neighborhoods and construction began on 676 units in July 1937.14

The planners started out thinking they would be designing a town for 25,000 people and consisting of five neighborhoods. Lack of money forced them to consider the town from the standpoint of a primary program of one neighborhood, and several deferred programs for the remaining neighborhoods. The deferred program was finally abandoned altogether, and the town of Greenhills was formed from one less than complete neighborhood.15

In January 1938 an office was opened in Cincinnati to process applications for residency in Greenhills. A preliminary survey of the nearby community of Mt. Healthy had been undertaken in early 1936 and analyzed by Milton Lowenthal and Samuel

Ratensky.16 The information provided by the team of field researchers found that the population in the semi-rural outskirts of Cincinnati consisted of members of three ethnic groups: African Americans, Kentuckians, and those of German descent.

Negroes were never considered as probable residents for any of the greenbelt towns. Arnold notes that “(t)his discrimination on the part of the Suburban Division is nowhere explained in the existing records of the Resettlement Administration, but it probably deferred to the local communities adjacent to the towns and to the prevailing views of Congress on integrated housing.” White residents of Mount Healthy were disturbed about the prospect of having a government project designed to settle hundreds of Negro people close by.17

Applicants for consideration as residents of Greenhills needed to qualify on several criteria.

14 Ibid., 156-160 passim.

15 Ibid., 166.

16 Milton Lowenthal was an architect and member of the Housing Study Guild in 1935. Samuel Ratensky studied architecture under Frank Lloyd Wright at the University Of Pennsylvania School Of Fine Arts and would become Planning Director for the New York City Housing Authority.

17 Leach, Greenhills, Ohio, 95. In his 1952 thesis, Frank Sowards notes that, although no African Americans were initial tenants, a number of African Americans were employed in the construction of Greenhills and continued in the maintenance sector of the community after its completion. 26

1. Preference was given for those living in homes to small for their families or who

paid a disproportionate amount of their income for rent.

2. They could not qualify for a home that was considered to small for their family

3. They had to have a large enough income to qualify for an appropriate sized house.

4. The head of house needed to have reasonably steady employment.

5. Applicants needed to pass a health check to ensure no communicable diseases

would be introduced into the community.

6. Current homes were inspected to ensure they were clean and well maintained.

7. Acquaintances of applicants were contacted to ensure the new residents were

orderly and good neighbors who would fit into the new community.18

Residents were selected by the United States Department of Agriculture Farm Security

Administration after a lengthy screening process, which excluded African Americans and

those from a rural Kentucky background.19 The first residents moved into the new town on April 1, 1938, two years and four months after construction had begun, and by the end of 1938, 450 families resided in Greenhills. In keeping with Tugwell’s original vision it

was important to keep the social-community goal in mind. It was believed by some at the

time that what low-income people lacked was a sense of belonging and for this reason the

Greenbelt towns were to be a trial of community organization.

Cooperative effort, by which people could pull themselves out of the cycles of poverty, was of course fundamental to Tugwell’s credo and his belief in the utility of the towns. The residents who moved to Greenhills during the first few years after its completion were aware that they were, in a sense, guinea pigs for an investigation into the benefits to be gained through an organized community life. They invariably

18 Frank E. Sowards, “An Historical Overview of the Village of Greenhills, its Schools and Projections for the Future (Masters thesis, Ohio State University, 1952), 26-27.

19 A summary of the questionnaire applicants were asked to complete can be found in the Appendix.

referred to themselves as “pioneers.”20

The majority of families who moved into Greenhills were headed by young people

with 83% of adults ranging in age from twenty to forty years. The income levels of the

residents ranged from less than $1,000 a year to approximately $2,700 for a family of up

to eight. Rents ranged from $18 a month for a one bedroom apartment to $42 a month

for a four bedroom detached home.

The surrounding rural area was also considered an important component of the

Greenhills experiment. The surrounding farming area was to provide a food source for

the residents of the town and the town would provide a steady market for the farmers. In

1940 there were thirty-six farm units ranging in size from 40 to 216 acres. The tenants

for these farms were selected from a fifty mile radius and had to meet specific

qualifications such as “farming experience, financial responsibility, health, ownership of

equipment and livestock, and a reasonable stability of residence.”21 There were also

twenty-five homes on smaller rural plots of one to sixteen acres. The tenants of these plots had outside employment but supplemented their incomes through garden produce, chickens, and small fruits.

The initial residents of Greenhills took to their new life and responsibilities with

enthusiasm. When the residents felt a local publication was necessary the Greenhills

News-Bulletin Association was formed and the first issue of the Greenhills News-Bulletin

was published on May 21, 1938.22 The first issue was a twelve page, typewritten

bulletin distributed to residents without cost. If residents desired additional copies they

20 Leach, Greenhills, Ohio, 220.

21 Frank E. Sowards, “An Historical overview of the Village of Greenhills,” 29-30.

22 The Greenhills News-Bulletin was published until 1943 when it was replaced by the Greenhills Tribune. 28

could be purchased for five cents each. Sections of the bulletin included a children’s

page, social notes, your lawn and garden, and sports. Residents were urged to cooperate

in an effort to make Greenhills a model town for the country by promoting the greatest

good for the greatest number. Edwin Cunningham, a member of the committee

responsible for publishing the Greenhills News-Bulletin, wrote an article, “New

Horizons,” on “beginning a new life on practical equality.”

In short our task is a higher standard of citizenship. We firmly believe it lies within the capacity of any community to reach a high standard of cooperative well- being if its members can learn to work together. This is not as simple as it sounds. It requires the application of the spirit of democracy, the subjecation of the will of the individual to that of the community, and a spirit of fair play. If we can be the kind of citizens who can live in this spirit, we shall be pioneers in “more abundant living.” If we fail, we shall become merely the beneficiaries of a bargain in housing.23

In the same issue of the publication an article by William A. Frogge on “Being a Good

Neighbor” quotes Dr. Charles Stelzle, Executive Director of the Good Neighbor League.

….The revolutions in history which were based upon hatred and force usually were followed by suppression that equaled or exceeded that which was the cause of the revolution. The most successful revolutions were those which were based upon constructive idealism. Witness, for example, the situation in the countries in Europe today, which are in the control of dictators. Is there one of these countries in which American workers would prefer to live, rather than in the United States? In every one of these countries the right of free speech, free press, and free assembly is prohibited. Just now Americas has become the haven of the refugees who are fleeing from the countries dominated by the dictators. Great peaceful revolutions have sometimes been wrought by just one man…a man with an idea and a purpose. Wilberforce abolished slavery in England, Voltaire awakened the world for free speech, Jesus “turned the world upside down.” Every man, no matter how humble, who has high ideals for making the world a better place for mankind, may begin to advocate within the circle of his own friends, and acquaintances. And like the ripple created by throwing a pebble into the midst of a pond, which goes on and on until it reaches the shore, so his efforts will extend to the utmost reaches of his little world. And others, inspired by his ideal, may start movements within their own circles, through which his influence will be wider than he dare dream. As a matter of fact, that is how all worth-while movements

23 Edwin Cunningham, “New Horizons,” The Greenhills News-Bulletin, 1938.

began….24

Many residents were moving into their first homes and the lawn and garden page offered them garden tips and advice on how to buy a hose. William B. Cunningham concluded the garden page with the following suggestion.

With the same spirit of co-operation displayed daily, we wonder if it would not be a generous though to offer your neighbor the use of your equipment. Perhaps with our utility rates being so low, it would not be too costly to spray ten feet further and water your neighbor’s parched lawn.

Greenhills established other community organizations which enhanced life in the

community. These organizations included:

1. The Greenhills Consumer Services was established in May 1938 and leased space

from the government in the commercial facilities and operated a general

merchandise store, food store, gas station and car repair facility, beauty and

barber shops, and a valet shop.

2. A Community Church was established to represent the eighteen religious

denominations in the community. The first services were conducted on June 5,

1938 in the post office building.

3. The Greenhills Credit Union, established in 1938, to encourage thrift and savings

among its members.

4. The Greenhills Public Safety Volunteers, established in November 1938, with

volunteers serving in the capacity of fire fighters, traffic direction, and reserves.

5. The Community Council, organized in September 1938, helped to direct

community programs and consisted of nine members with seven from the urban

area and two from the farm areas. This organization was reorganized into the

24 William A Frogge, “Being A Good Neighbor,” The Greenhills News-Bulletin, 1935. 30

Coordinating Council and a new constitution was written in 1941.

6. Boy Scout and Girl Scout Programs with a piece of land named “Scout Acres” in

the wooded area of the community that is Winton Woods.

7. Political Party groups which included the Republican Club, Democratic Club, and

the Non-Partisan Club.

In 1946 two plots of land were sold to private developers for the construction of 121

homes to provide improved housing for World War II veterans. These areas were the

Damon Road area, west of the town center, and the Gambier Circle Area, in the eastern

part of Greenhills.

The Dillons Announce that forty-nine houses on Gambier Circle are now being completed and offered for sale exclusively to veterans. Several have already been sold ant it is reported that much interest is being shown in all of these properties.

The F. H. A. and F. P. H. A. have approved a sale price of $9,000 on each property and the Dillons have established a price of $8,950. The financing is particularly attractive, as F. H. A. will insure a mortgage of $8,100 for twenty-five years, thus making the over-all monthly payments which include principal, interest, taxes, and insurance less than $55.00.25

The attractive terms made it easy for veterans to purchase a home. These additional 121 housing units brought the total number of swelling units in Greenhills to 797.

The town was managed by the Resettlement Administration and Farm Security

Administration before being transferred to the Public Housing Administration (P. H. A.) after World War II. In November, 1947, it became known that the federal government would be divesting itself of Greenhills and the other two Greenbelt towns. A group of

Greenhills residents immediately began discussing forming an organization to negotiate purchasing Greenhills. The residents formed the Greenhills Home Owners Corporation

25 Greenhills Tribune, “New Homes for Sale, (15 March 1947), 1.

(GHOC), represented by long-time Cincinnati City Council Member Charles P. Taft, and

sought to purchase the town and its greenbelt.

The original cost of the Greenhills property had been $11,860,628. In 1947 they

offered their entire holdings for sale. This included the developed village of Greenhills,

The Greenbelt Protective Area (about 695 acres), and the unincorporated area (about

5,150 acres.) During the negotiation process the decision was made to sell only the

developed area. The P. H. A. was asking $4,252,000 for the Village, which included the

school ($150,000), the commons and some inner parks ($37,000), the athletic field

($21,000) and 495 acres of greenbelt (164 of which were not usable) for $100,000.26

After two years of negotiations and unable to secure funding for the entire purchase they

settled on the purchase of the “title to all the houses in the village, the commercial center,

the town hall, and 601 acres of undeveloped land, at a price of $3,511,300.” in December,

195227 GHOC paid ten percent down and financed the rest with annual payments over twenty-five years.28

Greenhills residents were given the option of purchasing their units by paying a ten

percent down payment. The balance was to be paid in 300 equal installments at an

interest rate of 4 ½% annum (plus taxes and insurance). With a sixty day notice the

purchaser could pay the unpaid balance securing release of the mortgage from the United

States and a conveyance by warranty deed from GHOC.29

Land where houses were not constructed as part of the original community of

26 Greenhills residents felt these developed areas should be dedicated to the community.

27 Miller, Suburb, 17. The cost of construction by the government from 1935 to 1938 was $11.5 million.

28 Frank Sowards, “An Historical overview of the Village of Greenhills,” 45-46.

29 Ibid., 46-47.

Greenhills, more than 5,000 acres, was to be developed as places that would provide part or full-time employment for the residents of the new town. “Most of the rest of the land was to be reforested for conversion into woods, and a smaller piece went to the Hamilton

County Park District for use as a park (Winton Woods) and a golf course.”30

Over the years the community of Greenhills has retained its close knit small town atmosphere. In an article in a Cincinnati newspaper in 2000, Greenhills Mayor Oscar

Hoffman noted that “Greenhills remains a place where most people know one another, where neighborhood news gets swapped at the post office, and where homes are not so much sold as passed around neighbors.”31

North Greenhills Becomes Forest Park32

The remaining undeveloped land became known as North Greenhills, which the federal government decided to dispose of, along with the undeveloped land in the other two greenbelt towns, in 1946. In 1948, The Cincinnati Citizens Development Committee

(CDC) urged the sale of the North Greenhills land as one tract.

In the early 1950’s Cincinnati was experiencing a housing shortage which would be exacerbated by construction of the Mill Creek Expressway (I-75). In 1952, George W.

Hayward,33 executive director of CDC, reported that the construction of the Mill Creek

Expressway would dislocate 4,248 families in the West End black ghetto, who were at

30 Miller., Suburb, 7

31 Barry M. Horstman, “More than 50 years later, Greenhills is still green,” Cincinnati Post, 11 October 2000. Available from http://www.cincypost.com/ news/2000/green101100.html, accessed 3 September 2004.

32 The name of North Greenhills would change to Forest Park when Warner and Kanter began developing the area to dissociate the area from the depression.

33 Hayward had worked Greendale, the Wisconsin Greenbelt Project in the 1930’s.

the bottom of the private housing market and were the most neglected group in the

housing crunch.

...To meet their needs, the memorandum suggested immediate establishment of a contemplated relocation center; a search for a developer to construct new low- income housing; assignment to the Cincinnati Metropolitan Housing Authority and the Cincinnati City Planning Commission of the task of finding sites to accommodate black families; and cooperation with the Better Housing League in securing financing for blacks. Then, in a separate recommendation, Hayward urged that “all possibilities for sound, large-scale housing developments for general relief (Miller’s emphasis) of the housing shortage must be encouraged,” including the “proposal to develop the federally-owned 3,400-acre Greenhills tract according to a coordinated plan under single ownership.34

Meanwhile, Charles H. Stamm, the Cincinnati city managers assistant in charge of

urban redevelopment, had been asked for his views on the development of North

Greenhills. Stamm had worked on the original Greenhills project and proposed

developing North Greenhills along the plans proposed along the lines of the original

greenbelt towns. In the introduction to the brochure he prepared for the Housing and

Urban Redevelopment Committee of the CDC, he stated:

…that his own “through review of the city’s housing problem in the past, present and future,” and the “trouble the City is having today in carrying out Master Plan recommendations due to lack of relocation housing” had convinced him that “the large assembly of land constitutes one of the greatest potential assets this community possesses.”35

CCDC formed a subsidiary corporation to raise money and purchase the North

Greenhills property. In the fall of 1952 CCDC secured an option in the form of a land contract to purchase North Greenhills for $1.2 million. They invited the developer proposed by Walter S. Schmidt, president of Frederick A. Schmidt Realtors, to submit a

34 Miller, Suburb, 19. Miller interprets Hayward’s memo to imply that North Greenhills should not be used to provide housing for displaced inner city African Americans. Also CDC, “Minutes,” Vol. 3 (1952-53), Housing and Urban Redevelopment Sub-committee, 1 March 1952, CDC Collection, CHS.

35 Miller, Suburb, 20. Stamm, “A plan to Acquire 3,400 Acres,” introduction CDC Collection CHS.

development plan. The group of developers included Robert Gerholz, from Flint

Michigan; Richard T. Selzer, investment banker and builder from Philadelphia and also a past president of the Urban Land Institute (ULI); and Schmidt, who had been one of the founders of the ULI in 1936 and one of its past presidents.36 The group hired Ladislas

Segoe37 to develop a master plan for North Greenhills.

…Segoe fervently believed in the concept of the metropolis “as an organism in which all things are related in one form or another.” He also insisted that any plan “confined to arbitrary city limits cannot be sound….,” for the “organic unit is the whole of the urban complex.” His firm’s plan for North Greenhills, which he later called “the best to come out of my office in fifty years,” reflected his commitment to these principles.38

The Segoe plan was not adopted for several reasons. The enthusiasm for the project

by Schmidt, Selzer, and Gerholz had waned, partly due to Selzer’s declining health.

More serious was the report by the ULI who was brought in to evaluate the feasibility of

the plan. “That report was skeptical of the possibility of attracting industry to the site and

emphasized the need to secure local subsidies for utilities and services to make the

venture profitable.”39

With time running out on their option, the CCDC turned to developers Marvin Warner

and Joseph Kanter, who had expressed interest in the project. On January 20, 1953

36 The ULI is a non-profit research organization that represented all occupations interest in urban land development. Information on the Institute can be found on their web site at www.uli.org.

37 Segoe was a planner with an outstanding local and national reputation. He had been a planning consultant for Cincinnati’s 1925 and 1948 master plans. He also was a consultant with the Resettlement Administration on the development of Greenhills as well as head of the staff of the Research Committee on Urbanism for President Roosevelt’s National Resource Committee. Segoe wrote substantial parts of the International City Manager’s Association’s manual on city planning, which is regarded as the most influential book on urban planning written in the United States in the first half of the twentieth century.

38 Miller, Suburb, 24-25. Richard High, Five Decades of City Planning,” Clifton; The Magazine of the University of Cincinnati (Winter 1976)4-5.

39 Miller, Suburb, 26. Ladislas Segoe to Miller, interview, 18 July 1975.

Warner-Kanter put up $25,000 earnest money. Because of the controversy surrounding the development of North Greenhills it is helpful to understand who Warner and Kanter were. Both were natives of Alabama who began construction of low-income Federal-

Housing Authority (FHA) insured apartments in the Birmingham area and later spread to developments in the mid-west. Kanter was responsible for overseeing projects in St.

Louis and Warner oversaw the Cincinnati projects. Warner was not popular in Cincinnati due, in part, to his unconventional and high pressure techniques.40 Prior to the North

Greenhills project he had constructed two FHA apartments in Cincinnati, the 910 unit

Stratford Manor in Madisonville and the 350 unit Canterbury Gardens.

While building these projects, Warner fought with local labor officials to secure union membership for his imported plumbing, electrical, and heating workers; offended plasterers by introducing dry-wall construction to the area; and annoyed local custom builders by designing “repetitive buildings: from lumber prefabricated in Ft. Payne, Alabama, and shipped to Cincinnati. And he drove his crews relentlessly. “Hell,” he once recalled, I was out there riding a bulldozer, and somebody’d say to me, ‘We can’t pour that foundation, it’s to wet,’ and I’d say, ‘The hell you can’t, get up there and do it.’ “When his two projects were finished, moreover, the rents undercut those of other developers (Stratford Manor provided two-bedroom apartments at just $75 a month.) And he finished both jobs in suspiciously short order. For example, Canterbury Gardens, which FHA officials estimated as a year-and-a –half project, took Warner just ten months to complete. Time was an important factor financially because, under the FHA program, a developer could take out a mortgage against the FHA-estimated value of a project after its completion. If the project was built in less time or for less money than estimated, the developer could keep the difference between estimated and actual costs, but he took the loss if a project failed to meet the cost estimates. Warner excelled at finishing under the estimates and garnering the so-called “overloans,” and his success aroused suspicions that he took unwise short-cuts. But William Mitchell, president of Central Trust Bank in Cincinnati, after finding Warner early one morning up to his knees in mud at the Stratford Manor site, declared Warner a good risk, and took him on as a client.41

Warner and Kanter were among Cincinnati’s most notable mid-20th century citizens.

40 Ibid., 31-32.

41 Ibid., 31-32. Cincinnati Post, 30 August 1976.

They, however, were considered “less genteel” than the others. They were “outsiders”

and were not known for their philanthropic activities as were the others. The Warner-

Kanter partnership dissolved in 1959 with Warner becoming the developer of Forest

Park. In 1968, Warner was made a member of the U.S. Delegation to the 23rd General

Assembly of the United Nations. During the 1970’s, Democratic Governor John Gilligan

appointed Warner to serve on the Ohio Board of Regents. He served as Ambassador to

Switzerland under Jimmy Carter from 1977 to 1979. Most Cincinnatians, however,

probably remember Marvin Warner best for the collapse of Home State Savings and

Loan. In 1987, Warner was convicted of nine felonies in the collapse of that financial

institution after over-investing in Warner directed investments in a Florida securities

company. He served 28 months of a 3 ½ year sentence.42

Assured that Warner-Kanter would develop North Greenhills the CCDC received

an extension on its land contract until January 20, 1954. In 1953 the CDC refused to

“front” for CCDC/Warner-Kanter. The following year the CCDC purchased North

Greenhills and transferred the property to Warner-Kanter for development.

Signing the Warner-Kanter Company as a potential developer for North Greenhills marked the end of one era in Forest Park’s history as an urban community and the beginning of another. Throughout most of the first period, Forest Park was farmland, serving as a greenbelt for a New Deal new town conceived as a sub community of a larger, organic metropolis. The 1950 division of the Greenhills property and sale of the village of Greenhills led to the idea of North Greenhills and left the future of Forest Park in doubt. Both Hartzog and Segoe designed plans for the area—plans compatible with the greenbelt notion and the larger assumptions about metropolitan community underlying both the greenbelt concept and the Cincinnati Master Plan of 1948. By bringing in Warner-Kanter, CCDC sought to assure development of North Greenhills as one step in implementing the

42 Ibid., 31; Cincinnati Post, 30 August 1976; Cincinnati Enquirer, 6 September 1977; Forest Park, Inc., “Joseph H. Kanter Biography,” 29 May 1975, LAC Files; Kimberly Perry, “Home State crisis nears end- finally,” Cincinnati Post, 8 January 2000; Howard Wilkinson, “From magnate to inmate, his fall hurt many,” Cincinnati Enquirer, 13 April 2002.

Metropolitan Master Plan of 1948. Yet the CCDC agreement with Warner-Kanter not only brought new actors onto the stage but also coincided with a general redefinition in America of the nature of metropolis. These events opened the second period in the history of Forest Park.43

Prior to the purchase of the land, Warner-Kanter investigated various plans for developing the property to maximize profits. During this investigation they visited other post World War II developments including Levittown, New York and Levittown,

Pennsylvania, and consulted with Philip M. Klutznick, the developer of Park Forest, a suburb of Chicago. The plan that CCDC and Warner-Kanter presented to the CDC and

Urban Redevelopment Committee was for construction of a town with phased construction of five self-sufficient neighborhoods, each with its own central shopping area and community facilities. When the community was completed it would house a population of 41,000 in 11,000 units, 13 percent being multi-family dwellings. Proposed lot sizes were 60 by 80 feet (4,800 square feet). The homes would have three bedrooms,

1 ½ bathrooms, a stove and refrigerator, and optional washer and dryer. Prices would range from $12,000 to $18,000. While Cincinnati City Council recognized the need for

“medium-priced” housing in the Cincinnati area, construction could not begin until the problem of securing water from the City of Cincinnati for the site was resolved.44 At this point negotiations began between CCDC/Warner-Kanter and the CDC to secure the necessary subsidies needed. Numerous difficulties had to be overcome, including water and sewage lines, gas and electric service, and road construction, in order for work to commence. To resolve these issues it was necessary for the city of Cincinnati to finance some of the necessary improvements. The CCDC approached the city asking them to

43 Miller, Suburb, 26-27.

44 Ibid., 35.

38 spend $3 million dollars for a water distribution system in the North Greenhills to provide for the first 2,700 homes.45

In December of 1953 the Charterite Party came into office as the majority on

Cincinnati City Council. It faced several fiscal crises resulting from urban sprawl which reduced the cities tax base, and inflation caused by World War II and the Korean War.

The Charterites had become a dominant force in Cincinnati politics in 1920 when they replaced the Republican Party as the dominant party in Cincinnati politics. Charterites supported a city manager form of government with centralization that would bring efficiencies. The history of the party would suggest they would favor the CCDC/Warner-

Kanter plan as being consistent with the 1948 Master Plan. The finance committee, however, was chaired by Charterite Theodore Berry, 46 council’s only African American member, who had had a negative experience with the CDC.

In 1949 a group of twenty African American veterans formed the Cedar Grove

Development Corporation (CGDC) to develop a community for middle class African

45 Cincinnati Bureau of Governmental Research, “The Water Question: Cincinnati and Hamilton County,” typescript, 31 July 1951, Cincinnati Bureau of Governmental Research Papers, Urban Studies Collection, Archival Collections of the University of Cincinnati; Cincinnati Enquirer, 10 December 1953; CDC, “Minutes,” Vol. 3 (1952-1953), 13 November 1953.

46 Theodore Berry would become Cincinnati’s first black mayor in 1972. Berry had been born in poverty in Maysville, Kentucky on November 5, 1904. He graduated from Cincinnati’s Woodward High School in 1924, serving as valedictorian of his class. He was the first African American in Cincinnati to hold that honor. He won an essay contest during his senior year under the pseudonym Thomas Playfair after an all- white panel had rejected his entry. Berry paid his tuition to the University of Cincinnati and its law school by working in the steel mills in Newport, Kentucky. He was admitted to the bar in 1932. He was president of the Cincinnati NAACP Chapter from 1932 to 1946. In 1938 he became Hamilton County’s first African American assistant prosecuting attorney. He worked n the Office of War Information as a morale officer in Washington D. C. during WWII. While working in Washington he changed his political affiliation from Republican to Democrat. In 1945 Berry defended three Tuskegee Airmen who had protested a segregated officer’s club in Indiana, winning acquittal for two of the men. The third man, who had been convicted, was pardoned by the Air Force in 1995. He first ran for city council in 1947, won election to council in 1949, and was chairman of the finance committee in 1953 when he led a controversial battle for a city income tax. Berry was appointed to head the Office of Economic Opportunity’s Community Action Programs that included Head Start, the Jobs Corps, and Legal Services in 1969 by President Lyndon Johnson . “Theodore M. Berry,” Guide to 20th Century African American Resources, Cincinnati Historical Society Library. Available at http:www. Library.cincymuseum.org/aag/bioberry.html/ 39

Americans. They hired Theodore Berry as their lawyer to negotiate with CDC. Using a

white buyer, they purchased land just east of North Greenhills. White resistance surfaced

immediately and attempts were made to purchase the land from CGDC, or trade it for a

parcel closer to the African American community of Lincoln Heights. Berry approached

CDC for assistance in securing a $3 million dollar loan for construction of the

community. After touring the site the CDC offered no assistance in obtaining a loan and

recommended GCDC members should “act individually on behalf of the project to the

extent of their resources.”47 Because of the controversy, CGDC was unable to raise the necessary funds for the project locally and had to go outside the Cincinnati area for funds.

In 1958 construction of homes between $14,000 and $25,000 began to be constructed in what became the middle class African American community of Hollydale. The construction of Hollydale

…raised fears in the northern part of the county about the ‘dangers’ of an influx of blacks.” These fears were fed by publicity which connected the North Greenhills project with the razing of much of the West End black ghetto to make way for expressways, and which used the planning jargon term ‘integrated’ to denote the comprehensiveness of the North Greenhills plan. This publicity, combined with Warner’s reputation as a builder of low-cost housing, kept alive the race question and complicated CCDC-Warner negotiations with the city and other local authorities.48

The CCDC and Warner-Kanter also began working with Hamilton County and

Greenhills officials on rezoning areas of North Greenhills. Warner requested that 675 of

the 3,400 acres be rezoned R-C for lots as small as 6,000 square feet from the current

R-A (20,000 square feet), and 100 acres to be rezoned for industrial and commercial use.

George Hayward said the changes were necessary to provide housing for those made

47 Allen L. Bivens, Jr., “Housing Migration of Black Cincinnatians in the 1950’s and 1960’s” (M.A. thesis, University of Cincinnati, 1971), 52-53.

48 Miller, Suburb, 38-39. 40

homeless by Cincinnati slum clearance projects. In June the Cincinnati Post reported that

most of the residents of Greenhills opposed the North Greenhills development plan

because they feared low-cost housing would force property taxes up to provide schools

for the new families. Over one hundred Greenhills residents attended the second planning

meeting which featured “verbal fire works.” Warner pledged “to protect property

values, to preserve topsoil and trees, to build on lots no smaller than 7,200 square feet,

and to construct homes in the $13,000 to $14,000 price range.”49 Greenhills residents,

however, remained opposed to the project. Despite their opposition the zoning plan

passed the planning commission and went to the county commissioners. At a final

hearing before the Hamilton County commissioners, the Greenhills mayor and city

solicitor objected to the zoning changes feeling that the changes would raise property

taxes in Greenhills and allow outsiders to use the schools without paying their share of

the cost.50 Despite the reservations of the Greenhills residents, the zoning change was

approved by the county commissioners. When Greenhills residents proposed a

referendum to the zoning changes, Warner-Kanter agreed to pay the school board a

subsidy of $100 for each newly constructed house.51

Although water, sewer, and road commitments had not been finalized, Warner-Kanter was ready to begin construction on North Greenhills. By this time it had also become well-known that I-275 would be constructed around Cincinnati, which, it was felt, would hasten the move to the northern suburbs of the city. Warner envisioned a community of

49 Miller, Suburb, 43-44; Cincinnati Enquirer, 16 December 1954; Greenhills Journal, 16 April 1954; Greenhills Journal, 14 May 1954; Cincinnati Post, 5 June 1954; Greenhills Journal, 25 June 1954.

50 Cincinnati Enquirer, 15 September 1954; Greenhills Journal, 17 September 1954.

51 Greenhills Journal, 4 January 1957.

limited liability for uprooted men and their families similar to Park Forest, Illinois, built

by Warner friend, Philip M. Klutznick.52

As if to assure that outcome, Warner and Kanter took another step in forging the public image of their new town. They dropped the name North Greenhills, which evoked memories of the Great Depression and New Deal low- income housing projects, and dubbed their new town Forest Park.53

The first residential area in Forest park, Cameron Heights, was completed in 1956 and

housed 400 families. Warner brought in nationally known celebrity Steve Allen to

celebrate the opening. Allen had a reputation as a well informed citizen concerned with

urban and community problems. In September 1956, when Forest Vue Estates, another

subdivision, was opened, guests included former Cincinnati mayor and Ohio Supreme

Court Justice James Garfield Stewart and Miss America, Marian Ann McKnight. “The pair represented, on the one hand, the wholesome charm and beauty of ‘responsible’ femininity, and, on the other hand, the majesty of the law and the dignity of civic statesmanship.” By 1960 new home construction now provided housing for 4,800 residents.54

The fact that Greenhills ran along Cameron Park’s southwestern border proved to be

invaluable to both Kanter-Warner and to the new residents.

…The existence of Greenhills saved Forest Park both money and trouble, for they could enjoy its schools, shopping center, churches, and organizations without paying the taxes or spending the time necessary to build up and sustain such facilities. Greenhills made Forest Park’s mid-1950’s more palatable, which pleased Forest Park’s first residents, and settlement in Forest Park more attractive to prospective buyers, which pleased the developer.55

52 Park Forest received national notoriety in William H. Whyte, Jr’s 1956 book, The Organization Man.

53 Miller, Suburb, 45.

54Ibid., 47.

55 Ibid., 49. 42

In 1959, Union Central, a Cincinnati business since 1842, decided to relocate from its

urban Cincinnati location to Forest Park, purchasing 190 acres for the new facility.

Union Central’s move added income equal to 500 homes to the tax duplicate with no

increase in school population. Because there was a four year construction phase, there

was still a financial crisis because of the need to build classrooms to house the growing

number of students. Because of the ever-increasing school age population the Greenhills-

Forest Park School Board was always strapped for funds. Greenhills residents place the blame for the growing school population on Warner-Kanter. Despite gestures by

Warner-Kanter to help with the school situation, Greenhills residents remained angry and responded with indignation when they asked for additional zoning changes. The changes objected to would result in a higher population density and placing an additional burden on the school district. In their complaint before the Hamilton County Regional Planning

Commission, representatives from Greenhills organizations predicted the “unrestricted rate of construction” would result in higher school taxes and reluctance on the part of voters in Greenhills to support additional tax levies.

The problem of school financing would not go away. In winter 1958, the Greenhills-Forest Park Board of Education asked voters to pass a $560,000 bond issue to finance a school in Forest Park. Despite the 1957 protests over rezoning and school crowding, the 1958 bond issue carried 60 percent of the district as a whole; it was, of course, more popular in Forest Park, where it passed by an overwhelming 95 percent of the votes cast. This bond issue was the third new school levy approved by Greenhills-Forest Park voters in four years.56

The financial difficulties of the district continued and in 1959 another levy was placed

on the ballot for construction of another school. The bond issue passed despite objections

from even Forest Park residents. During the summer of 1959, the superintendent told

56 Miller, 60; Forest Park Newsletter, 14 January, 12 February, 12 March, and 14 May 1958; Greenhills Journal, 17 January, 14 February, 11 April, and 9 May 1958.

43 residents that double shifting of first and second graders would continue because Kemper

Heights Elementary School would not be completed until June 1960. A compromise was reached to eliminate double-shifting by using nearby Forest Chapel Methodist Church as a temporary school location. In May 1960 the board again placed a bond issue before the voters, this time for $570,000 for additions to the high school. During this time Forest

Park residents felt the school board was dominated by Greenhills residents and were concerned their needs were not being adequately addressed. One of their concerns was that Warner-Kanter did not seem to be addressing the need for commercial and industrial development to offset the cost of schools. Because Forest Park did not have self- governance at this time they could not address these concerns as a community.57

Warner-Kanter’s contract with CCDC expired in 1959, allowing the partners to redesign or abandon the 1954 plan. It was the promises in this document that led Forest

Park residents to believe Warner-Kanter would honor to the spirit of the agreement.

Further complicating the situation was the dissolution of the Warner-Kanter partnership, with Joseph Kanter taking over the further development of Forest Park. The Forest Park

Civic Association invited Kanter to speak at the October 1959 meeting and tell residents what his plans for Forest Park were. The residents were concerned not only with school funding issues and commercial and industrial development, but issues such as police and fire protection. The growth of Springdale and Forest Park put a strain on the Greenhills and Springdale Fire Departments and led to the formation of a volunteer Fire Department in Forest Park. In January 1961, the Civic Association began investigating the pros and cons of self governance. On March 19, the necessary signatures were collected on a

57 Greenhills Journal, 20 November 1959; Forest Park Newsletter, 19 March 1960; Greenhills Journal, 27 March, 24 April, 5 June, 19 June, 19 August, and 6 May 1960. 44

petition to put the question of incorporation on the May ballot. The ballot proposal

passed with 924 in favor and 258 opposed. The rush to incorporate was necessitated by

the decision of Greenhills officials, in the spring of 1961, to annex part of Forest Park to

alleviate chronic fiscal problems. They wished to annex the western part of Forest Park

where Union Central planned to construct its headquarters. It was essential that Forest

Park act quickly to prevent the annexation of this valuable section of the community.58

Because of the rush to incorporate the plans submitted to the Cincinnati Bureau of

Government Research contained irregular boundaries, with some parts of the village

falling within North West School District and others falling within Princeton School

Districts. The Bureau pointed these irregularities out. Interestingly, they did not

comment on the southern portion of the village map which ran between Greenhills and

Forest Park until it reached Sheffield Road where the boundary suddenly turned until it

ran into Springdale, thereby omitting the African American community of Hollydale.59

CHANGES IN HOUSING PATTERNS

Because Forest Park was developed one section at a time, there were disparities in the

economic make-up of the residents. Housing in a particular area was similar in price and

size to others in the same area, but the different subdivisions differed from one to another

in the price of housing. From its inception Forest Park was a community segregated by

the age of its houses, utilities and streets, and by the income of the residents.60 In 1967,

58 Greenhills Journal, 10 April and 6 November 1959; Cincinnati Post & Times Star, 16 May and 20 June 1959; Cincinnati Enquirer, 14 June, 9 August, 6 September, and 13 September 1959; Cincinnati Post, 30 August 1976; Forest Park Newsletter, 17 October 1959.

59 Forest Park Newsletter, April and May 1961; Cincinnati Bureau of Governmental Research, “A Study of the Proposed Village of Forest Park,” typescript, April 1961, Urban Studies Collection, Archival Collections of the University of Cincinnati, 1-2.

60 Chapter 4, Appendix B, “1970 Housing Values in Forest Park.” 45

African Americans began moving to Forest Park and racial, ethnic, and economic issues

began to arise. In 1968 the civil rights demonstrations and racial disturbances in the city

of Cincinnati caused Mayor White to issue concerns that residents were arming

themselves. In the summer of 1968 the planning commission urged council to “adopt a

resolution welcoming as citizens and neighbors all people, irrespective of race, creed,

religion, color, or national origin.” The federal government also enacted anti-

discrimination laws at this time.61

In the late 1960’s and throughout the 1970’s race and class became concerns in Forest

Park. Construction of the Forest Ridge subdivision in the northwest corner, begun in the

mid-1960’s, caused concerns to residents. Residents felt the houses being built by

Imperial Homes “architecturally repugnant” and they launched a protest in 1968-1969 causing the houses to remain vacant and the builder to go bankrupt.62 In mid-1973 the issue of race and racial steering again surfaced. A resident of the “H” section63 complained to council of “apparent efforts by certain realtors to turn the “H” section into an all-black district.” An integrated group of residents “circulated a flyer protesting the methods of ‘unscrupulous’ realtors. The group accused these realtors of ‘steering’

African Americans to particular sections and using ‘scare tactics’ to frighten whites away

from ‘salt and pepper’ neighborhoods. In response the mayor appointed a three person

61 Miller, 145; Cincinnati Post and Times-Star, 23 October 1976; Forest Park Newsletter, May 1962; Forest Park Council, “Minutes,” Vol. IV, 15 July 1968, 40, and Vol. VII, 7 April 1975, 209; Greenhills- Forest Park Journal, 11 April and 25 April 1968;

62 Miller, 145-167; Forest Park Council, “Minutes,” Vol. III, April, 5, 1966,31; Greenhills-Forest Park Journal, 2 June 1966; Forest Park Council “Minutes,” Vol. IV, January 6 and 20, 1969; Greenhills-Forest Park Journal, 23 January 1969; Forest Park Newsletter, January and August, 1963; Forest Park News, 6 September 1963; The Village Voice, December 1966; Forest Park News, 18 April, 1969.

63 Various areas of Forest Park are known by the first letter of the streets in the area.

committee to deal with “problem areas,” including the practices of certain realtors.

Then in mid-July, the council turned its attention to a comprehensive sign ordinance which would ban real estate signs carrying “for sale.” “sold,” “open house,” “new house,” “by owner,” or other similar notices, except on vacant land or model home sites. A public hearing on the measure “packed” the council chambers, so the Council held a second hearing on September 5, which also drew a large turnout. Both sessions heard a variety of charges, including the assertion that corporations which had once recommended Forest Park as a nice place for new employees to live, now described the city as “not the most desirable community any more.” Real estate interests advocated voluntary self regulation among real estate firms, rather than direct city intervention, as the appropriate solution to sign saturation in some area of the city.64

Council elections were only two months away and the council decided to give realtors,

under council supervision, the opportunity to self regulate. Council was still committed

to a belief in fair housing practices, regardless of the race, creed, or nationality of the

homeowner. Two other community issues surfaced just prior to the November 1973

election which helped influence the public’s desire for a strong local government. The

first concerned the resignation of the police sheriff and an officer who complained that

council had not responded “to his year-old complaints about heavy turnover in the police department, lack of trained officers, improperly maintained equipment, inadequate

manpower and equipment, and lagging salaries.” The other issued concerned residents of

the “H” section who attend council meetings in large numbers to protest the situation in

their neighborhood. “H” section residents complained about a burned-out house left

standing for nine months, trash, rats, vacant houses with broken windows, vacant lots

with un-cut grass, and a lack of street lamps. They felt certain sections of Forest Park

were on the verge of becoming slum areas, which frightened middle-class, white-collar homeowners who were already alarmed by the threatened creation of a black ghetto and

64 Miller, 168; Forest Park Council, “Minutes,” Vol. VI. 18 June 1973; Greenhills-Forest Park Journal, 29 June 1973; Forest Park News, 13 July, 27 July, and 10 August 1973; 47 the demoralization of the city’s police department.65

The council election was hotly contested with seven candidates running for five council positions. Incumbents Edward Conklin and Lorraine Blackburn and newcomer

Alfred Mangels won election on a platform of supporting the police, the need for an earnings tax, support of City Manager Kadlecik, and support of Planned Unit

Development’s (PUD’s)66 for their high tax yield. In addition they charged former

Mayor Philip White with working for the developer because of his acceptance of a job as

Director of Industrial and Commercial Sales with The Kanter Corporation in January

1973. Incumbent Richard Metcalf and newcomer Brian Strachan also won council seats.

In order to alleviate the cities financial crises all seven members recommended passage of an income tax in 1974. The earnings tax passed with the largest majority in Forest

Park history with a vote of 2,379 to 810. The margin of victory of the 1974 earnings proposal matched the defeat of the first earnings proposal on the 1970 ballot.67

Race arose as a housing issue in the Greater Cincinnati area in late 1973. On

December 18, 1973, fourteen African American and white homeowners filed suit in U. S.

District Court to halt what they alleged was racial discrimination on the part of certain realtors in the sale of houses in the Greater Cincinnati area. In the class action suit lawyers for the plaintiffs alleged the defendants “steered” white clients to white neighborhoods and African American clients to African American neighborhoods. The

65 Miller, Suburb, 169; Forest Park News, 24 August, 21 September, and 19 October 1973; Cincinnati Enquirer, 18 September 1973.

66 PUD’s consisted of apartments and other high density housing options. Opposition centered on increased student population in the schools and traffic congestion in residential areas.

67 Miller, Suburb, 174; Forest Park News, 22 March, 19 April, 3 May, and 17 May 1974; Greenhills-Forest Park Journal, 5 April 1974.

plaintiffs were Federele Realtors in Mt. Healthy, Hague Realtors in Silverton, M & M

Realty Inc. in Roselawn, Parchman & Oyler Co. in Colerain Township, and Homer

Teegarden, a real estate broker in Norwood.68

In addition to race, class issues also surfaced in the 1970’s when it became apparent that housing was segregated along economic divisions. The least expensive housing was in the Birch Hill, Forest Ridge, “F,” “G,” and “H,” sections with an average house value between $20,000 and $30,000. Houses in the Interior subdivisions were valued above

$30,000. Table 1 shows the Housing Values in the different sections of Forest Park in

1974.

In 1974 race again took center stage when the Advisory Committee on Housing revealed evidence realtors selling in the Birch Hill area might be steering African

Americans to that area. At this time the Birch Hill community formed its own organization to promote the interests of its residents, who felt ignored by council and the

rest of Forest Park due to its physical isolation west of I-275. “The implied identification

of Birch Hill as Forest Park’s first slum, Birch Hill’s potential for becoming a black

ghetto, and the organized efforts of its residents to shore up their property values, drew

attention to Forest Ridge, another subdivision west of I-275.69

Forest Ridge was constructed between 1969 and 1970, when the builder went bankrupt, and 1972 to 1973, when FHA-235 subsidized housing was built. By 1974

Forest Ridge was already considered a slum. Birch Hill and Forest Ridge were among

68 Meryl Gordon, “House Sale Discrimination Charged-‘steering’ of Buyers to Racial Areas Alleged.” Cincinnati Post, 18 December 1973, p. 34.

69 Miller, Suburb, 192; Forest Park News, 13 July 1973; Forest Park Advisory Committee on Housing, “Minutes,” 7 March and 14 March 1974, files of the Forest Park Advisory Committee on Housing, Office of the City Manager, Forest Park Municipal building; Forest Park Council, “Minutes,” Vol. VI, 5 March 1973, 137.

Table 1: CHARACTERISTICS OF FOREST PARK NEIGHBORHOODS (1974)

Section No. of %Black %Owner Turnover* Value Value D.U.s Occupied 1970 1974 B 235 10.1 97.9 6.8 29,350 44,200 West C 0.0 96.4 7.0 495** 24,070** 26,800** C 1.9 95.0 7.4 D 227 1.8 89.2 9.8 26,050 33,400 E 213 3.6 93.2 5.0 40,810 50,000 East F 10.9 95.1 9.0 586** 18,770** 23,200** West F 18.6 94.7 8.2 G 389 9.0 95.6 9.1 22,280 24,300 H 924 21.9 98.7 7.7 23,880 27,900 I 204 9.0 97.8 8.9 29,350 35,700 J, K, & L*** 590 7.7 98.9 15.1 32,640 35,100 M*** 81 8.3 100.0 20.0 25,800 45,000 R 181 10.9 97.4 11.1 21,500 23,500 Forest Ridge 221 9.5 99.3 2.2 ------24,300 F.P. Apartments 412 9.1 ------30.1 ------Versailles Apartments 180 14.3 ------28.1 ------Revere Apartments 95 2.9 ------43.5 ------Total City 5023 10.7 82.4 11.5 24,700 30,700 *Turnover=percentage of residents living in the school district less than one year. **This figure represents the total for both parts of the pertinent section. ***The apparently high turnover in these sections was due to their newness—both were being occupied at the time this table was completed.

SOURCE: David M. Ascher, “Characteristics of Racial Change in Suburban Communities: A Case Study,” (Master of Community Planning thesis, University of Cincinnati, 1975), 56. those subdivisions with housing values below $30,000, three of the others being the “F,”

“G,” and “H,” sections. These five subdivisions also had a black population of between

10 and 22 percent. Although the Advisory Committee on Housing was concerned about was concerned about what was happening in Birch Hill and Forest Ridge, the concentrated their efforts on the sections which lay closer to the heart of the city. The activism of the residents forced the city to recognize and deal with the concerns of Birch

Hill residents. Forest Ridge residents also became active and pressed council to address 50

their needs. In 1975 and 1976 other subdivisions in Forest Park also established

neighborhood organizations. This ran counter to the way of thinking in the 1950’s and

1960’s of a sense of community between the various subdivisions.

By 1975 it seemed that each sections civic organizations advocating for its local

residents over rode concerns of city wide interest. The issues of race, black ghettoes,

housing, and blight continued to be of concern in Forest Park in mid-1970. The

integration of Forest Park appears to be an anomaly as the surrounding communities did

not seem to be seeing an increase in minority populations. The greater Cincinnati area

was also experiencing growth problems and needed housing for low income, aged, and

handicapped populations. There was concern among city officials that Forest Park would

be overwhelmed with these populations, creating instability in the city.

In 1979 the city of Forest Park hired the firm of Hanselmen, Eskew and Associates to

conduct a study of residents of the city to see if racial steering was a factor in their choice

of housing. The firm analyzed responses to a questionnaire completed by 88% of the

community. They reported no evidence of racial steering within the community

concerning why residents had selected to live in Forest Park. The noted, however, that

surrounding communities would also need to be studied to really determine whether

racial steering had occurred. They also noted that between 1970 and 1978, as the

proportion of African American homeowners increased in the community, housing values had risen only 63.7%, below the rise in the nearby communities of Finnytown,

Greenhills, and Springdale, which increase above the national average, and below the national average. The study also reported that there was “deferred home maintenance” in 51

the Forest Ridge, R, F, and G sections of Forest Park.70

In 1980 Forest Park became concerned about the racial make-up of the city. Brandon

Wiers, Forest Park mayor, stated, “The black population in Forest Park is believed to

have grown faster than in any other Cincinnati suburb. It grew from 2.8% in 1970 to

29.6% of the total population by 1980.”71 The city asked Ryan Homes, the major

developer in the city at the time, to limit the construction of new homes to those costing

more than $60,000. In July 1980, when Ryan Homes refused, the city put a moratorium

on building permits and did not issue any building permits to Ryan Homes. Ryan Homes

then filed suit against the city of Forest Park.

In December 1980 Forest Park filed suit against Ryan Homes charging them with

racial steering that “created pockets of racially segregated housing within Forest Park,

thus depriving the city of its right to racially stable and fully integrated housing.” David

Collins testified that a house sitter employed by Ryan Homes had remarked that “Forest

Park was getting ‘too black’ but Starlight Estates in Fairfield and Mason were still

‘okay.” 72 A spokesman for Ryan Homes felt the city had filed the suit in retaliation for

the suit Ryan Homes had filed against the city because it would not issue building

permits for houses less than 1500 square feet. District Judge Carl B. Rubin dismissed the

case against Ryan Homes in January 1982.

Zarmba Corp. submitted a plan for the construction of Olde Mill Village to the city’s

70 Gayle Harden, “Study Says Forest Park Devoid of Racial Steering,” Cincinnati Post, 19 January 1979, p. 22.

71 Allen Howard, “Judge Dismisses Racial Steering Suit in Forest Park,” Cincinnati Enquirer, 15 January 1982, sec. C, p. 2.

72 Gayle Harden, “Developer-City Tangle Over Suit On Racial Steering,” Cincinnati Post, 17 December 1980, sec. b, p. 1.

planning commission in 1990. The proposal was for the construction of 732 apartments

and 37 single-family houses on land bordered by Interstate 275 and Mill and Kemper

Roads. Council refused to rezone the land for the proposed project when residents complained Council was concerned with population density and traffic. At the end of

October the developer met with the planning commission at a workshop to evaluate revised plans. The revised proposal, if approved, could add another 522 apartments and

82 single family houses. The project dropped the population density of the development

from 9.1 units per acre, to 7.1 units per acre. At the workshop Zaremba Vice-President

Scott Gillespie said. “I think we’ve got a good plan. We’re willing to work with you on the details.” Houses selling for between $100,000 and $150,000 would be built on 29.5 acres next to Pleasant Run Farms Subdivision. Three-story rental townhouses would be located on 9.5 acres. “Pinwheel” apartments – four unit buildings designed to look like single family homes would occupy 10.1 acres. Other apartments would be built on the remaining 30.8 acres. To alleviate traffic problems the complex would have an entrance on Mill Road with service roads connecting the various complexes. Council members seemed to be pleased with the new proposal but wanted assurances that the single-family homes would be built. Zaremba only planned to build the multi-family dwellings. “I like what you’ve done. I like it better (than the first project),” stated Councilman Ed

Shaffer.73

The plans were submitted to Forest Parks Planning Commission in November and the

group began studying the proposal. Zaremba, however, withdrew the plans in late

73 “Forest Park Residents Protest Proposal for Housing Complex,” Cincinnati Post, 13 February 1990, sec. Neighbors, p. 2. Sue Kiesewetter, “Developer Revises Project,” Cincinnati Enquirer, 30 October 1990, sec. Extra, p. 5. “Housing Proposal Opposed, Petition Drive Being Considered,” Cincinnati Post, 29 November, sec. Neighbors, p. 1.

December and this parcel was not developed at this time.74

As the African American population continued to increase at a greater rate than the surrounding communities racial steering again became an issue again in 1991.

Community Development Director Larry Fronk stated census figures showed “Forest

Park’s white population dropped by 2,666 between 1980 and 1990 while the black population increased by 2,614 during the same period.”75 In December 1991 the city contracted with Housing Opportunities Made Equal (HOME)76 to determine if racial steering was a factor in the change in population. Under the $7,500 contract with HOME

15 tests would be done in the spring of 1992 to determine if racial steering was occurring.

White and African American testers would seek housing in various parts of the city to determine if buyers receive equal treatment. The test would also determine if real estate agents were steering clients to certain areas of the city based on race.

Today, the African American population has increased substantially in Forest Park, and only slightly in Greenhills. Table 3 gives the racial composition of the two areas according to the 2000 census. Forest Park has grown considerable larger than Greenhills with a population more than four times that of Greenhills.

74 “Forest Park Studies Revised Housing Proposal,” Cincinnati Post, 13 November 1990, sec. Neighbors, p. 5; “Building Firm Withdraws Plans For Forest Park,” Cincinnati Post, 20 December 1990, sec. Neighbors, p. 3. “Forest Park Plans Withdrawn,” Cincinnati Enquirer, 21 December 1990, sec. Extra, p. 3.

75 Sue Kieswetter, “Forest Park tests city for racial steering,” Cincinnati Enquirer, 10 December 1991, Extra 2, p.1.

76 HOME is a private, non-profit agency monitoring fair housing laws in Cincinnati. 54

Table 2: Greenhills and Forest Park Racial Demographics (2000 Census)

Forest Park Greenhills

Population 19,463 4,103 Median Age 33.9 35.9 White 36.7% 93.7% African American 56.26% 2.7% Hispanic 1.48% 1.2% Asian 3.67% 2 + races 3.00% 1.9%

The following chart gives income groupings between the two communities. The

largest groups of households have a reported income between $49,999 and $99,999 in

both communities.

Table 3: Greenhills and Forest Park Median Household Income (2000 Census)

Income Forest Park Greenhills

Below 10,000 357 4.4% 43 2.7% - 14,999 232 2.9% 80 5.0% - 19,999 277 3.4% 102 6.4% - 24,999 382 4.7% 75 4.7% - 29,999 558 6.9% 83 5.2% - 34,999 539 6.6% 151 9.5% - 39,999 544 6.8% 137 8.6% - 49,999 902 11.2% 187 11.8% - 74,999 2158 26.8% 382 24.0% - 99,999 1523 18.9% 192 12.1% - 124,999 383 4.8% 99 6.2% - 149,999 123 1.5% 40 2.5% - 199,999 73 1.0% 19 1.2%

Totals 8051 1590

Median Income 49,298 44,886

The next chapter will deal with the evolution of the school district that began as the 55

Greenhills Rural District in 1938 and became the Winton Woods School District in 1991.

The schools would suffer growing pains just as the two communities had. Change is inevitable and often involves conflict. The issues of community spirit, money, and race would be issues that the communities and schools had to deal with. Compromise was not always possible and sometimes there was a loser.

THE EVOLUTION OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT1

The land purchased in 1935 for the community of Greenhills lay in six rural school

districts, each with a single one-room school. The purchased land took 72% of the

Science-Hall District and 85% of the Newell District. From the beginning the plan was

to have a single school system to serve the new community and make residents feel a part

of it. The new facilities were to include adult education and evening activities. The creation of the new school system was one of the most complex parts of the development and involved adhering to State and County School Board regulations which included questions of tuition, busing students to nearby schools, and other legal difficulties. When the first residents moved in during April 1938, the students went to the newly constructed building (the Community Building), which was operated by the Science-Hall District.

“On May 9, 1939, the Hamilton County School Board created the Greenhills Rural

1 Introductory Note: The land encompassed by the present Winton Woods City School District was formed primarily from two rural school districts. Science Hall Rural School was established in 1806. The building occupied by the Science Hall Rural School was closed after commencement in May, 1938 after being in use for approximately 75 years. The Newell Rural School District was established between the years 1835 and 1847. A sign located in front of the current Winton Woods High School denotes the location of the original school. In September, 1938, 430 students and 18 teachers began the school year in the Greenhills Community Building under Superintendent R. K. Salisburg. On May 9, 1939 the two rural districts were dissolved by the Hamilton County Board of Education. The new district was also composed of portions of New Burlington Rural School District, Pleasant Run Rural School District, and Springdale Rural School District. The district operated as a rural district under the Hamilton County Board of Education until 1947, when the district annexed Liberty Rural School district, boosting student enrollment to 900 which qualified the district for exempted school status. In 1950, the Science Hall Rural School property was sold at public auction. A “reversion” clause in the Newell Rural School property prevented its sale. In June, 1963 the board adopted a resolution creating the Greenhills-Forest Park City School District. On January 1, 1999, the district officially became the Winton Woods City School District.

School District encompassing the 5930 acres owned by the Resettlement

Administration.”2

Thirteen years after the creation of the Greenhills Rural School District, Frank

Sowards, a member of the Greenhills community, wrote his doctoral thesis at Ohio State

University on the Village of Greenhills and its Schools, making projections for the future.3 Sowards hoped his study would show how the school system, acting as a part of

the community, fulfilled its obligations to the residents who supported it. He hoped his

study would not only make a contribution to the community, “but to all who are in any

way concerned with promoting village growth and with providing better living

conditions and educational opportunities for children.”4 The fireproof two-story

Community Building served as the school building for Greenhills and consisted of a main structure and two wings. It served not only as a school building but also as an entertainment and cultural center for the town. It was in close proximity to the business district, the community swimming pool, and a grassy town park.

The fact that the school building was constructed at the same time as the homes makes

it unique in this regard. The school building was designed to house 1000 students in

grades kindergarten through twelve. In the center structure was a large auditorium-

gymnasium that served as a place for the community to hold dances, concerts, “picture

shows,” and other entertainment, as well as serving the needs of the school. The

auditorium was made available to the public in the evenings when not in use by the

2Charles Bradley Leach, Greenhills, Ohio: The Evolution of an American New Town, (Ann Arbor, Michigan: Michigan University Press, 1982), 226.

3 Sowards notes that at the time of his study there was no written history of Greenhills.

4 Frank E. Sowards, “An Historical Overview of the Village of Greenhills, its Schools and Projections for the Future,” (Masters thesis, Ohio State University, 1952), 5.

school. At times Sunday church services were also held in the auditorium. The two

wings contained thirty classrooms, a cafeteria, offices and rest rooms. The classrooms

were equipped to facilitate the best teaching practices of the day. In addition to the

regular academic classrooms, the school also contained a suite of rooms for the home

economics department, an industrial arts department that provided for wood and metal

work, radio, electrical training, ceramics, mechanical drawing, multigraphing, and

photography, a fine arts department, and a commercial arts department.5 Eight and a half acres around the Community Building were set aside and equipped as playground facilities for young children. In addition to this school, an additional eight acre plot in the western section at Damon and Springdale Roads was set aside for an elementary school.

When the first full school year began for the new community in September, 1938, the

school was still operated by the Science-Hall Rural School District. The Greenhills Rural

School District was created the following June and the Science-Hall and Newell Districts were abolished by the Hamilton County School Board.6 The first Greenhills School

Board was elected in November, 1939.

As needs for funds in the district increased levies were placed on the ballot to raise

additional funds. In 1951, residents were paying 14.65 mills for the operation of the

school. In May, 1951 an additional 3 mills was voted for. Parents and community

members believed in the importance of a strong school system.7

5 Ibid., 51-53.

6 The one-room schoolhouse that had served the Science Hall School District for seventy-five years became a memorial to that district. The first school in the district was a log cabin at Cameron and Winton Roads. The Newell School District was north of Greenhills on Kemper Road. A marker by the current high school denotes its previous location.

7 Sowards, “An Historical Overview of the Village of Greenhills,” 55.

Community involvement was seen as important in other ways as well. In the summer

of 1939, before classes began in the newly formed Greenhills Rural School District, a

group of residents met with the faculty to establish a Parent-Teacher Association. By

September 8 by-laws were adopted and officers installed. The organization, which began with a membership of 125 in 1939, had a membership of 249 in 1940.8 One of the goals

of the Association was to raise money for various projects and they purchased needed

equipment for the school as funds were available. Another parent organization, the

mother’s study group, composed mainly of mothers of pre-school and elementary aged

children, worked in cooperation with the Parent-Teacher Association. Their area of concern was in finding ways to improve the effectiveness of working with children in the early grades. When the Parent-Teacher Association began having evening meetings, when fathers could attend, the membership increased to 350.9

A unique situation existed in the Greenhills Rural School District. The United States

Government owned the school buildings and the taxable property in the Village.

Although the community was allowed to control local affairs, including the operation of

the schools, janitorial and maintenance, as well as salaries of school board and county

officials, were paid for by the federal government for the period they retained ownership

of the property.

Table 4 shows the enrollment for the early years of the District. The school employed

eighteen teachers when it opened in 1938 and the number of teachers increased to 30

teachers in the 1945-1946 school year. When enrollment increased in 1951-1952,

8 Greenhills News-Bulletin Association, Greenhills Second Anniversary, (April, 1940), not paged.

9 Sowards, “An Historical Overview of the Village of Greenhills,” 58.

staffing increased to thirty-three teachers with a superintendent, an elementary principal

and a high school principal.

Table 4: ENROLLMENT 1938-1952

SCHOOL Kdg. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 TOTAL YEAR 1938- 55 47 49 46 33 40 40 32 31 18 18 11 6 450 1939 1939- 76 75 66 64 65 43 54 54 38 48 49 23 15 671 1940 1940- 70 78 70 68 62 64 46 67 49 55 46 38 18 731 1941 1941- 85 84 75 66 56 55 62 60 75 49 49 45 34 618 1942 1942- 92 84 79 73 59 57 52 71 58 66 46 41 34 624 1943 1943- 85 89 96 73 67 57 49 53 71 49 50 44 29 640 1944 1944- 75 89 83 105 74 66 63 60 52 66 46 51 37 801 1945 1945- 92 83 81 85 84 67 60 62 50 54 69 36 48 871 1946 1946- 105 97 85 93 87 79 73 74 56 61 47 58 36 951 1947 1947- 127 109 88 83 78 80 75 78 68 57 49 48 45 985 1948 1948- 96 124 90 79 75 76 67 80 66 62 54 45 37 953 1949 1949- 98 108 114 81 70 67 72 68 66 59 61 50 41 955 1950 1950- 88 96 104 104 77 71 62 56 54 64 55 47 44 922 1951 1951- 127 88 98 102 117 75 70 56 54 63 55 47 44 996 1952

Source: Frank E. Sowards, “An Historical overview of the Village of Greenhills, its Schools and Projections for the Future.”

Sowards, as a member of the community, gives his impression of the curriculum as it existed in the first thirteen years of the district which mirror the educational philosophy of the time. 61

The school staff seems to have tried to help create an atmosphere of intellectual freedom by encouraging participation on the part of the learner in the school activities, which should make for successful participation as responsible adults in the world in which they will live, and for going on with the task of self-understanding, self-government, and self-development as they take their place in society.10

Soward’s assessment, written in 1952 to echoes the principles on which the town was

founded in 1938. Sowards further goes on to state that “How subject-matter was

organized and presented depended largely upon the philosophy of the individual

teacher.11

An interesting observation from Table 1 is the drop in high school enrollment from the junior to senior year. The decreased number of seniors seems to indicate that a

significant number of students did not graduate from high school but rather entered the

work force instead. This might be attributable to the depression, which was still affecting

families at the end of the 1930’s. In addition, the countries entrance into World War II in

1941 may also have played a role as young men entered the military.

In 1947 the Greenhills School District annexed part of the Liberty School District,

increasing the population by 3,000, which qualified the district for exempted school

status. The district requested the change in status from the State Department of

Education. Several benefits were derived from becoming an exempted school district.

The district became independent from the Hamilton County Board of Education’s control and no longer had to support the office of the county board. The district also gained additional prestige and had the satisfaction of complete control over the school.

In the late 1940’s, other important changes occurred that improved the quality of

education provided to the students of Greenhills. In 1947 an instrumental music

10 Ibid., 60-61.

11 Ibid., 61. 62

department was added to the curriculum and a part time school psychologist was

employed. Also in 1947, the district applied to the North Central Association of

Secondary Schools and Colleges, the highest accreditation organization in the region.

Greenhills High School was granted admittance into the North Central Association in

March, 1948. That same year, a guidance and counseling department was added In

1949 the district introduced a pre-reading class for students finishing kindergarten who

needed further attention to get them ready to read. A driver training program was also

added this year.12

Provisions were also made for the physical health of the students. A full-time school nurse was employed, vision and hearing tests were given, dental examinations and chest

X-rays were provided, and shots to prevent communicable diseases were administered.

When the federal government decided to divest itself of its holdings in the greenbelt towns, representatives from Greenhills went to Washington to negotiate to exempt the

Community Building, school facilities, athletic field, playground, and Damon Road site from the sale. On January 16, 1950, an Act of Congress dedicated the school properties, valued at $250,000, to the Greenhills Exempted School District.

EFFECTS OF DEVELOPMENT IN FOREST PARK13

The rapid growth in Forest Park put a strain on school facilities and in 1960 the

Greenhills Board of Education arranged to have a study done by Ohio State University14

12 Ray A. Young, “Steps of School Progress in Recent Years,” Greenhills Tribune (6 April 1951), 8.

13 Formerly North Greenhills

14 M. J. Conrad, C. B. Smith, James Clark, “School Building Needs: Greenhills Exempted Village Schools,” (Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University, 1960).

to assess the school building needs of the District. The study was designed around five

basic questions.

1. What types of school plant facilities are needed to house the desired educational

programs in the district?

2. How many students will the district serve in the years ahead?

3. How adequate are the current facilities to meet the needs of anticipated enrollment

and desired educational programs.

4. What funds will be available for current facilities and expansion?

5. What remodeling, expansion and new construction will be needed to meet the

above goals?15

The study found that Greenhills was an urban-residential area that had experienced

rapid population growth during the previous thirteen years. The previous three years had

seen a housing increase of approximately 475 new homes constructed annually. The

northern portion of the town (Forest Park) had experienced large scale growth, with considerable construction occurring in other parts of the district as well. The District was organized on a K6-6 vertical organization plan. Self contained classrooms at the elementary level had an average class size of 30 students, with supplemental education in the areas of art, music, and physical education. The instructional program at the elementary level centered on the “three R’s” with major consideration given to the physical, social, and emotional development of the child. The middle school (grades 7 and 8) was organized on a departmental basis consisting of language arts, social studies, science and mathematics. Music, physical education, home economics, industrial arts, and fine arts were seen as an important part of the middle school program. The upper

15 Ibid., 1. 64

secondary level (grades 9 thru 12) included a wide range of required and elective courses

as well as limited vocational classes. Clubs were offered as an additional class period.

Atypical students requiring special instruction were provided for outside the school

system. All grades were provided with additional services including hot lunches,

transportation, guidance and testing, and health services. A summer school program

provided courses in remedial mathematics, typing, driver education, and art.16

Table 5 shows the change in school enrollment from 1947 to 1959.

Table 5: Enrollment Increase from 1947 to 1959.

Year Student Population % Change Population Change

1947 3,487 ------1957 7,377 3,890 112 1959 12,657 5,280 72 Source: Special census for each year. “School Building Needs,” 5.

It is evident the district was experiencing a significant increase in enrollment during

this period. Much of the increase in population can be attributed to the housing being

developed in Forest Park by Warner-Kanter. The school board realized that the current rate of growth would necessitate an expansion of the school facilities. During the period from school years 1950-1951 through school years 1959-1960 the administrative staff also noted the increase at each grade level to aid in projecting the need for additional school facilities. Table 6 shows the per cent of increase at each grade level from

Kindergarten through grade 12 over this ten year period.

Conrad, Smith, and Clark, authors of the study, submitted their recommendations on

the projected needs to the district. The following recommendations were made.

16 Ibid., 3-4. 65

Table 6: Percent increase at each grade level from 1950-1951 to 1959-1960

Grade K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Level Percent 350 215 174 110 149 177 211 256 147 124 129 114 145 Increase SOURCE: Special census for each year. “School Building Needs,” 7

1. An elementary school center should be located where there is adequate space for

outdoor activities.

2. Each elementary school facility should have a kindergarten classroom and

between one and three self-contained classrooms for each grade level.

3. Classrooms should be large enough to accommodate a large variety of classroom

activities.

4. Between 73 and 101 classrooms will be needed to house the first six grades in the

next six years to accommodate the projected student population with 30 students

per classroom. (The committee made low and high estimates of student population

growth.)

5. By the time the housing saturation point is reached in the school district 162-248

classrooms will be needed for grades 1 through 6 (30 students per classroom).

6. Each elementary location should also include provisions for a kindergarten,

physical education facilities, assemblies, a library, health services, lunch,

administrative services, and engineering and storage facilities. Provisions should

also be made for special needs students.

7. Recommendations were made for increased enrollment in grades 7 through 12 not

only for the academic areas, but also for art, business education, home economics,

industrial arts, physical education, and music. 66

8. Each secondary level should also provide facilities for assemblies, libraries, health

services, lunch, student activities, administration, supervisory activities, teacher’s

restrooms, student restrooms, and storage and engineering facilities.

9. Four middle school facilities will be needed to keep the schools within the desired

enrollment range of 600 to 900 students each.

10. Two, and possibly three, high school buildings will be needed to keep each high

school within the desired 1,000 student range.17

In order for the district to implement the recommendations, financial considerations had to be taken into account. In the period from 1951 through 1960, the school tax rate in mills had increased from 14.65 to 22.90, and the per pupil valuation of property had increased from an assessed valuation of $5,357 in 1951 to $27,802 in 1960. This represented a 419% increase.18 In 1960 the tax rate in Greenhills was slightly higher than the average in the state, but considerably below the highest rates of exempted school districts in the state of Ohio. The committee noted that “advanced planning and efficient use of the tax dollars for school plant expansion is necessary in view of the financial status of the Greenhills School District.”19

The Ohio State Group made several long range recommendations to the district. In making their recommendations they noted the difficulties that arise when predicting future growth. They also noted the size of facilities that current research (1960) recommended for optimum efficiencies and best practices in providing students with a

17 Ibid., 9-13.

18 Clark, Greenhills Exempted Village Schools. “School Needs Study,” 14-19.

19 “School District Needs,” 19.

67 quality education. Elementary schools should have at least one classroom per grade level with an optimum student population of 300 at the elementary level. Economic advantages in operation tend not to increase in the 300 to 500 student range and are offset by educational disadvantages. They also note that “beyond 500-600 the disadvantages of large size are almost inescapable.”

Considerable economies can be made at the secondary level when schools size increases from 300 students to the 300 to 500 student range. Educational opportunities also increase considerably. They also noted that little is gained economically or academically when secondary schools exceed the 700 to 800 student range. They go on to state that at the secondary level there is “little or no evidence that anything is gained from having an enrollment of more than 1,000 pupils in any school and educators are increasingly of the belief that secondary school centers with enrollments beyond 1,000 to

1,200 have almost inescapable educational disadvantages.”20

The outcomes of the study for the school district were thirteen general recommendations.

1. The district should organize schools on K thru 6 elementary schools, middle

schools housing grades 7 through 9, and secondary schools housing grades 10

through 12.

2. Boundary lines between district schools should continue to be flexible with

students being transported as needed to alleviate overcrowding as it may occur.

3. The school should continue monitoring growth through a census to address

changing school needs.

20 Ibid., 19. 68

4. Remodeling and new construction should be based on current educational

planning and utilize competent architectural and engineering services.

5. The Board of Education should continue to make school facilities available for

use by the adult population and this should also be a consideration in any new

construction or remodeling.

6. Facilities should be incorporated for special needs students as the need arises.

7. The Board of Education should plan to acquire additional school sites in advance

of the actual need for them. The committee recommended several sites for

consideration.

8. No changes be made in the Beechwoods and Damon Road Elementary Schools.

9. Kemper Heights and Lakeside should also continue to house grads K through 6

with no additions to these facilities.

10. The original Community Building should continue to house grades 7 through 12

until a new senior high school could be built, at which time it would house grades

7 through 9. The Community Building should also be modified to provide

improved facilities for science, art, industrial arts, music, and auxiliary facilities.

11. A new senior high school be built at the current athletic site to house 600 to 700

students with the capability of being expanded to house 1,000 to 1,200 students.

12. Ten acres be purchased west of Waycross Road and South of West Sharon Road

for the construction of an elementary school.

13. Twenty to thirty acres north of Kemper Road and east of Hall Road to build a

junior high school.21

21 Ibid., 21-34.

Funding difficulties had been a problem between the communities of Greenhills and

Forest Park since Warner-Kanter began construction in the mid-1950’s. As reported in

the previous chapter, Greenhills residents opposed the development plan citing concerns

that property values would decline and taxes would increase to provide schools for the

new families. Although Warner-Kanter paid a $100 subsidy to the school board for each

new house constructed, taxes still needed to be increased to support the growing school

population. The facilities in Greenhills, including the school district, were advantageous

to the development of Forest Park because they made it more attractive to prospective

home owners.

The fact that Greenhills ran along Cameron Park’s southwestern border proved to be invaluable to both Warner-Kanter and to the new residents.

Because of the ever-increasing school age population, the Greenhills-Forest Park

School Board was always strapped for funds. Greenhills residents placed the blame for the growing school population on Warner-Kanter. Despite gestures by Warner-Kanter to help with the school situation, Greenhills residents remained angry and responded with indignation when they asked for additional zoning changes. The changes objected to would result in a higher population density, placing an additional burden on the school district. In their complaint before the Hamilton County Regional Planning Commission, representatives from Greenhills organizations predicted the “unrestricted rate of

22 Ibid., 49. 70

construction” would result in higher school taxes and reluctance on the part of voters in

Greenhills to support additional tax levies.

THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL SCHOOL BUILDINGS

The rapid homebuilding in the 1950’s and 1960’s placed a strain on school facilities and required the passage of bond issues to construct new school facilities. All of the new school construction from 1955 through 1964, with the exception of Kemper Heights

Elementary, was in Greenhills. From 1968 through 1972, all new construction was in

Forest Park. Table 7, shows the chronology of school construction in the district. When the town of Greenhills was built in the 1930’s all grades were housed in the Community

Building. Expansion had occurred in the undeveloped land in Greenhills as well as the

area known as North Greenhills, which was now Forest Park. Conflict developed

between the two communities who saw themselves as separate entities that shared a

school system. While the existence of the facilities in Greenhills was beneficial to both

the developer and the new residents, Greenhills was looked on, by some, as inferior

depression era housing.

The problem of school financing would not go away. In 1958 the growth in

enrollment resulted in the School Board placing a $593,000 bond issue on the ballot for

the purpose of building a school in the Forest Park area. The campaign was marked by

opposition from the Citizen’s School Campaign Committee against the School Bond

Issue, which distributed a brochure opposing the levy. The Greenhills Board of

Education demanded the committee retract the statements made in the brochure. Instead,

levy opponents issued a second pamphlet, signed by Vic Sloan and Kenneth Stoecklin,

refusing to retract the statements in the first pamphlet, claiming the right to free speech. 71

School Board Vice-President Robert Brown said the board would refer the matter of the pamphlet to Hamilton County Prosecutor C. Watson Hover. Despite the 1957 protests over rezoning and school crowding, the 1958 bond issue carried 60 percent of the district as a whole; it was, of course, more popular in Forest Park, where it passed by an overwhelming 95 percent of the votes cast. This bond issue was the third new school levy approved by Greenhills-Forest Park voters in four years.23

Table 7: School buildings in the district with opening dates and locations

Building Grade Level Year Opened Location Community All 1938 Greenhills Building Damon Road Elementary 1955 Greenhills Beechwoods Elementary 1957 Greenhills Kemper Heights Elementary 1959 Forest Park Lakeside Elementary 1960 Greenhills Greenhills High Secondary 1963 Greenhills School (phase 1) Greenhills High Secondary 1964 Greenhills School (phase 2) Cameron Park Elementary 1965 Forest Park Forest Park High Secondary 1968 Forest Park School Forest Park Middle Middle 1968 Forest Park School Forest View Elementary 1968 Forest Park Winton Forest Elementary 1972 Forest Park Source: Winton Woods City Schools 1999-2000 calendar.

The financial difficulties of the district continued and in 1959 another levy was placed on the ballot for construction of another school. The bond issue passed despite objections from even Forest Park residents. During the summer of 1959, the superintendent told residents that double shifting of first and second graders would

23 Miller, 60; Forest Park Newsletter, 14 January, 12 February, 12 March, and 14 May 1958; Greenhills Journal, 17 January, 14 February, 11 April, and 9 May 1958.

continue because Kemper Heights Elementary School would not be completed until June

1960. A compromise was reached to eliminate double-shifting by using nearby Forest

Chapel Methodist Church as a temporary school location. In May 1960, the board again

placed a bond issue before the voters, this time for $570,000 for additions to the high

school. During this time Forest Park residents felt the school board was dominated by

Greenhills residents and were concerned their needs were not being adequately

addressed. One of their concerns was that Warner-Kanter did not seem to be addressing

the need for commercial and industrial development to offset the cost of schools.

Because Forest Park did not have self-governance at this time they could not address

these concerns as a community.24

In February, the board announced it would place a $625,000 bond issue on the

ballot in June, 1961, to pay for a new high school. The bond issue would cost

homeowners $1.22 per $1000 property valuation. Residents of the district passed the

measure 1579 for and 702 opposed. The Cincinnati Enquirer noted that the additional

$1.22 would increase the tax rate to $41.78 per $1,000 of property valuation, making it

the highest tax rate of any community in Hamilton County. The new school was to be

constructed in Greenhills next to the high school athletic field and would accommodate

700 students initially and expanding to 1000 students at a later date.

The new building, which at the time was said to have an unusual design, would be

constructed on a hilltop site that overlooked nearby Winton Lake. It was to be

constructed in two stages, with a total cost of 1.5 million dollars, according to architects

Garriott and Becker and Associates. The first phase would consist of a two-story

24 Greenhills Journal, 20 November 1959; Forest Park Newsletter, 19 March 1960; Greenhills Journal, 27 March, 24 April, 5 June, 19 June, 19 August, and 6 May 1960.

academic core with four single-story wings extending from the core to accommodate

areas including administration, home economics, industrial arts, and kitchen and dining

facilities. The second phase would include a gymnasium and physical education facilities

as well as a unique circular auditorium and music department. The auditorium would be

enclosed by a “thin-shell” concrete structure that would be a prominent feature of the new

school. The board planned to place another bond issue on the ballot in 1962 to pay for

the second phase of construction at the high school. In order to accommodate the new

school and its athletic facilities, an additional 27 acres of land had been purchased from

the community’s greenbelt at a cost of $110,000. Dr. M. J. Conrad, an educational

consultant with the Department of Education at Ohio State University, would assist the architects in planning the construction of the new school. Dr. Conrad, it will be remembered, was one of the authors of the Ohio State University report on the district’s school needs.25 The new high school opened in September, 1963.

In July, 1961, the school board announced the operating budget for the 1962 school year would increase $278,834 to $1,312,902. The increased budget reflected the need for more classrooms, due to the growing population, as well as funds for possible raises for

teachers and non-professional staff in September, 1962. The district had ten first grade

classes in the 1961-1962 school year and anticipated a need for seventeen in the 1962-

1963 school year. The large increase in enrollment was due in part to Our Lady of the

Rosary, the Catholic school in Greenhills, eliminating its first grade class.

In additional news, the board announced that an as yet unnamed elementary school

would be equipped to receive airborne television classes being broadcast from a plane

25 “Greenhills Votes June 6 on $625,000 Bond Issue to Pay Part of School Cost,” The Cincinnati Post and Times Star, 28 February 1961, 14.

74 flying over Lafayette, Indiana. Superintendent Young said Greenhills was only

“experimenting with airborne TV classes.”26 There is no further information available on airborne TV classes in the district and it is unclear if the district actually took part in the airborne classes, which were a project out of Purdue University in Lafayette, Indiana.27

The student population continued to expand as new homes were constructed. In 1964 the State Controlling Board approved a loan request from the State Board of Education for $573,013. The loan, intended for new school construction, would be interest free to the district. Superintendent Ray Young stated that the district planned to turn the offer down at this time and ask that it be reinstated in 1965. The board reached this decision because their construction plans were incomplete and the state was insisting that more classrooms be built than the district planned for. The state was insisting that sixteen rooms be added at the high school, boosting enrolment capacity from 1000 to 1500 students. The district contended that the gym, library, and cafeteria facilities were not adequate for an enrollment of that size.28

26 “Greenhills School Costs up $278,384,” Cincinnati Post and Times Star, 26 July 1961, 14.

27 Personal correspondence from John Pennycuff to author pertaining to author’s questions, 2 August 2007. The local papers reported that the Ford Foundation had given a $500,000 grant to the Midwest Council on Airborne Television for an experimental telecasting of courses in a six state area. Telecasts were to begin February 1, 1961 from a plane flying over Mt. Pelier, Indiana. Signals would be beamed to schools in Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Kentucky, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Dr. Betz stated 40% of the programs would be designed for elementary students, 40% for high school students, and 20% for colleges. “$500,000 to Aid TV Experiment, Cincinnati Post and Times Star, 22 February 1960, 13. Cincinnati Public Schools were also involved in the project. CPS teachers Stephen B. Smalley and Miss Marlene Biegel were among the first sixteen teachers selected to produce instructional material to be broadcast. Miami University, in Oxford, Ohio would serve as one of eighteen resource institutions for the project. Area coordinator for the project was Jack R. Neill of Miami University. “Two Teachers of City Schools Named to Aid Airborne TV,” Cincinnati Enquirer, 15 July 1960, 3-A. The experiment with airborne television ended in 1971. More information can be found on MPATI (Midwest Program on Airborne Television Instruction) The Flying Classroom at www.chicagotelevison.com/MPATI.htm.

28 “School District Rejects $573,013 State Loan,” Cincinnati Post and Times Star, 31 July 1964, 13.

Four months later, in November, 1964, the school board applied for a $1.5 million

interest free loan from the Ohio Department of Education for school expansion through

September, 1968. Superintendent Young stated the board planned to place a $750,000

bond issue on the ballot in 1965 to finance district school building. Young estimated that

$2.3 million dollars would be needed to cover the construction needed in the district. The

districts needs included a new junior high building, two elementary schools, remodeling

at the current junior high (the original Community Building), and four additional

classrooms at the high school. The money would need to be re-paid to the state through

an additional voter approved 50-cent per $1000 valuation tax levy. State officials pointed

out that this form of school financing was less costly than bond issues because of the

savings in interest which must be paid on bonds.29

In November, 1965, the school board hired Cincinnati architects, Badger, Hodell,

Donnelly, and Preston to design the elementary schools and junior high, and Garriott,

Bogart and Associates, to design the additions to the senior high.30 Voters had approved

a bond issue for construction in a special election in September, as well as a levy to repay

the State Department of Education loan.

PRAYER IN SCHOOLS

In 1960, school prayer was an issue throughout the country, as well as in the

Greenhills School District. Robert J. O. O’Brien, president of the Cincinnati chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), requested the school board ban all religious observances in schools. Former Greenhills mayor George Geisen stated Mr. O’Brien

29 “Schools Seek $1.5 Million Building Loan,” Cincinnati Post and Times Star, 25 Nov3ember 1964, 7.

30 “Architects Hired for Greenhills School Expansion,” Cincinnati Post and Times Star, 3 November 1965, 31.

76 submitted his request on behalf of several families who objected to religion in the schools. Twenty-one persons, including pastors from three churches, attended a meeting on November 23, 1960, and voted unanimously to support the school boards position of allowing prayer in schools. Under attack was the reciting of the Lord’s Prayer or the reading of a passage from the Old Testament at the beginning of the school day, and the recitation of a non-sectarian grace before lunch by kindergarten students. Rev. Don W.

Rogers, of the Greenhills First Baptist Church, attacked the ACLU request saying their interpretation of separation of church and state was atheism. Rev. Paul P. Galliger of Our

Lady of the Rosary (Catholic Church) called the schools practices unobjectionable to

Catholics and felt the board’s stance was good policy.31

The issue continued in December when ACLU President O’Brien, who was also pastor of the First Unitarian Church on Reading Road in Walnut Hills, wrote school board president Joseph Walter a letter saying a family in his congregation approached him objecting to the prayer policy of the Greenhills School Board. According to Rev.

O’Brien, fifteen families objected to the board’s policy and preferred a ban on religious observances in the schools. A meeting was held on December 4, 1960, at Greenhills

High School to discuss the issue The Cincinnati Enquirer reported that more than 300 people attended the meeting to discuss the board’s policy on school prayer. Charles

Ridgeway, spokesman for the Parents Committee of the Greenhills School District, stated, “We believe that the best way to prevent sectarianism is to remove this policy.”

Ridgeway’s group felt the current board policy was “too permissive” and had “led to sectarian activity beyond the board’s intent.” “We believe the best way to prevent

31 “Greenhills School Bible Reading Backed,” Cincinnati Enquirer, 24 November 1960, 1; “Religion in Schools is Favored,” Cincinnati Post and Times Star, 24, November 1960, 61. 77

sectarianism is to remove this policy.” Ridgeway also presented seventeen examples of

what his Parent’s Committee considered sectarian activity. Geisen spoke in favor of the

board’s policy and said the examples presented by the Parents Committee were not

documented. Geisen stated he felt “the citizens and the school board can handle this

without outside help,” referring to the ACLU. Although Rev. O’Brien attended the

meeting, he did not speak. Previously he had stated that, even though they were opposed

to the district’s policy, the ACLU did not intend to pursue court action unless all other

avenues of appeal were closed. Board Chairman Joseph Walter said “no decision would

be announced in the immediate future.”32

The following January the Greenhills Board of Education announced it had drawn up

a new policy permitting bible reading and school prayer in school. The new policy was

intended “to outline more adequately what the boards feeling is and to point up more

explicitly the discretion required of teachers.” The specifics of the new policy, outlined

by Board Chairman Joseph H. Walter, included allowing a “’brief period of meditation’

which may include a ‘reading from the Old Testament of the Bible, a poem, nonsectarian

prayer, the pledge of allegiance or other appropriate material.’” Also permitted was the

“recognition of holidays celebrated by any religion, legal holidays of religious origin,

holiday programs ‘emphasizing the universal meanings implicit in such holidays, study of religious contributions to history, art, literature and music, and discussions promoting

‘tolerance, understanding and respect for the religious beliefs of others.’” The new policy specifically forbade activities which might “advance the doctrine or particular beliefs of any religious sects.” The new policy further stated that “teachers and

32 “Grace Saying in School Debated,” Cincinnati Enquirer, 5 December 1960, 54; “15 Families Ask School Religion Ban,” Cincinnati Post and Times Star, 6 December 1960, 36. 78

administrators are to use sound discretion in respect for the spiritual beliefs of all children

and should avoid those areas of religious beliefs which are controversial.” Furthermore,

“areas of belief and opinion must be well defined by the teacher” in discussions.

Rev. O’Brien and the parishioners he represented were not happy with the board’s new policy. O’Brien stated that a comparison of religions:

….is an objective thing, but when religion is practiced it becomes subjective and we feel the place for this is in church and not in the public school system. We object to the practice of religion to inculcate belief because we still live in a society in which it is permissible for a person not to believe in God or to object to the beliefs of a specific religion. The new policy leaves all the same problems. The board has not asserted its authority to limit the superintendent of schools. It apparently feels it doesn’t have the power to do so. In this case he can feel free to fix his own rules independently of the Board of Education.33

Although there were rumors that the ACLU would initiate court action over the

policy, Rev. O’ Brien stated that there were no plans to do this, and they preferred to wait

for the outcomes of other cases working their way to the Supreme Court. Similar cases

involving school prayer and bible readings were before the Supreme Court, one in

Philadelphia, and another in Miami, Florida.

Rev. Rogers, who had supported the original policy, attacked the ACLU saying “their

concept of separation of church and state is atheism-and that there should be absolutely

no mention of God or of the things of God. Their thinking is completely wrong and to go

along with it would be to ignore the majority.”34

The issue of school prayer would eventually be decided by the United States Supreme

Court. On June 25, 1962, in Engel v. Vitale, the court ruled 7-1 that it was

unconstitutional for a government agency, such as a school, to require students to recite

33 “Greenhills Board Upholds School Religious Rites-Bible Reading, Prayer to Stay,” Cincinnati Enquirer, 9 January 1961, 10.

34 Ibid., 10. 79 prayers. On June 17, 1963, in Abington School District v. Schemp and Murray v. Curlett, the court ruled 8-1 against allowing the recitation of Bible verses and the Lord’s Prayer in schools. These rulings would settle the issue of school prayer. School prayer in

Greenhills-Forest Park ended in 1963.

The district began with Tugwell’s plan for an ideal community during the depression years. Although he envisioned hundreds of these towns as a way of improving the lives of workers, only three were built. There was a great deal of opposition to Tugwell’s ideas because he was labeled a communist (Rex the Red) because he believed the constitution needed to be changed to make capitalism more equitable for all. Only a portion of the original town of Greenhills was constructed due to the country’s involvement in World War II. The undeveloped portion, North Greenhills, was developed after the war by the firm owned by Marvin Warner and Joseph Kanter, when the name was changed to Forest Park. Problems developed early between the two communities who shared a common school system. The presence of Greenhills and its schools and services was valuable to the development of Forest Park and were important in attracting new residents. In the early years of the district the homogeneous group of settlers in Greenhills gave strong support to the school they felt connected to. When the rapid home construction of Forest Park began, the school facilities were inadequate and necessitated numerous levies’s for new school construction. This put a strain on the school system and the relationship between the two communities. More difficulties were to come, however, as the district dealt with the issue of school desegregation between a white Greenhills and an integrated Forest Park.

DESEGREGATION

In 1974 the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People

(NAACP) filed a desegregation lawsuit against Cincinnati Public Schools in Bronson v

Cincinnati Board of Education.35 The lawsuit was amended on September 29, 1976 to

include 16 suburban school districts of unconstitutional segregation. It also stated that

four additional school districts, including Greenhills-Forest Park, should be made part of

any remedy to bring about systematic desegregation in the Cincinnati metropolitan area.

The school system was not directly accused of any acts of illegal segregation and in

January 1977, the Greenhills-Forest Park School District requested that it be dismissed

from the lawsuit. The case was still pending before Judge David S. Porter when Arnold

Morelli, attorney for the school board, requested a summary judgment on April 5, 1977,

dismissing it from the lawsuit. Morelli stated the district was “entitled to a summary

judgment because the ‘facts and evidence utterly fail to establish’ that the system must be

included in any remedy for alleged segregation.” The motion also stated that the NAACP

had not alleged or shown any proof that the school district had engaged in discriminatory

practices for racially motivated purposes.36

School integration continued to be an issue for the district. There was an imbalance in

the racial enrollment between schools in the district. Greenhills, which had only been

open to white residents when it was settled in 1938, remained a white community. A

considerable number of African Americans had moved to Forest Park, particularly in

35 This was not the first desegregation suit brought against the public schools in Cincinnati. On November 6, 1963, the NAACP filed suit on behalf of Tina Deal and forty-four other African American students (Tina Deal v. The Board of Education). This suit would work its way through the courts for a number of years and was an influence in the Bronson case brought in 1974. (Cincinnati Post, November 2, 1982, Sec. B, 14)

36Charles Durfey, “Judgment Asked in Race Bias Case,” Cincinnati Post, 6 April 1977, 12. 81

certain sections, resulting in an imbalance in the racial make up of the schools across the

district. Table 8 shows the percentage of African American students in the eleven district

schools as well as their location in the district. A map indicating location can be found in

the appendix.

Table 8: Percentage of African-American Students

School % African-American Location Students Beechwoods Elementary 9.1 Greenhills Cameron Park Elementary 27.0 Forest Park Damon Road Elementary 12.4 Greenhills Forest View Elementary 49.1 Forest Park Kemper Heights Elementary 31.5 Forest Park Lakeside Elementary 4.2 Greenhills Winton Forest Elementary 20.5 Forest Park Forest Park Middle School 28.3 Forest Park Greenhills Middle School 10.2 Greenhills Forest Park High School 24.2 Forest Park Greenhills High School 4.2 Greenhills Source: William A. Weathers, “School Realignment Plans Topics of Meetings This Week,” Cincinnati Enquirer, 26 March 1978, B6.

In 1978 the district had 7700 students and school officials stated they believed many of them deserved a better education than they were receiving. Officials stated they wanted to improve the quality of education by revising attendance boundaries. School

Board President Jean Ciancio said, “Some schools have a large percentage of minority students while others have a small percentage; some schools are packed to the walls and others have room available; some schools have a lot of people moving in and out-a high mobility rate-while there are others where the opposite is true. We’re simply looking at ways to utilize space available to create stability and obviously balance our schools racially.” Superintendent David A. Harcum and Ciancio both stated the proposed revision of school attendance lines was not a result of the NAACP’s desegregation suit 82

against Cincinnati and suburban school districts. Superintendent Harcum stated, “We’ve

been transporting students out of their neighborhood the past fifteen years. It’s

frustrating that now we’re studying essentially the same kind of thing and it’s

immediately linked with the NAACP.” Harcum is further quoted in the February 7,

1978, issue of the Cincinnati Enquirer saying, “property values and the NAACP suit may

be what some people talk about, (school officials) are more concerned about what is least

disruptive for students.” Ciancio agreed that something needed to be done about the

lawsuit. “We’ve had more black students come from the inner city schools where at a

given grade level they are not performing as well as our students. When you get three-

fourths of a classroom performing below grade level, what does this do to the one-quarter

performing at grade level?” It was felt that by moving students among schools the

problem of under performing students would be diluted and extra attention could be

provided for students who needed it.

Ohio law gave the superintendent the power to assign school boundaries without the

approval of the board of education. Harcum and the school board, however, were asking

the citizens for their input. For two months school officials had met with council

members from Greenhills and Forest Park, as well as Springfield Township trustees,

soliciting their opinions. In addition, they also met with the district’s advisory group,

PTA presidents, and community leaders. The board intended to use the information gathered to present at a series of public meetings before deciding on a plan. The most widely discussed options were:

• Voluntary Transfer – students would be allowed to transfer among the districts

schools as long as it did not negatively affect the racial balance of either school. 83

• Cluster Planning – placing all students at particular grade levels in one building

eliminating the current structure of seven elementary schools, two middle schools,

and two high schools.

• Pairing – an equal number of white students in a predominantly white school

would be switched with an equal number of black students from a predominantly

black school to achieve racial balance.

According to Mrs. Ciancio, school officials were looking for the least disruptive

solution.37

Despite the headline, “School Lines may be Revised in Light of NAACP Bias Suit,”

in the Cincinnati Enquirer, Mrs. Ciancio and Superintendent Harcum both stated “the

proposed change is not in direct response to the pending school desegregation suit filed

by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) against

Cincinnati and suburban Hamilton County districts.” Harcum said improving the racial

balance in the district was something they were looking into before the NAACP lawsuit.

Because of rapid growth in the number of housing units in Forest Park the district did not

have school buildings where they were needed and already bused students out of their

neighborhoods. “We simply don’t have students where we have space,” said Harcum.

Although previous changes in attendance areas had affected racial balance, they had

“never been done (specifically) for racial balance.” Mrs. Ciancio did state that the

district’s plan might be related to the NAACP suit and “acknowledged the possibility the district’s plan could remove it from the domain of the desegregation suit.” A municipal official, who did not wish to be identified, who had discussed the plan with the school administration said the plan was “basically something developed by the board to take the

37 Sue Porter, “Greenhills to Alter School Boundaries,” Cincinnati Post, 7 February 1978, 13. 84

initiative and attempt to get out of the lawsuit.” It was also reported that the district had a

$60,000 grant from the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, administered by

the Cincinnati Human Relations Commission, to help finance its voluntary desegregation

plan.38

By March, 1978, a controversial plan, which became known as the Harcum Plan, was

the one given most consideration. Under this plan a white student moving into the

district would have to attend a predominantly black school and a black student moving

into the district would have to attend a predominantly white school. Board member

James D. Hodgson said, “It is novel. As far as we know it is not being done anywhere.”

Officials believed the plan would encourage parents to move closer to where their

children attended school and lead to more racially integrated neighborhoods. At this time

Superintendent Harcum admitted the plan was an attempt to escape the NAACP lawsuit.

Harcum is quoted in the Cincinnati Enquirer on the issue.

Doing nothing is not a viable alternative. To do nothing allows already present differences to become more pronounced and carries the risk of having a solution imposed upon us which may create even greater unsettling effects upon growth of our schools and community. By acting now we may consider the options and choose, as well as increase our chances to control our own future.39

At this time, 1978, approximately 20% of the districts students were African

American. The plan being proposed would only affect new families moving into the

district. The district planned to work with area realtors to inform them of the policy, and

all families preparing to move into the district would be informed of the policy. It was

38 William A, Weathers, “School Lines may be Revised in Light of NAACP Bias Suit,” Cincinnati Enquirer, 7 February 1978, C2.

39 Bill Schickel, “Racial Patterns in Schools may Shift under New Plan,” Cincinnati Enquirer, 12 March 1978, B-2.

hoped that the plan, while preserving the neighborhood school concept, would lead to

more racially integrated housing patterns. The district was preparing information packets

that would be available after March 20.

The Harcum Plan was endorsed by Greenhills Mayor Ronald E. Otting, also a teacher

in the district, who, like school officials, saw the plan as a way of avoiding the NAACP

lawsuit. The mayor was concerned the lawsuit “could draw the community into a

condition of upset and confusion.” Otting stated, “Yes, we are going to have more

minorities move into Greenhills. The same advantages that we enjoy will be available to

others.” Otting felt it was important for the Greenhills City Council to take a stand on the

issue. The last council meeting had been attended by residents who voiced their

opinions. “Judging from people’s response to partial information (I) am not optimistic

the plan will receive support.” Otting was hopeful, now that information was available in

print, residents would be more understanding. “No one has been terribly willing to use

the word, but people are worried about ‘blockbusting,’” Otting said. “This can be

avoided with reason and calm”.

Officials in other parts of the school district voiced their opinions as well. Springfield

Trustee Richard J. Taft voiced objection to the plan. Forest Park Mayor Cletus McDaniel

declined to take a position. McDaniel stated, “There are a lot of questions of legality, but

our official position is that we are not endorsing it until we are told by the school board specifically what it involves.”40

District attorney Arnold Morelli explained the prevailing federal law on racial balance

in the U.S. Sixth District Court of Appeals. If a school board does nothing to correct

40 Bill Schickel, “Greenhills Mayor Backs Proposal Expected to Change Racial Patterns,” Cincinnati Enquirer, 13 March 1978, D-2. 86

racial imbalances, “in some cases the law says the board’s action or inaction constitutes a

presumption of intentional segregation if patterns develop which have a discriminatory

effect.” Morelli stated it was concern over that legal concept as well as wanting “a

balanced educational system throughout the district,” that prompted the board’s actions.

Superintendent Harcum again reiterated that the board had been concerned over the issue

of racial imbalance long before becoming part of the NAACP suit.

Forest Park Mayor McDaniel, who was also a realtor, said the 20.3 % black student

population did not reflect resident’s racial distribution in the district.

Forest Park city officials, he said, are observing a turn around in buying patterns in black areas. “A surprising number of young white families are buying from blacks,” he said. “It’s a healthy situation.” McDaniel said the City Council is taking a “wait and see” attitude on Harcum’s proposed plan. “It’s difficult to evaluate something that’s never been done before,” he said.

Greenhills City Council, despite the mayor’s endorsement of the plan, had not taken a

stand on the proposed plan. The mayor stated that council was reluctant to issue a

resolution on the plan because it might interfere with the legal authority of the Greenhills-

Forest Park School Board. The Harcum Plan was a new idea that had not been tried

before and, as such, there was uncertainty on whether it would stand up in court. “The only way you know what a law says or doesn’t say, is to have it interpreted by the courts,” said Harcum. In order to explain the Harcum Plan, as well as alternative plans,

community meetings had been scheduled for March 28 and 29, and April 3 and 4.41

More than 150 residents attended the Springfield Township trustee meeting on March

14 to find out where township officials stood on the Harcum Plan and the other

alternatives. Trustee Frank Weikel said trustees were not endorsing the plan. “There

were, in our judgment, a lot of holes in the plans,” he explained. Springfield Township

41 Gayle Harden, “Bus Plan Aimed at new Students,” Cincinnati Post, 13 March 1978, 11. 87 trustees felt it would be unfair to take a position while there were unanswered questions.

Weikel, who lived by Lakeside Elementary with a 4% black enrollment, used his neighborhood as an example of how the Harcum plan would work. He said:

If he sold his home to a black family, their children would attend Lakeside. But if he sold his home to a white family, their children would be transported to a school in the city of Forest Park that has a high percentage of black students.42

School officials estimated that the turnover rate in housing was 9% a year. Weikel estimated that in three years the racial balance would reach 26% black, which was what officials were shooting for. Also of concern to trustees was what effect the plan would have on housing values.43

The issue of racial disparity was a sensitive topic in the district. Superintendent

Harcum stated he had not opened his mail in several days. “There might be a letter bomb here,” he quipped. Harcum was interviewed in the March 18 edition of the Cincinnati

Enquirer on the issues of overcrowding in some schools and racial imbalance.

HARCUM: The question is, do you move them (the students) with consideration of the great disparity in racial balance or don’t you. It’s not a new issue. School officials have decided to take racial balance into consideration. Racial balance is desirable as far as education programs are concerned. The move also may enable the district to be removed from consideration in the NAACP suit. Do you not do anything and have someone tell you what to do? We feel that doing nothing is not an alternative. The NAACP suit, however, didn’t prompt the proposed attendance area changes. That (the suit) didn’t precipitate where we are at the moment. Some people don’t believe that. If a person doesn’t want to believe it he never will. We’ve already petitioned to get out of the suit. Our total black population is getting close to the average of the schools involved in the suit. The Greenhills-Forest Park School District has a black student population of 20.3%. If the NAACP were to be successful and win mandated countywide desegregation, a 26% or 27% black population would be the standard. Presently, black enrollment in elementary schools here varies from 49% at Forest View School to about 20% to 30% at other grade schools. With the anticipated rise in the district’s black

42 William A. Weathers, “Trustees Say They Can’t Endorse Plan to Change Racial Imbalance,” Cincinnati Enquirer, 15 March 1978, C-2; “Busing Denied Endorsement,” Cincinnati Post, 16 March 1978, 14.

43 Ibid., 14. 88

enrollment, Greenhills-Forest Park wouldn’t have any students to exchange with other districts named in the suit. The whole concept grew out of the concern for enrollment balance. We’ve been moving students around long before the suit came around. I’ve been here 12 years and we’ve been doing it since then. The imbalance we have is the result of housing patterns. We haven’t had buildings where we’ve had students. Forest Park High School already is overcrowded. Some classes are being held in bathrooms and freshman are starting school an hour later to allow for more room for the students. REPORTER: How have residents received the proposed changes? HARCUM: So far talks to residents, special interest groups, Parent-Teacher Associations and officials in Forest Park, Greenhills and Springfield Township in most instances have been encouraging. Generally the reaction has been favorable. People are generally supportive in doing something. I understand there’s considerable opposition to one of the plans being considered. I know there was potential for considerable concern over the issue. When you mention race and buses you’re dealing with an emotional issue. We’ve never adjusted any attendance areas that didn’t result with some people being unhappy that their children were being moved. We understand that. REPORTER: Would strong community opposition to any specific plan have an effect on school officials’ decision to adopt it? HARCUM: “I don’t know. Any change we’ve ever made there have been some people who were against it. School officials could have made their decision behind closed doors. We chose to go the open route. That course sometimes leads to untrue rumors. That’s the risk – the result of trying to hold an open process.

Harcum was then asked about the legality of the Harcum Plan, which has been described.

HARCUM: If this plan is the one the board chooses to implement, it will be the first of its type in the United States. And if it’s successful it could have national repercussions. We’re not unique in our situation. REPORTER: Is this plan legal? HARCUM: I’ve long given up on saying what’s legal and what’s not legal. The opinion we’ve receive says it’s legal. REPORTER: What effect would implementation of the Harcum plan have on property values? HARCUM: I don’t know what effect the implementation of this plan, or any other, would have on property values in the district. I think you can make a case for doing nothing or anything can have an effect on property values in the area. The plan has never been tried before. In light of that it’s difficult to say what could happen. But by devising its own plan, the district has the chance to eliminate outside influences from effected property values. REPORTER: Has the board decided on a specific plan? 89

HARCUM: The doors not closed to any option. And there is no definite timetable for the implementation of any plan; although it is likely something will be done before school starts this fall.44

The Harcum Plan was not the only plan under consideration by the school board.

Eight other alternatives were also being considered.

Alternative 1: Pairing-Altering Grade Structure Six of the seven elementary schools would be paired to achieve better racial balance. Winton Forest would be excluded because its racial balance of 20.5% African American students was close to the average. Grade levels would be arranged so there would be racial balance between the two schools. Proposed pairings: Lakeside (4.2%) and Forest View (49.1%) Damon Road (12.4%) and Cameron Park (27%) Kemper Heights (31.5%) and Beechwoods (9.1%) Racial balance would range from 31.3% at Forest View to 20% at Beechwoods. 1329 additional students would be bused.

Alternative 2: Clustering-Pairing-Alternative This plan is similar to Alternative 1 but would include all seven elementary schools. Existing school populations would be paired between schools in clusters of two or three. Propose groupings: Damon Road (12.4%) Lakeside (4.2%) and Forest View (49.1%) Beechwoods (9.1%) and Kemper Heights (31.5%) Cameron Park (27%) and Winton Forest (20.5%) Racial balance would range from 28.1% at Forest View to 20% at Beechwoods. 1973 additional students would be bused.

Alternative 3: Adjacent School Plan All seven elementary schools would be involved with school boundary lines redrawn. Because black and non-black students are concentrated in certain residential areas, vast numbers of students would need to be bused. Students would attend the closest or next closest school or attendance area to achieve racial balance. Proposed attendance areas: Beechwoods – Students from neighborhoods in Beechwoods, Cameron Park, and Kemper Heights Cameron Park – Students from neighborhoods in Beechwoods and Cameron Park Damon Road – Students from neighborhoods in Winton Forest and Lakeside. Forest View – Students from neighborhoods in Kemper Heights and Winton Forest Kemper Heights – Students from neighborhoods in Forest View and Beechwoods

44 William A. Weathers, “Harcum Busy with Attendance Revision,” 18 March 1978, D-2. 90

Lakeside – Students from neighborhoods in Damon Road, Lakeside, and Beechwoods Winton Forest – Students from neighborhoods in Forest View, Damon Road, and Winton Forest

Racial balance would range from 27.8% at Winton Forest to 14.8% at Damon Road.

Alternative 4: Altering Grade Structure All elementary schools and both middle schools would be arranged to improve racial balance with one grade level at each school based on building capacity. Proposed grade assignments: Damon Road – Kindergarten Cameron Park – 1st Grade Beechwoods – 2nd Grade Kemper Heights 3rd Grade Lakeside – 4th Grade Forest View – 5th Grade Winton Forest – 6th Grade45 Greenhills Middle – 7th Grade Forest Park Middle – 8th Grade Resulting racial balance: From 25.9% at Lakeside to 18.6 at Damon Road. 3917 additional students would need to be bused.

Alternative 5: Changing Feeder Patterns Attendance areas for the two middle schools would change in order to achieve racial balance at the middle school level. Elementary school students would not be affected until they reached the middle school level at which time they might not attend the closest middle school. Proposed school assignments: Forest Park Middle School – Would receive students from Beechwoods, Winton Forest, and Kemper Heights Greenhills Middle School – Would receive students from Cameron Park, Damon Road, Forest View, and Lakeside Resulting Racial Balance: 21.4% at Greenhills Middle School and 20.3% at Forest Park Middle 314 additional students would need to be bused. Feeder school patterns would be altered as percentages change.

Alternative 6: Pairing-Altering Grade Structure The district’s current attendance pattern would be shifted so that students in grades seven through twelve would attend classes in separate buildings. Sixth grade would be taught in the same building. Current 10th grade would remain the same with classes taught at both high schools. Proposed assignments:

45 Winton Forest had been planned as a Middle School. It officially opened as an elementary school in 1972 and has continued as an elementary school. 91

Greenhills Middle – 7th grade Forest Park Middle – 8th grade Greenhills High – 9th grade Forest Park High – 11th and 12th grades Resulting racial balance: 20.7% at Forest Park Middle School to 13.7% at Greenhills High 1501 additional students would need to be bused.

Alternative 7: Selective Assignment of New Students (Harcum Plan) Each school would maintain its grade structure with change occurring only as students moved in or out of the district. New students moving into the district would be assigned to improve racial balance. Winton Forest Elementary would be excluded because there are an odd number (7) of elementary buildings and Winton Forest was already racially balanced at 20.5% black students. Proposed groupings: Damon Road (12.4%) and Kemper Heights (31.5%) Beechwoods (9.1%) and Cameron Park (27.0%) Forest View (49.1%) and Lakeside (4.2%) Forest Park Middle (28.3%) and Greenhills Middle (10.2%) Forest Park High (24.2%) and Greenhills High (4.2%) Resulting racial balance: Currently from 47.2 at Forest View to 8.5% at Greenhills High Change would be difficult to estimate because it is unknown who would move in to each area. Current enrollment would be racially balanced with elementary schools at 23.7%, middle schools at 19%, and high schools at 16.4%. 185 more students would need to have been bused between October 1, 1977 and February 17, 1978.

Alternative 8: Pairing Black students at paired schools would be divided evenly at each grade level between two schools. The non-black students would be changed so the total student population for each grade level in each school would be the same as it was in September, 1977. Winton Forest (20.5%) would be excluded because it was racially balanced. Proposed pairings: Forest View (49.1%) and Lakeside (4.2%) Damon Road (12.4%) and Kemper Heights (31.5%) Beechwoods (9.1%) and Cameron Park (27.0%) Forest Park Middle (28.3%) and Greenhills Middle (10.2) Forest Park high (24.2%) and Greenhills High (4.2%) Resulting racial balance: From 31.8 at Damon Road to 13.3% at Forest Park High. 880 students would need to be bused. Revisions would need to be made as percentages change. Rezoning would occur in selected attendance areas to eliminate differences caused by mobility of population.

Alternative 9: Rezoning Attendance lines would be redrawn throughout the district after a student census and analysis. Because some schools do not have an area adjacent to them that would improve racial balance, the rezoning process would create islands and split neighborhoods. The existing grade structures would be kept at all schools. Proposed rezoning: Beechwoods (9.1%) – blacks from Forest View (49.1%) Cameron Park (27%) – non-blacks from Winton Forest (20.5) Damon Road (12.4%) – blacks from Kemper Heights (31.5%) Lakeside (4.2%) – blacks from Forest View (49.1%) Winton Forest (20.5%) – blacks from Cameron Park (27%) Forest Park Middle (28.3%) – non-blacks from Greenhills Middle (10.2%) Greenhills Middle (10.2%) – blacks from Forest Park Middle (28.3%) Forest Park High (24.2%) – non-blacks from Greenhills High (4.2%) Resulting racial balance: From 23.7% at Beechwoods to 15.9% at Greenhills High 778 additional students would need to be bused. Attendance areas would be redrawn continually to adjust for shifts in neighborhood racial composition.46

Despite the endorsement of Mayor Otting, opposition to the Harcum Plan surfaced immediately in Greenhills. An anonymous flyer was circulated the weekend of March

18-19 with a picture of a goat above the heading: IS GREENHILLS AREA TO BE THE

“SACRIFICIAL GOAT” FOR HARCUM SCHOOL PLAN?

The flyer urged parents to attend the March 29 school board meeting to voice their opposition to the plan. The flyer voiced extreme opposition to the plan and the effects residents felt it would have on property values. The Cincinnati Post reported the following statements taken from the flyer.

If the perspective new family is black, they may enjoy the convenience of the walk in school for their children. If the plan goes into effect, “when a perspective Greenhills Home buyer learns of this ‘selective’ busing plan, few white people, if any, will buy. The plan would inflict “permanent damage to Greenhills students and property values.”

46 William A. Weathers, “School Realignment Plans Topics of Meetings This Week,” Cincinnati Enquirer, 26 March 1978, B-6. 93

Superintendent Harcum stated he was not surprised by the flyer, which was distributed only in the Greenhills area, saying he knew the board was dealing with a volatile issue.

Harcum was hoping that residents would attend the information meetings before making their minds up on any plan. Board President Jean Ciancio spoke for board members saying they were not surprised by the flyer, but they were dismayed the residents were so quick to criticize and create rumors. “We don’t expect everyone to agree with the plan, but we hope people would wait until they have all the information before passing judgment.”

Only one school board member, Edward E. Lowe had come out publicly supporting the Harcum Plan. Three votes in favor of the plan were needed for it to be implemented.47

About 350 residents attended the March 21 school board meeting loudly protesting the proposed integration plans. Although opinions were mixed, most were opposed to the

Harcum Plan. Greenhills resident and homebuilder Earl Auberger expressed the feelings of the majority when he stated, “You’re not going to push anyone into doing something they don’t want to do. You have to realize the dollar value you’re going to lose. One man should not have that much control (referring to Superintendent Harcum). Mr.

Harcum is a man, I presume, if he is not, he can tell me.”

Springfield Township resident Paul Strebel, a member of a citizens committee opposed to the plan, read from a petition, signed by 1700 residents, which had been circulated by fifty volunteers’ district wide.

We citizens of the Greenhills-Forest Park School District, desiring to maintain for citizens of all races the high quality and stability of our school system, demand and

47 Gayle Harden and David Flick, “Unsigned Flyer Raps Busing Plan,” Cincinnati Post, 20 March 1978, 9.

petition the board of education and Superintendent Harcum to stop implementation of their plan to change or interfere with the existing voluntary housing patterns by applying a racial standard to discriminate against new residents and students, both black and white.48

Board President Ciancio, who conducted the meeting, said the purpose of the meeting

was for listening and learning on the part of the board and administration. School

officials said little, stating they would respond to concerns at the four community meetings which were scheduled to begin March 28. The meeting was emotional with booing, cheering, and several standing ovations. Springfield Township resident Joe

Smith appealed to the assemblage to restrain their comments. “I really don’t think curt comments or sarcasm are warranted,” he said. An emotional Gladys Thompson, a fifteen year Forest Park Middle School teacher, with tears rolling down her cheeks, said she was

“very proud of the school board and administrators who are trying to see ahead. Rather than discussing pros and cons of keeping an excellent school system excellent, all we are concerned about is money. I don’t have a $30,000 home, so I guess I don’t have that much to lose.”

Doug Iden, of Forest Park, also spoke in favor of the Harcum Plan. “I’m for the plan.

I have yet to have anyone tell me why I will lose money. I think we should look at the real issues not being addressed.” Thompson and Iden were the only attendees to speak in favor of the plan.

The meeting was attended by only three African American’s. Rosalie Letton, one of the three, said, “many blacks stayed away because they knew the meeting would be

highly emotional. But plans were being made to attend other community meetings.”

48 Bill Schickel, “Crowd Loudly Protests Integration Plan,” Cincinnati Enquirer, 21 March 1978. 95

Earlier that day a second anonymous pamphlet had circulated in the community

stamped “top secret,” “confidential,” and “secret plans.” The leaflet again encouraged

residents to attend the scheduled community meetings and express their concerns. The

school administration was accused of withholding information about the desegregation

plan despite the thirty page information packet that had been distributed by the district.

In a 5-0 vote the school board voted not to take any action until its May 15 regular

meeting, after residents could voice their opinions at the community meetings.49

The following day, March 21, approximately 150 residents attended a meeting at the

Greenhills Country Club, organized by Al Brungard, Dell Delessandro, Ray Rutter, Doug

Schray, and Paul Strebel, to discuss the desegregation plan. The meeting was also attended by two school board members, Charlotte Philpott and William Waddell.

Citizens discussed the possibility of taking legal action to stop any plan that would adjust student attendance areas. Waddell stated he “preferred to try to make the system work.

The best approach is to have it voted down.” Philpott chastised the group of mostly

Greenhills and Springfield Township residents, saying residents seemed to only be concerned with depreciating property values rather than students.

I’m disturbed I haven’t heard one mention of concern of the students. That’s where I’ll come from when my decision comes. My home is near and dear to me, but more near and dear is my little fifth grader. My son walks to school and I do not want him taken any other place. Residents must show a concern for students. I’m trying to give you a little hint in trying to get to the school board.

Both Philpott and Waddell stated they had not decided how they would vote on the

issue. An eighteen member committee, including representatives from all three areas of the community, scheduled a meeting for March 23 to formulate an action plan.

49 Bill Schickel, “Crowd Loudly Protests Integration Plan,” Cincinnati Enquirer, 21 March 1978, D-2; Gayle Harden, “Opposition Mounts to Proposed Busing Plan,” Cincinnati Post, 21 March 1978, 1. 96

Committee member Brungard, of Greenhills, said they would seek information and

“develop a unified position to present to the school board.” Brungard stated, “We feel we

are by ourselves. Without the formation of a unified committee, we can’t express our

consolidated ideas.” Brungard also said the committee would approach the school board

for clarification and if they did not receive satisfactory answers “we will proceed from

there.” In a further development, Greenhills Council Member Marge Bortee asked city

council’s Law and Rules Committee to consider developing a Fair Housing Ordinance.

“The opposition has assured us this is not a racial issue,” she said. “With that assurance,

I proposed the city adopt an open housing ordinance in support of the federal law, which

we have sworn to uphold.”50

Forest Park Mayor McDaniel said his city’s administration had not taken a stand on

the proposal to correct the racial imbalance in the school system but stated the reaction

“has ballooned out of proportion.” He said one reason council had not made a decision was because “we don’t have any idea what the plan is yet.” 51

Greenhills Mayor Otting, who had already come out in support of the measure, said

much of the community’s action was premature because they did not have all the

information. Reaction had been “emotional rather than reasonable to a condition or

change that they (opponents) believe may occur. If they will become informed, they will

be doing themselves and the community a favor.” Otting further stated, “The plan is the

least disruptive for the greatest number of people involved. I’m not convinced that doing

50 “Battle Mapped against School District Changes,” Cincinnati Post, 22 March 1978, 19; William A. Weathers, “School Integration Foes Meet to Form Ranks,” Cincinnati Enquirer, 22 March 1978, C-2.

51 Gayle Harden, “Busing Plan Reaction Hit,” Cincinnati Post, 23 March 1978, 15.

97 nothing is the best thing.” He was also encouraged that opponents were willing to attend the community meetings.52

Members of the African American community had not expressed their position on the plan. Former school board member and black resident of Forest Park Ed Rigaud reported that a small number of black residents had met to discuss the plan. Their opinions were varied but they planned to attend the community meetings. Rigaud stated:

The real issue goes much deeper than the Harcum Plan. The true issues under fire are equal housing opportunity and racial diversity in neighborhoods. If there is a “goat” in this controversy, it is Forest Park. The city had provided the school district with a black head count thus allowing Greenhills to quietly remain an almost white community.53

Rigaud also said Superintendent Harcum’s plan “attacks the symptoms of the problem, while it attempts to correct racial imbalances in schools and counter past practices of denying equal housing and steering blacks to certain pockets of Forest Park.”

Although he noted there were flaws in the plan, he had not seen a plan he liked better.

African American parent Rosalie Letton said, “You’d be amazed at what children can survive. I really think the plan will work, if parents keep their mouths shut.” Mrs. Letton had faced busing issues previously while living in Frankfurt, Kentucky and Chicago. “I get a little disgusted,” she said, “but you become accustomed to it.” She also stated she was not opposed to busing as long as it remained within district lines. “Beyond that I would be the first to oppose it.”

52 Ibid., 15

53 “Meeting Tonight on Realignment,” Cincinnati Enquirer, 28 March 1978, C-2; William A. Weathers, “Imbalance Called Potential Problem,” Cincinnati Enquirer, 29 March 1978, A-1.

Another African American parent, Debbie Jackson, said “the time will have to come when less importance is placed on how a child goes to school, than what the child receives when he gets there.”54

On March 28, the first community meeting to explain the nine alternative proposals was held at Forest Park High School, and was attended by an estimated 900 people.

Superintendent Harcum addressed the assembled group in a forty minute talk on the changing conditions that could lead to an acuter problem for the district. His comments were reported the next day in the local newspapers.

Some people say we don’t have a problem. I agree. We don’t have an acute problem (referring to the racial imbalance in the district’s eleven schools). We feel we have changing conditions that will lead to an acute problem. In my position I see the problems growing. The problems I see are human problems. Some of the problems are related to cultural and racial differences. There is a lacking of cultural awareness on the part of the people – students, faculty, and parents. Some people in the district have never lived in integrated neighborhoods – that’s true of both white and black families. It’s my belief that reducing the racial disparity is one avenue that better builds racial understanding.

The district had altered attendance patterns to send children where space was available as growth occurred in the district. During the 1972-1973 school year, district officials began monitoring the racial composition of the schools as the minority population increased. When the district was named as a defendant in the NAACP desegregation lawsuit they hired Attorney Andrew Morelli. Harcum met with district residents as the racial imbalance between the schools increased. “We had some reaction that it wasn’t a school problem,” Harcum said. “Morelli advised school officials to consider plans to correct racial imbalance in the schools.” 55

54Gayle Harden, “Busing Plan Reaction Hit, Cincinnati Post, 23 March 1978.

Residents in attendance at the meeting, which lasted more than four hours, voiced their opinions. Mrs. Ernest Waxman of Springfield Township commented on Alternative

7, the Harcum Plan.

I readily admit that I found this proposal hard to digest and my feelings toward it have ranged from outrage to hostility to fear to the present state of uncertainty. If some of our teachers profess to have problems due to the size or composition of their classes, let us examine whether we are listening to their frustrations or maybe the prejudices of a few and magnifying this into a district wide problem. I wish to recommend on behalf of all who are seriously concerned about our educational system that the board reject “alternative 7” on the basis that it has caused undue stress and turmoil in our community and on the basis that it is questionable from a legal standpoint, and on the basis that before any action is taken, the people deserve to understand that a problem really does exist and therefore a remedy is warranted.56

Ginny Gunn, President of the Forest Park High School Student Council, spoke in favor of the plan. “It sounds like a good idea. People are looking at it like Forest Park and Greenhills are two different things. I resent the idea by some that since there is not a problem in Greenhills, we just ignore it. It is all one district.”

Several questions were asked by residents and answered by Board President Ciancio.

• Why are two of the public meetings being held during spring vacation?

We originally scheduled all four meetings during the first week of April. School board members thought an effort should be made to hold them sooner because of publicity and rumor.

• Has an effort been made to present this plan to students?

Superintendent Harcum has spoken to the student council at both high schools to give them background information and invite the students to attend the public meeting.

• Why is the alternative of doing nothing not included?

Doing nothing in light of increased racial imbalance among schools has resulted in court ordered desegregation plans in many school districts. Some

56 Gayle Harden, “Plea Made Against ‘War’ on Busing,” Cincinnati Post, 29 March 1978, 11. 100

persons promoting doing nothing have stated they prefer the status quo until outside influences force a change.

• How do we make up lost property value revenues if property values fall?

If property values would decrease, this would eventually result in lower assessed valuations of real estate parcels. To the extend this would reduce revenues, the loss would have to be made up through a reduction in the budget, increased state and/or federal funds or increased local real estate taxes or some combination of the methods.

• What is all this publicity going to do to the district?

The publicity has very likely caused damage that will probably take a long time to undo. We can begin to counter this effect if everyone will approach this matter with a responsible attitude and focus on doing what is best from an educational standpoint.

• What attorney reviewed this plan?

Arnold Morelli, of Bauer, Morelli, and Heyd, Cincinnati, is the board’s principal attorney. James P. Edmiston, of the same firm, has been involved with legal research on the issue. We have been in contact with consultants in Ohio and Florida who have been involved in numerous court-ordered desegregation plans over the country.57

The Cincinnati Post reported on other comments made at the meeting.

Forest Park High School student Ginny Gunn:

“The problem was too many people and too many classes. The problem should be resolved. I resent the idea that since it is not occurring in Greenhills we shouldn’t do anything about it. Are we going to fight each other on everything?”

Attorney Ingolf Dinklage from Forest Park:

“This by any other name is discrimination. And in any form it’s unconstitutional.”

Greenhills resident Gene Zgoda (also a Colerain Township teacher):

“One of the biggest Polish jokes I’ve ever heard. I don’t think you people have done your homework. You’ll put a negative connotation on every tax issue from now on. You should be ashamed.”

57 Bill Schickel, “School Plans Opposed, Backed, Questioned,” Cincinnati Enquirer, 29 March 1978, C-2.

101

Thomas West from Forest Park:

“As you can see, I’m black. The district’s schools with high black enrollment have not gotten the same attention as mostly white schools. My daughter as a right to a good education, and if students have to be moved to get that education, the board should see to it.”

An un-named Forest Park resident complained of manipulation by Realtors:

“For the past several years I have had Realtors call and suggest that the area is going. Last week, someone called and said that they were concentrating on Hanover Road.”

Rosaline Letton from Forest Park:

“I’m tired. I can’t fight anymore. My children have gone through this mess before. It’s racism and you will have to deal with it calmly and work out your feelings. You get yourself together and come together to work out your problems.”58

The second community meeting was held the following night at Greenhills High

School with more than 600 people in attendance. Police estimated that an additional 300 people had been turned away for lack of space. Superintendent Harcum’s announcement that Alternative 7, the Harcum Plan, would be withdrawn, drew applause from the crowd.

The comments from Tuesday’s meeting had made it “obvious to me that the chance of this alternative being recommended and approved is about zero. It’s not worth it.”

When asked if he had consulted with the school board before making a decision, he replied, “Does a bear stroll in the woods?” The superintendent said he was hopeful that the interest, dollars and energy directed against Alternative 7 would be re-directed toward another plan that would address the issue at hand.59

Although many people left the meeting after Harcum’s announcement, others who stayed voiced their opinions.

Springfield Township resident George Bishop:

58 Gayle Harden, “Plea Made Against War on Busing,” Cincinnati Post, 29 March 1978, 11.

59 William A. Weathers, “School Chief Scraps Contested Plan,” Cincinnati Enquirer, 30 March 1978, A-1. 102

“I’m rather sick to death of hearing about racial balance in our society. I don’t think the real issue is quality education. I think the real issue is coercion. It’s coercion of the middle class by elitist bureaucrats, who are imposing their values on the rest of us.” Bishop said the enactment of any plan to coerce racial balance in schools would cause people to move from the community or to send their children to private schools. “I think this community is already condemned. It may be too late to do anything about it. I know that if I get the opportunity in the next couple of years, I will move away from this community.”

Greenhills resident Richard Fink:

Fink suggested it would be foolish to try to solve a racial imbalance that will not become serious for about five years, according to school administration estimates. “It’s like saying: Okay, I’m going to die eventually, but it’s not a serious problem now. But I’m going to cut my head off now so I won’t have to worry about it later.”

Joseph R. Lawhead said he spoke for 250 Greenhills residents:

“The school system is currently supplying educational excellence.” Neither the school board nor Harcum contended a busing plan would improve the quality of education. A plan to move any students from their neighborhood school to balance enrollment could “seriously damage the quality of education in this district.” He saw no need for the board to take any action. In a personal statement, Lawhead said residents are worried about what any alteration of school attendance areas would do to the value of their property. “The racists moved out a long time ago. You’re dealing with people who are afraid they’re going to forfeit their equity in their homes.” If the board goes ahead and adopts one of the eight other “alternatives to better balance schools,” Lawhead said, decline in property values here will be a “self-fulfilling prophecy.”

The superintendent said the district had to take some kind of action in order to be dismissed from the NAACP suit filed against Cincinnati and suburban school districts.

He stated there had been racial incidents at Greenhills High School. “We have had some racial incidents in schools with very low black enrollments. In most cases it’s difficult to tell what precipitated it.” Harcum also said it had been proven that the racial make-up of schools “can influence and we believe does influence educational opportunity.” He felt 103

changing racial imbalances could “lead to an acute problem” and that he saw “growing

problems related to cultural and racial differences.”60

School Board President Ciancio was also in attendance at the meeting. “Now it’s on

to what do we do. Decisions will have to be made carefully. The other eight alternatives

move more students, at a larger expenditure and in some cases send children of the same

family to different schools,” she said.

Harcum received an apology from one resident who had called Harcum’s plan a Polish joke the evening before. Gene Zgoda told Harcum, “I was a little heavy the other evening. I felt like a porcupine with ingrown quills.” She called for judgment and common sense and noted that the publicity had hurt the district.

Joe Lawhead warned the school board against alienating its supporters in the

community.

“You are too eager to accept the fact that Forest Park will become an all black community,” Lawhead said, “that Forest Park will default to a planned community concept of people of all races.” Lawhead also questioned the district’s use of statistics and said, “let’s get real estate steering on the table and get rid of it. If you eliminate that, what else do you have to do?” Let’s get on with it together,” he said, “it’s darn important to all of us.”61

A third meeting on April 3 drew an estimated 300 residents who were less

contentious. Resident’s suggestions and criticisms were offered calmly.

Forest Park resident Lovie Lowe spoke:

“Busing has turned out to be a boogie man. Let’s throw it aside. When the balance takes place, let’s say it’s done by transformation in the form of a motor vehicle that is painted yellow.”

60 Jim Greenfield, “One Plan Withdrawn, But Criticism Unabated,” Cincinnati Enquirer, 30 March 1978, C-2.

61 Gayle Harden, “Controversial School Busing Plan Scratched,” Cincinnati Post, 30 March 1978, 13. 104

Springfield Township resident Joe Keltch suggested the Citizen’s Advisory

Committee, a PTA group, select a task force to study the issue and report to the board.

Al Brungard, of Greenhills, recommended the district “clear out a space and everyone

goes to one school. It’s the only equitable way I see.

Mel Barbera of Springfield Township suggested passage of an ordinance requiring realtors to tell potential buyers about the community and school district. “The buyer, he said, might be required to sign a document stating that he had been shown housing in all areas of the district.”

Questions regarding the NAACP lawsuit were answered by board attorney Morelli.

The law required the district correct racial imbalances. If the board did nothing, it would be considered practicing intentional segregation if discriminatory patterns developed.

“I’ll have a hell of a shot at winning the case if something is done, but if nothing is done the case will be a hard one,” said Morelli. “The burden of proof goes to the school district.62

The final meeting on April 4 drew only 75 residents. School board members

responded to written questions and explained their positions on the remaining eight

alternatives.

Board President Jean Ciancio – “At this point I have no preference. I understand the pros and cons of the various alternatives, but it will be some time before we reach a preference.

Board Member Dr. Edward E. Lowe – “I have not dwelled on any alternative since we dropped Alternative seven.”

Board Member James D. Hodgson – “I for one have not made up my mind on which plan I like. I don’t see the plan I like.”

62 Gayle Harden, “School is Taking a new Perspective on Balance,” Cincinnati Post, 4 April 1978, 9. 105

Board Member Charlotte Philpott – “I’m not ready to make a commitment. I don’t see us making a decision for a while. I don’t think it would be fair. We’re still gathering information.”

Board Member William Waddell – I have not made up my mind yet. There are a lot of meetings ahead of us. I can only plead once again-please trust us. I think you counted on us to trust you.”

Springfield Township resident Fred Smith responded to Waddell’s comments,

acknowledging that he had not trusted the board initially when he attended one of the

earlier meetings.

“It seemed pretty well signed, sealed and delivered,” Smith said of his impression of the board’s intentions then. Prior to Tuesday afternoon’s meeting, “I had my doubts about some of the individuals involved. I’m glad we can dispel this distrust. I firmly believe that we ought to stand pat. I frankly don’t think it’s going to make any difference,” Smith said of proposed plans to correct racial imbalance.

Board attorney Morelli took exception to Smith’s comments, saying they were based

on ignorance of the laws. “I’ve read the law and cases. I’m operating under the

disadvantage of having read the U.S. Supreme Court and the federal judiciary decisions.

If something is not done the courts will look at the district’s inaction as an “intent to

discriminate,” the attorney said.63

After the negative reaction to not only the Harcum Plan, but the other eight

alternatives as well, all of them were scrapped. A new plan was submitted to the school

board by Superintendent Harcum that would allow students to transfer within the district

as long as the transfer would improve the racial balance of the schools. Students requesting a transfer would submit an application, which would need to be approved by both the superintendent and the school principal. The transfer would be denied if it did not improve the racial balance of each school involved, and did not create over-crowding

63 William A. Weathers and Bill Schickel, “School Board Still Undecided,” Cincinnati Enquirer, 5 April 1978, C-2. 106 in the receiving school. Harcum also said the school board was studying other plans to correct racial imbalances in the district. “Since we were not able to settle on an alternative, we’re doing what we can do for now.” He also stressed that the voluntary transfer plan was not the final alternative. “If it works, we won’t have to have a plan. If it doesn’t we will do what is necessary to take an alternative plan and make it effective.”

Not all district schools would be allowed to participate in the transfer program.

Winton Forest Elementary, which was already racially balanced, would not be allowed to send or receive students. Forest Park High School would not accept transfer students due to overcrowded conditions. Harcum did emphasize the transfer plan was the most liberal in the area. He also emphasized that the district would offer as many incentives as possible to encourage students to transfer. Students at the middle and high school levels would be able to participate in all extracurricular activities at their new schools.

Transportation would be provided and individualized treatment would be given to applicants as much as possible.

Harcum did not know if the plan would be opposed by residents in the district, but was hopeful it would be well received. “In our public meetings, several people recommended a voluntary transfer plan. No one spoke out against it. This will give us the opportunity to assess whether it will work. We will not be dealing with opinions then, but the facts.”64

The school board unanimously approved the voluntary transfer plan at its May 15 meeting. An estimated fifty residents attended the meeting, producing “some good discussion. It was nothing controversial.” Students most affected would be African

64 Gayle Harden, “Greenhills Transfer Plan Considered,” Cincinnati Post, 12 May 1978, 15.

107

American students at Forest Park High, who would be encouraged to transfer to

Greenhills High School to improve the racial balance at Greenhills High School and

alleviate overcrowded conditions at Forest Park. Transfers would only be granted to

African American students. Eighth grade students at Forest Park Middle School would be encouraged to transfer to Greenhills High School in the ninth grade. It was felt middle school students would be more receptive to transfer at the beginning of their high school careers.

One question by residents was whether the plan would make a substantial difference in correcting the districts racial imbalance. The superintendent said he was unsure of what effect the plan would have or how well it would be received by students and their parents. Individual conferences and small group discussions were planned. “We’ll do whatever is necessary to make sure they have the correct information.” Harcum also stated that the voluntary transfer plan was “what we can do for now.” If the plan was not successful in improving racial balance, “the board will do what is necessary to select an alternative and make it effective.”65 To my knowledge the Harcum Plan has not been

used in any district in the country to achieve racial balance.

FLEMING MEADOWS

In September, 1981 Fleming Meadows, a Springfield Township subdivision which

was part of the Greenhills-Forest Park School District, began to consider annexation to

the bordering community of Wyoming. Ellen Pelchovitz, a Fleming Meadows resident,

said she had been approached by Wyoming residents who were concerned with the

declining enrollment in the Wyoming School District. Annexation of the seventy

65 Gayle Harden, “Greenhills Board Approves Student Transfer Plan,” Cincinnati Post, 16 May 1978, 8.

108

Fleming Meadows homes would bring an additional 94 students to the Wyoming School

District. While stating she had no bad feelings toward the schools in Greenhills-Forest

Park, Pelchovitz, noted that the Wyoming schools would be closer to her home and she

would enjoy “being part of a better-defined community” like Wyoming rather than the sprawling Springfield Township. Wyoming school Superintendent Gary L. Payne asked the Wyoming city council “to favorable view this annexation,” noting that the district had space for the additional Fleming Meadows students. The transfer of Fleming Meadows would also add $85,000 a year to the tax base. As expected, the Greenhills-Forest Park

School Board opposed the transfer.66

On October 2, the Cincinnati Enquirer reported that the proposed annexation of the

subdivision was dead. Thirty-four Fleming Meadows residents who opposed the

annexation presented a petition to Wyoming City Manager Randy Forrester opposing the

transfer. The petition, as well as the opposition of the Greenhills-Forest Park School

District, made this a dead issue for Wyoming unless they received an official request for annexation.67

The issue of annexation of Fleming Meadows (now 70 homes) to Wyoming arose

again in 1986 when residents again requested annexation of the subdivision to Wyoming

thereby becoming a part of the Wyoming School District. Race was thought, by some, to

be an issue in the request. At the time Greenhills was predominantly white, Forest Park

was becoming increasingly African American, Fleming Meadows was predominantly

66 William A. Weathers, “Wyoming, Subdivision Pondering Annexation,” Cincinnati Enquirer, 13 September 1981, sec. B, p. 4.

67 William A. Weathers, “Subdivision Annexation Dead,” Cincinnati Enquirer, 2 October 1981, sec. D, p.2.

109

white, and Wyoming was predominately white. The Greenhills-Forest Park School

District, with a minority population of 41.5%, also had the highest percentage of minority students among Hamilton County suburban school districts. The minority population in neighboring Wyoming School District was 11%. Greenhills-Forest Park School Board attorney Arnold Morelli stated the board opposed the annexation because of the “effect on the racial balance of both school districts.” Joseph Denner, attorney for the residents,

“called that assessment entirely out of place and unwarranted.”68 Table 9 illustrates a

comparison of the racial composition of the two school districts and the percentage of students going on to college.

Table 9: Racial Composition Comparison

Greenhills-Forest Park Wyoming County Average School District School District (including city of Cincinnati) Racial Composition 1970-1971 2.5% 8.9%

Racial Composition 1987 39.1% 10.6% 31.9%

College Bound Students 50% 90%

Source: Steve Hoffman, “Wyoming School Transfers Are Delayed,” Cincinnati Enquirer, 4 November 1986, sec. A, p. 10.

Fleming Meadows residents refuted the racial basis of their request, citing a desire to improve the quality of education their children received as the reason they wished to change school districts. A larger percentage of students in the Wyoming School District

68 Laurie Petrie, “Parents, Schools Locked in Dispute Over Annexation,” Cincinnati Enquirer, 20 January 1981, sec. B, p. 3.

110

went on to attend college.69 Another Fleming Meadows resident, Marcy Oenbrink stated

that she did not “know that the (Wyoming) school system is that much better than the

Greenhills-Forest Park schools,”70 that the difference in the number of college bound

students could be due to residents of Wyoming being more able to afford the tuition.

Even though fewer students in the Greenhills-Forest Park School District went on to

college, district students performed above national norms on standardized tests. Ms.

Oenbrink was against the annexation because Fleming Meadows would also need to pay

Wyoming’s higher earnings tax. Ron Havenstein, a resident of Fleming Meadows for

thirteen years, also opposed the transfer. Havenstein stated Greenhills-Forest Park “has

an excellent program and I don’t see enough significant advantage in the educational

program of Wyoming to try to go into that system…When you pin down the residents

who are initiating this the assumption is that being part of Wyoming and its school

system will have a positive effect on property values.”71 Havenstein, whose children

attended public school in Greenhills-Forest Park up to the seventh grade when they transferred to parochial schools, added that about half the children in Fleming Meadows attended parochial schools. In September, 1986, sixty-six homes in Fleming Meadows were annexed to Wyoming.72 It was, however, up to the state school board to decide

whether there could be a change in school districts.

69 According to Springfield Township Trustee Carl Abel, transferring Fleming Meadows to Wyoming would increase the value of the homes by at least $10,000.

70 Steve Hoffman, “Fleming Meadows Shift Costly,” Cincinnati Enquirer, 22 January 1986, sec. E, p. 3.

71 Laurie Petrie, “Parents Locked in Dispute over Annexation.” Cincinnati Enquirer, 20 January 1986, sec. B, p. 3

72 Paul Clark, “Fleming Meadows School case to be heard,” Cincinnati Enquirer, 11 May 1986, sec. E, p.1.

111

In November 1986, a hearing officer for the State Board of Education recommended

allowing the transfer of the Fleming Meadows subdivision to Wyoming stating “he felt

Fleming Meadows was a natural logical part of Wyoming, it was not racially motivated,

and it did not create a segregated effect.”73 The Ohio Board of Education granted

Greenhills Forest-Park School District a thirty day delay in the transfer due to the objections of the district. Greenhills-Forest Park Superintendent Dr. Robert Kreiner stated that if the transfer was allowed it “could trigger as many as four or five other

Springfield Township residential areas to consider initiating similar requests”74 to leave

the district. Kreiner also stated that the transfer would mean a $100,000 loss of revenues

to the cash strapped district. The Ohio Board of Education turned down the request of

Fleming Meadows residents in May 1987.

The Greenhills-Forest Park School District was at a critical juncture in its history at

this time. The school board gave this as the primary reason for objecting to the transfer

of Fleming Meadows to the Wyoming School District. The district was attempting to

provide a quality, integrated school system. The loss of Fleming Meadows could set a

precedent and perhaps cause other mostly white areas to attempt annexation to less

integrated abutting school districts. This would further upset the racial balance of the

district in addition to lowering enrollment.75

73 Steve Hoffman, “Wyoming School Transfers Are Delayed,” Cincinnati Enquirer, 4 November 1986, sec. A, p. 10.

74 Ibid., 10.

75 Paul Clark, “Fleming Meadows School Case to be Heard,” Cincinnati Enquirer, 11 May 1987, sec. E, p. 1.

112

Fleming Meadows residents would again request a transfer to the Wyoming School

District in 1990.76 Because Fleming Meadows was now a part of Wyoming and the

children in the subdivision participated in Wyoming activities, residents felt it was more

appropriate that their children attend Wyoming schools. In March 1986, residents

presented a petition, signed by 63 residents, to the Greenhills-Forest Park School Board requesting the transfer. The board, in a split decision, voted against the transfer of the area. Recently elected school board members Louis Lococo, from Springfield Township, and Michael Woods, from Greenhills, voted to allow the transfer.77 The three board

members from Forest Park opposed the annexation. Both sides presented their cases to a

state hearing officer on October 23, 1990 in Columbus, Ohio. Wyoming superintendent,

Dr. Gary Payne stated that Wyoming would not oppose the transfer if two conditions

were met. The transfer had to be approved by the state board of education, and it had to

be a lawful transfer that did not infringe upon the rights of any students. The addition of

the 19 students would not present a hardship to the Wyoming school system. “We would

have practically no disruption at all, Payne said.” Fleming Meadows resident Greta

Merten stated she believed the reason Greenhills-Forest Park opposed the merger was because of the loss of tax money. “They’re saying it’s for racial reasons, but we think they fear other neighborhoods might want to leave too.” 78 Superintendent Charles Kron

estimated the loss of tax revenue to be $112,000 at this time.

76 The subdivision was now a part of the city of Wyoming having been transferred in 1986.

77 Sue Kiesewetter, “Board Divided over Housing,” Cincinnati Enquirer, 12 October 1990, sec. 2 Extra, p. 5.

78 Sue Kiesewetter, “Subdivision Transfer to Wyoming District Up to State Officials,” Cincinnati Enquirer, 18 September, sec. Extra, p. 8.

113

The racial make-up of Fleming Meadows had changed since the last request for

transfer four years earlier. Seventeen percent of the 229 Fleming Meadows residents

were now minorities. Twenty-one percent of the 51 school age children were minorities.

Thirty-two of the children attended private or parochial schools and of the remaining 19

children, 7 were minorities. Greenhills-Forest Park School District now had a 44% minority student population and the racial make-up of the district would remain

unchanged. Wyoming School District had a minority population of 12.9% and the

addition of Fleming Meadows would increase that to 13.4%79

In April a hearing officer for the state recommended not allowing the transfer of

Fleming Meadows but in June the Ohio School Board agreed to the transfer. Winton

Woods (the name of the school district had changed by this time) Superintendent Kron

estimated the loss of the approximately 20 students at $160,000 in property tax and state

subsidies for the cash strapped district. Winton Woods School Board President Emily

Spicer, a retired Cincinnati Public School teacher and African American, stated she felt it

set a dangerous precedent and would hurt the racial balance in both districts. “My major

concern is that it’s a segregated act, Spicer said, It sets a precedent and opens the door for

others’ who don’t like the racial makeup of the district to petition to leave.”80

The Winton Woods School Board did not appeal the decision. Superintendent Kron

now estimated the loss of the 20 Fleming Meadows students would cost the district

$162,000 annually, $112,000 in property taxes and $50,000 in state subsidies. This came

at a time when the district was forced to cut $1.4 million from its budget for the coming

79 Ibid., 8.

80 Sue Kiesewetter, “State OKs Subdivision Transfer – Children will attend school in Wyoming,” Cincinnati Enquirer, 14 June 1991, sec. Extra, p.1.

114

year due to the failure of two levies. Wyoming Superintendent Payne stated there would

be minimal effect on the Wyoming School District. Payne stated, “This situation of these

people (in Fleming Meadows) being citizens of Wyoming but not being able to send their

children to Wyoming schools has been a difficult situation for them. And an important

one. We will accommodate them in the best way we’re able.”81 Despite the school

districts fears, no other sections of the community requested annexation to another

district.

The district struggled with the issue of school integration along with the rest of the

country. The inclusion of suburban school districts, including Greenhills-Forest Park, in

the Bronson lawsuit in September 1976 caused the district to look carefully at the racial balance in the schools. Imbalance in racial patterns was due to several factors including the exclusion of African-Americans from Greenhills in the 1930’s, the growth of Forest

Park as an integrated community, and the clustering of low-income African-Americans in sections of Forest Park. The district, along with the country, was attempting to address the problem of segregation through the schools. Further problems would face the district due to a decline in school population necessitating the closing of school buildings and financial difficulties that face most school districts. The next chapter covers the difficulties in the district through these turbulent years and assesses where the district is today.

81 Sue Kiesewetter, “Transfer ruling a blow to Winton Woods Budget,” Cincinnati Enquirer, 14 June 1991, sec. Extra, p. 4

115

DECLINING ENROLLMENT, RACE, AND

THE CLOSING OF A HIGH SCHOOL

Racial balance, segregated housing, and integration, which are generally seen as inner city problems, were also seen as problems in this suburban area of Greater Cincinnati.

Greenhills-Forest Park was one of the few integrated suburban school districts in

Hamilton County and was in a struggle to remain an integrated district. Although enrollment in the district dropped by 38% from 1972 to 1986, minority enrollment had increased by the same amount in the same time period. The increase in minority population, however, was not uniform district wide. This shift in minority population resulted in four of the districts elementary schools failing to meet state racial balance guidelines.82 Forest View, located in Forest Park, had a 69.6% minority population in

1986, while Beechwoods Elementary, located in Greenhills, was 83.3% white (16.7%

minority). The racial gap between the two high schools was also widening with Forest

Park High School having a 49.8% minority enrollment compared to 29.7% minority

enrollment at Greenhills High School.

Three things were happening within the school district at this time. Contrary to earlier

projections, school population was declining, even though more houses were being built in Forest Park. Student population in the Greenhills area of the district in particular was declining as children grew up and parents continued to occupy their homes. While it is

true that school population was declining throughout Hamilton County, few districts had

declined as rapidly as in Greenhills-Forest Park. The district began closing elementary school buildings. Table 10 illustrates the elementary school closings.

82 The Ohio Department of Education states that in integrated school districts all schools should be within 15%, plus or minus, of the districts total minority percentage. 82 116

Table 10: Elementary School Closings

School Year Closed Location Damon Road* 1981 Greenhills Kemper Heights 1995 Forest Park Forest View 1998 Forest Park Cameron Park 2007 Forest Park Source: School Board President John Pennycuff, 2007 *The Damon Road school was sold in August, 1982, for $278,000.

The district was also struggling financially as costs increased faster than revenues.

Many people assume that school taxes increase when their property values increase. The portion of property taxes the school receives, however, remains constant even if other portions of the property tax bill increase. The only way for schools to increase revenues is to place levies on the ballot for additional millage. In addition, the changing racial composition of the district added an atypical dimension to the school problem. Since the beginning of construction of Forest Park there were conflicts between the two communities that shared a school system. As Superintendent Kreiner noted, “Our minority growth has occurred not overall, but in specific areas, which has caused several schools to be racially isolated.” That the increase in minority population was occurring only in Forest Park made the situation even more difficult. At the time of the Fleming

Meadows conflict, school board member Jack DeBord stated, “It seems to always fall to the schools to solve problems created by society.” DeBord was referring to the issue of integration.83

Also of concern to the school board was that “tipping” would occur. Tipping is a phenomenon where a segregated white school undergoes transformation through integration and re-emerges as a segregated black school. “The concern is that once you

83 Laurie Petrie, “Schools’ Racial Balance Threatened,” Cincinnati Post, 17 December 1986, sec. B, p. 1.

117

get into a certain percentage (of minority population) you start to tip and rapidly rise in

minorities and I don’t think anybody in the district regardless of race, creed, or color

wants that,” stated Terry Russell, school board president. The Greenhills-Forest Park

School Board was committed to an integrated school system feeling an integrated school was a more accurate “mirror of the real world.”

The issue of racial steering was still an issue because it did not seem the increase in minority population in Forest Park could have occurred by chance. A 1984 study of real estate practices by HOME (Housing Opportunities Made Equal) found that 82% of whites who were questioned were shown houses in white neighborhoods, with 18% being shown houses in integrated or areas that were more African American. HOME concluded that patterns of suburbanization did not happen by chance or choice and that if allowed to continue “now integrated suburban communities will become resegregated.”

Forest Park resident and Coldwell Banker realtor Wayne Coates disagreed and felt economics, not racial steering, shaped the housing market in Forest Park. “Property values, while growing, tend to be lower in black neighborhoods and there may be racial undertones to that. In addition, families—usually white—who want to move to more expensive homes find the opportunities limited in Forest Park.”

The financial situation of the school district also loomed large at this time. The school district had the second highest voted tax millage in the county, behind the eastern suburban area of Mariemont, and the second poorest tax base, behind neighboring Mt.

Healthy. 84

The three issues of declining enrollment, financial difficulties and racial isolation

84 Ibid. 118

would create problems that would impact the school district for the next several years.

The school board was re-examining an enrollment study from 1982 that recommended

closing three schools and a long range planning committee was expected to come out

with recommendations on January 20, 1987. The situation at the high school level was

particularly difficult. In the late 1970’s the district had redrawn boundaries shifting

students from a predominantly African American section of Forest Park to Greenhills

High School. In 1976 students in the “R” section in the North West section of the

district, and students in the “H” section in the North East section of the district were

transferred to Greenhills High School. The plan was controversial at the time but resulted

in reducing overcrowding at Forest Park High School and improving the racial balance at

Greenhills High School. This transfer of students meant busing African American

students past Forest Park High School to Greenhills High School. Assistant State

Superintendent G. Robert Bowers said further reassignments should be along similar

lines of improving racial balance between the school buildings in the district.85

The previous year (1985) the district had won a $720,000 federal grant to establish a

magnet school program. The district used the money to set up a magnet program among

the districts five elementary schools. This move was intended to attract African

American students to predominantly white schools and whites students to predominantly

African American schools. The federal guidelines considered a magnet program

successful if 3% of students voluntarily enrolled in a different school. The program

appeared to be successful and the district was considering applying for an additional $1.8

85 The district, it will be remembered, was addressing the Bronson lawsuit in Cincinnati and trying to come up with a desegregation plan that would satisfy the courts. The district had rejected the nine alternative plans presented by the school board, relying primarily on voluntary transfers within the district. African- American students living in these less affluent areas of the district shouldered most of the burden. 119

million grant to expand the program to all ten of the districts school. On November 6,

1986, the school board decided against applying for the grant, reasoning it would further

complicate the districts efforts to solve its financial and enrollment problems. The

district took other cost saving measures.

The student population at the high school level was not sufficient to offer all classes at both high schools. Courses that attracted fewer than 15 students were offered at only one

location, with students being bussed to classes at the other high school. The single site

classes were split between the two campuses, which are about two miles apart.

According to Superintendent Robert Kreiner, eight to ten courses would be offered this way for the 1986-1987 school year. This move, recommended by the District Long-

Range Planning Committee, allowed the district to continue to offer higher level classes without impacting the district financially. In explaining the decision, school board

member Charlotte Philpott stated, “We have to live within our present monies up into the

1990’s so the charge we as board members have put out to the administration is, ‘You

better effectively run our schools, but wring as much education out of them as you

can.’”86

Race issues continued to be in evidence in the school district. Greenhills High School

Principal Annie Wade, and African American, stated she thought the district was “in a

situation that is still too unique to be comfortable for many people. We have a chance to

make this really work for all our students—racially mixed high quality schools.” Race seemed to be more of concern to parents, especially those living in Greenhills, than to the students. Marcus Evans, a junior at Forest Park High School stated, “I see racial

86 Laurie Petrie, “Greenhills Plans to Consolidate Some Courses,” Cincinnati Post, 10 February 1986, sec. B, p.1.

120

prejudice with the parents, not the kids. Before I moved out here, I didn’t have one white friend.”87

At their April, 1987 meeting the board announced they would be dismissing 16

teachers. The reasons cited for the cuts included receiving less lottery money, the elimination of federal money for magnet programs, and a lack of growth in the tax base.

District enrollment, which peaked at 8,400 in 1973, was expected to be 5,150 for 1986-

1987, and to further decline to 4,875 in 1987-1988.88

Greenhills-Forest Park Superintendent Robert Kreiner addressed a crowd of 500

residents at Lakeside Elementary who had gathered after hearing rumors that Greenhills

High School would be closed. The meeting was organized by the newly formed group

Citizens Concerned for Community Schools (CCCS). Pink flyers had been placed in

mailboxes saying the school would close. Emotions were high and student Catherine

Lennon asked if she would graduate from Greenhills High School (GHS) in two years or

“from some unknown place that these people mix up for us.” Dr. Kreiner told the

audience that there were no immediate plans for closing GHS but that changes needed to

be made because of declining enrollment. The student population had declined by 3,400

in fifteen years. “It doesn’t take a mental giant to figure we have empty classrooms,”

stated Kreiner. CCCS co-chairman Steve Destafano said if school closings were

necessary his group favored closing the two middle schools and sending seventh and

eighth graders to the respective high schools in the community. “That way, we still

maintain our community schools, which is what everyone wants,” said Destefano.

87 Laurie Petrie, “Schools’ Racial Balance Threatened,” Cincinnati Post, 17 December 1986, sec. B, p. 1.

88 Paul Clark and Steve Hoffman, “Greenhills Budget Forces Dismissal of 16 Instructors,” Cincinnati Enquirer, 22 April 1987, sec. F, p. 1.

121

Another attendee, James Emig, a Greenhills High School graduate, said “These people are willing to bite the bullet if a tax increase is necessary. The overwhelming message is

‘Don’t close Greenhills High School.’” It was suggested that Greenhills High School close because it was the older of the two buildings and because 70% of the district’s students lived in Forest Park.89

The issue of keeping both high schools open while enrollment was declining would be a volatile issue in the district for the next few years. Greenhills considered its high school crucial to its identity and autonomy as a community. According to CCCS “The loss of the high school would be devastating to the community’s sense of identity and its children’s social adjustment.” Keeping GHS open, however, depended on the other communities because 49% of the students a GHS resided in Forest Park, 23% in

Springfield Township, and only 32% in Greenhills. The school board presented several options to the community, all rejected by CCCS, who stated they felt the problem was one of fiscal responsibility and suggested cutting back on staffing at the central office and other administrative changes.90

Three incumbent school board candidates were up for reelection in the upcoming election, President Jack DeBord, Sue Heidotting, and Terrence Russell, all from Forest

Park. All three incumbents were defeated and Michael Woods, from Greenhills, and

Louis Lococo, from Springfield Township, who ran a joint campaign, were elected with

23% of the vote. Emily Spicer, a retired city of Cincinnati educator and Forest Park

89 Laurie Petrie, Greenhills School to Stay but Officials Admit to Worries,” Cincinnati Post, 30 July 1987, sec. A, p. 1.

90 Tim Henderson, “Residents Face Tough Decision,” Cincinnati Enquirer, 28 September 1987, sec. C, p. 1. Tim Henderson, “Forest Park Weighs School Closing Plans,” Cincinnati Enquirer, 7 October 1987, sec. B, p. 1. Tim Henderson, “Greenhills- Forest Park Airs School Plan,” Cincinnati Enquirer, 13 October 1987, sec. A, p. 2.

122

resident was also elected with 14% of the vote. Woods and Lococo ran on a platform of

spending cuts rather than a tax increase, more accountability in finances, trimming the

central office, and maintaining community schools.91

The following January the new school board announced that the proposed

reorganization of the district closing one or more of the schools would be postponed.

School Board President David Gustafson said the reorganization was being postponed because the three newly elected board members had been familiarizing themselves with the district’s finances and enrollment and required more time to review options. It was announced that 25 administrators and teachers would need to be laid off in order to cut

$1.2 million from the budget. The decision was praised by CCCS co-chairman John

Carstens who stated “We’re glad that they’re looking at all sides (to cut from) rather than one side – teachers.” In order to keep all the schools open the district would need to pass a 29-mill tax levy. “Greenhills-Forest Park already had the second highest voted tax millage (56.5 mills) and the nest-to-lowest tax base in the county.”92

Declining enrolment and financial difficulties increased in 1988 creating more conflict

within the district and between the communities of Greenhills and Forest Park. In March,

1988, the board announced plans to combine the districts two high schools and two

middle schools into one school at each level. The board also agreed to redraw elementary

school boundary lines to try to achieve better racial balance. They also planned to

eliminate twenty staff members in order to balance the budget for the 1988-1989 school

year. Because the closing of schools was so controversial, the board solicited help from

91 Tim Henderson, “School Board’s Power Shifts,” Cincinnati Enquirer, 5 November 1987, sec. E, p. 1

92 Sue Kiesewetter, “25 Layoffs Loom in Greenhills Schools, Cincinnati Enquirer, 28 January 1988, sec. D, p.1.

123

the School Board Advisory Council. This group consisted of 21 representatives from the

three communities and each of the elementary and middle schools and had been in existence more than 25 years.93 The most controversial part of the plan was the closing

of a Middle School and a High School and renaming the combined schools Greenhills

High and Forest Park Junior High.94

In the fall of 1989, Superintendent Kron reported enrollment had dropped to 2,613, a

loss of 87 students, or 1.8%.95 Enrollment at the elementary level, however, had

increased by 43 students. Tables 11 and 12 give the total enrollment by grade level and

school in October 1989.

Table 11: 1989 Elementary Enrollment Figures

K 1 2 3 4 5 6 Beechwoods 55 79 67 81 89 72 72 Cameron Park 104 68 67 56 67 73 49 Forest View 43 54 48 50 50 50 53 Kemper Heights 40 53 51 64 69 71 59 Lakeside 63 55 67 63 77 52 74 Winton Forest 52 53 63 61 48 71 60

Totals 357 362 363 375 400 389 367 Source: Sue Kieswetter, “School Enrollment Drops,” Cincinnati Enquirer, 17 October 1989, Extra-5.

The district continued to experience a racial imbalance between schools. Official

enrolment figures revealed 45.8% of the districts 4,746 were members of a minority.

93 The communities were Greenhills, Forest Park, parts of Springfield Township, and Fleming Meadows. Although Fleming Meadows had successfully transferred to Wyoming, students in this area still attended school in the Greenhills-Forest Park School District.

94 Sue Kiesewetter, “Schools Combine, Slashing Positions,” Cincinnati Enquirer, 22 March 1988, sec. A, p. 3. Sue Kiesewetter, “Greenhills Rolls up His Sleeves on School Plan,” Cincinnati Enquirer, 24 March 1988, sec. A, p. 1

95 Official enrollment totals are taken the first week in October, as required by law. This determines the amount of state aid a district receives.

124

There were 2,106 African-American students, 2,572 white students, 48 Asian students, 17

Table 12: 1989 Middle and High School Enrollment Figures

7 8 9 10 11 12 Middle School 344 333 Forest Park H. S. 227 205 186 155 Greenhills H. S. 209 151 157 166 Totals 436 356 343 321 Source: Sue Kieswetter, “School Enrollment Drops,” Cincinnati Enquirer, 17 October 1989, Extra-5.

Hispanic students, and 3 Indian/Alaskan students. Table 13 gives a breakdown of the minority population by school.96

Table 13: 1989 Minority Population at District Schools

School Minority Population Beechwoods 15.9%

Cameron 46.9% Park Forest View 71.6%

Kemper 54.3% Heights Lakeside 24.4%

Winton 70.6% Forest Forest Park 48.2% Middle Forest Park 58% High Greenhills 32.7% High Source: Sue Kieswetter, “School Enrollment Drops,” Cincinnati Enquirer, 17 October 1989, Extra-5.

96 Sue Kieswetter, “School Enrollment Drops,” Cincinnati Enquirer, 17 October 1989, Extra-5. 125

The Alternative Plan Committee, a group of 20 residents who opposed the boards plan, presented its proposal to the board at an open meeting held at Forest Park High School.

Highlights of the alternative plan were:

1. Effective September 1988, close Greenhills Middle School (this is the original

Community Building built by the government) and offer it for lease to business.

2. Move the sixth graders at GMS to the elementary schools and seventh and eighth

grade to Forest Park Middle School.

3. For school year 1989-1990, combine grades 10-12 at Forest Park High School.

4. Send most seventh and eighth grade students to what was currently Greenhills

High School, sending the remaining middle school students, including

handicapped students, to Winton Forest Elementary School.

5. Close two elementary schools and move these students to the current Forest Park

Middle School.

Plan designers felt this plan would save the district $55,000 as well as increase revenues by $125,000 by leasing GMS. School Board President David Gustafson said the board would study the alternate proposal and reply at next week’s board meeting.

When opponents of the boards plan also objected to this new proposal, the crowd of about 33 responded with cheers.97

The board’s decision created an uproar in the community. On April 19, the board held

its meeting at Greenhills Middle School, attracting 450 residents. At this time the board

backed off its plan to consolidate the schools and voted 3-2 to hire a consultant to help

decide how to best use the district’s ten buildings. Newly elected Board Member Emily

97 “Alternative Plans Offered in School Boundary Dispute,” Cincinnati Enquirer, 12 April 1988, sec. A, p. 10. 126

Spicer proposed rescinding the board’s earlier decision because of the costs associated

with the previous proposed plan. Renovations to Greenhills High School, including

expanding the parking lot, transportation, and adding portable classrooms would cost

$325,000. In addition it would cost an additional $150,000 to install ramps and an

elevator to make the building handicap accessible. The meeting was contentious with a

banner hanging from the balcony declaring, “Board members need remedial math.” After

the board’s action the microphone was open to the audience. Eric Ellis said, “Now I have

a real good feeling inside. I think at least three board members are listening to us.”

Board Member Charlotte Philpot stated, “I think what we’re doing by hiring an impartial

person not hung up on the emotions each one of us on this board has…is good.”

Audience members wanted more and asked that students, parents, and staff members be

included in deliberations.98

The board hired consultants from Miami University in nearby Oxford, Ohio, headed

by Dr. Eldon Wiley. The group was given six tasks:

• Inspect and evaluate the physical conditions and dimensions of the districts

buildings.

• Assess potential residential development in the district.

• Make accurate student enrollment projections.

• Make recommendations for the best configuration of grades and schools.

• Delineate costs of any structural modifications that may be needed.

• Develop an implementation plan.99

98 Sue Kiesewetter, “Board Backs off Reorganization,” Cincinnati Enquirer, 19 April, 1988, sec. A, p. 1.

99 Brandon Wiers, “Some Significant Events in the Last 15 Years of the GH-FP School District,” 13, October 1988. 127

Dr. Wiley released his teams recommendations to the board the following

August. The consultants report differed substantially from the reorganization plan the

board had adopted the previous March. Their recommendations included:

• Have all seventh and eight grade students attend Forest Park Middle School.

• Have Kindergarten through sixth grade in four elementary schools –

Beechwoods, Forest View, Lakeside, and Winton Forest.

• Keep one of the three remaining buildings – Greenhills Middle School,

Cameron Park Elementary, and Kemper Heights Elementary – on a standby

basis and close the other two. Space in the standby building could be leased

when not needed.

• Keep both Forest Park High School and Greenhills High School open.

Dr. Wiley said it didn’t take his team long to realize there was no ideal plan or perfect solution. “You are in pretty good shape.” The residents, who packed the auditorium in

Forest Park High School, clapped wildly after each recommendation. Board President

David Gustafson said a decision would be reached by board members by September

19.100

In October, Superintendent Kron announced the Wiley plan was unworkable because

of the number of elementary school students, and the physical limitations of Forest Park

Middle School. It was the opinion of the administration that only Greenhills Middle

School had sufficient space to accommodate grades 7 and 8, and that six elementary buildings were needed. Implementation of this “modified Wiley plan” would result in an estimated savings of $590,000. A second alternative plan was presented that would

100 Sue Kiesewetter, “School Merger Rebutted,” Cincinnati Enquirer, 16 August 1988, ?????

128

create a 10-12 building at Forest Park High School and a 7-9 building at Greenhills High

School, with five elementary buildings. Implementation of this plan would give the

district an estimated savings of $590,000. A third alternative, to do nothing, was also

presented, in which case it was predicted the district would run out of money in 1990,

requiring placing a levy on the ballot in 1989.

Despite strong objections from the Greenhills community, the districts reorganization

plan went forward. In September, 1989, the 735 seventh and eighth grade students began

school at a new junior high housed in the former Forest Park Middle School, renamed

Greenhills-Forest Park Middle School. This was an historic first for the district as all

students in the district at these grade levels came together in one school. According to

assistant principal Carlo Micale, “It went absolutely fantastic. If this is any indication of

the way it’s going to go this year, we are going to have a great year.” District wide

enrollment was at 4,645, down from 4,833 and lower than the projected 4,783.101 It became apparent that the district would have to get rid of some of its buildings to cut costs and raise revenue. Early in 1990, School Board member John Pennycuff presented a resolution to sell or lease the central administrative office building102 and the former

Greenhills Middle School. School Board member Louis Lococo was strongly opposed to the measure stating the facilities committee was committed to keeping the old Greenhills

Middle School Building. Remember this was the original school constructed in the

1930’s when the town was built and the community was strongly attached to this

101 Sue Kiesewetter, “Revamped Schools are big Success,” Cincinnati Enquirer, 30 August 1989, sec. F, p. 1

102 The district was unable to sell this building, located on Kemper Road in front of Winton Woods High School, and it is still used as the administration building.

129

building. Lococo, along with board member Michael Woods, from Greenhills, favored a

resolution that would sell or lease only the administration building and move administrative offices to the old GMS, located on the Greenhills Village Commons.

Board members John Pennycuff, Emily Spicer and David Gustafson voted against the

measure. The board’s decision went against the recommendation of the district building

usage committee, chaired by Lococo, which recommended against selling the middle

school building in case it was needed in the future.103

The school year was coming to an end and some students at Greenhills-Forest Park

Middle School expressed sadness that they would not be attending school with new friends the following year. The following year the students would separate with some attending Greenhills High School and the rest attending Forest Park High School. Shana

Cornelious had expected trouble when school opened in August, anticipating fights between the two groups. “I thought everything was going to be a mess and there would be fights between kids from Greenhills and kids from Forest Park. There weren’t any. It only took about two weeks for people to mix. I’ve made lots of new friends,” said Shana.

Now at the end of the year Shana said, “It’s going to be hard not to see them next year. I think they should combine the two (high) schools so we don’t lose friends.” Shana was from Forest Park, but Greenhills student Abby Linville expressed similar feelings. Abby stated, “I hope they combine the high schools soon. I’m beginning to feel like a traveling salesmen. I think I’ve been to almost every secondary school building.” The transition

103 Sue Kiesewetter, “Greenhills-Forest Park to put old School on Market,” Cincinnati Enquirer, 27 February 1990, sec. Extra, p. 6.

130

team of parents, students, educators, and community members were praised for the work

they had done in making the transition a smooth one.104

The districts declining enrollment and budget problems continued. In June 1990,

school board member John Pennycuff proposed a resolution to combine the secondary

school population into one building to be housed at the current Forest Park High School

building. Pennycuff estimated the savings to the school district would be $5,143,117

over ten years. The proposal allowed for a year of transition during the 1991-1992 school

year at which time a 27,000 square foot addition would be added to the high school to

accommodate the anticipated 1,200 to 1,400 students. During the transition year ninth

grade students would be housed at the current Greenhills-Forest Park Middle School, grades ten through twelve would be housed at Forest Park High School, and seventh and eighth grade students would be housed at Greenhills High School. The board also planned to vote on placing a 9.75 mill property tax levy on the November ballot. Each mill was expected to raise $262,000.105

The school board scheduled a vote on the levy and merger plan for June 18, 1990.

Board members Gustavson and Pennycuff favored the merger, while Lococo and Wood

opposed it. Board President Emily Spicer had not revealed her position. The merger, in

addition to closing GHS, would provide savings that would allow for hiring an additional

school nurse, increase programs for the handicapped, more educational programs, expansion of the music programs, and $800,000 for school maintenance. Two years ago when the district attempted to consolidate the high schools they hired Miami University

104 Sue Kiesewetter, “Greenhills-Forest Park School Works,” Cincinnati Enquirer, 12 June 1990, sec. Extra, p. 4.

105 Sue Kiesewetter, “2 Schools May Merge Programs,” Cincinnati Enquirer, 12 June 1990, sec. A, p. 8. 131

to make a study of the school needs. At the time the consultants recommended

consolidating the middle schools but keeping the two high schools. Lococo used the

study results to state that the timing was wrong. The Miami study recommended against

merging the high schools until the student population at the secondary level fell below

1,000. Woods commented, “Why not follow the recommendations of the Miami

University consultants and keep both high schools open? People do not support this

merger. The inevitable result of pushing it down every one’s throat will be to create an

irreparable division.” Forest Park resident Brenda Mattox disagreed with Woods.

Mattox said, “I think this plan is great. The Forest Park building is a much better

building and that’s where the high school should be. If the kids can get a better education

through merger, that’s what it’s all about.” Springfield Township residents John and

Jackie Seymour agreed. Mrs. Seymour said, “If they can give the children more opportunities to learn in one school building, I’m certainly in favor of that.” Greenhills

resident Jeff McCoy, as expected, was against the merger. He stated he had moved to

Greenhills so his children could attend school in Greenhills. McCoy summed up the

feeling of many in his community by stating, “I want the Greenhills High School to stay

here. It’s the center of our community.”106

Jason Kuznicki, a Springfield Township student who would attend Greenhills High

School, presented his plan to the school board. Combining the two schools, in his

opinion, would result in overcrowding and a loss of school pride. “There is no need to

combine high schools now,” said Kuznicki. “It’s too risky; education will be hurt. The

106 Nadine Louthan, “School Merger Vote Set: Forest Park, Greenhills Wait,” Cincinnati Post, 18 June 1990. sec. A, p. 4. Sue Kiesewetter, “Board Hearing Today on High School Merger,” Cincinnati Enquirer, 18 June 1990, sec. A, p. 7.

132 best situation is to have two nine thru twelve high schools like the consultants (from

Miami University) recommended (in 1988). They’re the experts; let’s listen to them.”

He also felt a student liaison should be appointed to the school board to provide input from the students who would be most affected by the actions of the school board.107

Athletic coaches at the two schools weighed in on the controversy as well. Greenhills soccer coach Glen Gibson was unsure whether he would have a job after the merger took place. As the parent of four children, however, he was primarily concerned with the education his children would receive. Forest Park’s athletic director, Ed Westerkamp, was concerned that the merger would push the school form Division II to Division I. “No one knew how the decision would come down, so nothing has been discussed in the way of athletics,” Westerkamp said. “At Forest Park, sports pretty much stand on their own.

The school board pays for transportation, coaches and certain other fees.” Greenhills athletic director Charlie Frederick’s response was one of frustration. “I’ve been through enough during the past few years and I’m not going to worry about the board’s decision,”

Frederick said. “It’s been crisis after crisis and I’ll go along with whatever decision the board makes.”108

The Greenhills-Forest Park Board of Education voted on the two proposals when it met before several hundred people at Forest Park High School. When the board voted 3-

2 to merge the two high schools, with board members Lococo and Woods in opposition, the crowd erupted in loud shouts of disapproval. They did, however, applaud when they rejected putting the 9.75 mill operating levy on the ballot. Greenhills resident Paul D.

107 Sue Kiesewetter, “High School boy offer own plan, urges student input be allowed,” Cincinnati Enquirer, 18 June 1990, sec. A, p. 8.

108 Dave Schutte, “Coaches Eye Fallout From School Merger,” Cincinnati Enquirer, 19 June 1990, sec. C, p. 5. 133

Richardson yelled, “Spend the money on education. We have the buildings. Wake up!”

Richardson announced he would run for a seat on the school board. Jeff McCoy, also of

Greenhills, said Greenhills High School was one of the reasons property values had

remained high in the community. Superintendent Charles Kron was instructed by the

board to study what cuts could be made and to report to the board in August.

Student also voiced their concerns. Josh Riedmiller, a junior at GHS would be in the

first class to graduate from the combined high school and expressed apprehension. “I

think it’s stupid. I don’t think it will work,” he said. “People will be fighting and stuff.

You should be able to graduate from the school you started at. It will be different. I

would rather not do it.” Sophomore Mark Heltzer, from FPH, said he felt the combined

schools would be a good thing, worrying only that it might be crowded. “Students who

went to the middle school (which was merged last year) said they had no problems with

it, so I don’t think we will have any problems either.” 109

Greenhills residents were not happy with the decision. When the schools were

considering merging two years ago the high school was going to remain in Greenhills.

Now the combined high school would be in Forest Park, which was a newer facility.

Residents lamented that part of the community would die when GHS closed. To

residents of the tight knit community of Greenhills, the high school was more than just a building. “It was a symbol of success, a warehouse of memories, a focal point of community pride.” Resident’s emotions ran more toward sadness than concern about what would happen. Students again weighed in on the issue. “We’ll be competing for

(positions on) sports (teams), scholarships, class rankings, everything,” said 16 year old

109 Nick Miller and Nadine Louthan, “Schools to Merge in 1991,” Cincinnati Post, 19 June 1990, sec. A. p. 1. Sue Kiesewetter, “Classes to Merge by 1992,” Cincinnati Enquirer, 19 June 1990, sec. A, p. 7.

134

Amanda Dorfmueller. “We’ve been rivals with Forest Park for years. It’s going to be tense.” “Learning in a classroom will be harder if there are more people in it,” said 15 year-old Vernon Smith. “You get more attention in a smaller class.” Sixteen year-old

Brian Short was more optimistic. “You’ve still got the same team, maybe an even better one. Who cares about the mascot?” Most optimistic was junior Donte Brooks. “There’ll be a lot more girls,” he said.110

The question still remained as to how the district would finance the school merger.

School treasurer Shirley Moro said the district faced a $99,069 deficit by June 1991. If no additional tax funds become available the district would be $1.9 million in debt by

June 1992. Board member John Pennycuff said, despite the last vote by the school board, he intended to reintroduce the issue of a levy on the November ballot.111

When the district books were closed out in June 1990, Treasurer Moro revised her predictions for the coming year and determined that the district would have a $470,000 carryover instead of the projected deficit. Superintendent Kron remarked that this was good news for the district. The news was not all good, however, as the district was expected to have a $2.45 million deficit by June 1992, which would grow to $12.8 million by June, 1995 if there were no additional revenues. The school board scheduled a meeting for August 6 to discuss the district’s finances. At this time four teams were set up to ensure a smooth transition of the merger of the two high schools.112

110 Lisa Popyk, “Merger Turning Greenhills Blue,” Cincinnati Post, 20 June 1990, sec. A, p. 1. 111 Sue Kiesewetter, “Financing of Merger Questioned,” Cincinnati Enquirer, 20 June 1990, sec. E, p. 2.

112 Sue Kiesewetter, “District Still has $470,000, but Levy Remains Possible,” Cincinnati Enquirer, 24 July 1990, sec. Extra, p. 8. Sue Kiesewetter, “Four Teams are Lined up for Smooth Transition,” Cincinnati Enquirer, 24 July 1900, sec. Extra, p. 8.

135

Greenhills residents, however, were not ready to concede defeat. The school board had voted to place a 9.07 mill levy on the November 6 ballot. This would be the first time in district history that a levy would be placed on the ballot without the support of the entire school board. Board members Lococo and Woods had voted against both the merger and the tax levy. A new group, Citizens for Quality Schools (CQS), had formed to oppose the levy. CQS Spokesmen Rick Walkenhorst conceded that while the district was in need of additional funds, his group was opposing the levy because it would finance construction at the combined high school. Walkenhorst and his group questioned the necessity of building new classrooms when there were empty classrooms in the district. CQS also felt the board did not allow enough input from the community. Board member Emily Spicer refuted this claim stating that public comment was allowed at every regularly scheduled meeting. “We are doing the right thing at the right time,”

Spicer said. “Voting against the levy doesn’t mean we won’t proceed with the merger. It might mean that the ninth graders are at one building longer than if we passed the levy.”

Spicer also added that an organization, Committee for School Issues, was in place to work for the passage of the school levy.113

Superintendent Kron presented the board with a report stating that one middle school and one high school, while costing more initially, would save the district money in the long run. CQS’s Rick Walkenhorst felt the report came too late and “It appears it was written to justify the decision that was made.” CQS was holding a joint meeting with

CCCS at the American Legion Hall in Greenhills. The meting was open to the public and

113 Sue Kiesewetter, “Citizen Group Opposes Levy,” Cincinnati Enquirer, 25 September 1990, sec. Extra, p. 5.

136

the group planned to update members on the group’s position as well as registering voters

and/or change of addresses.114

In October the board announced that after January 1, 1991, the name of the district would change from the Greenhills-Forest Park City School District to the Winton Woods

City School District. The merged middle and secondary schools would be renamed

Winton Woods Middle School and Winton Woods High School, respectively. The name change had been approved by the Ohio Board of Education who had agreed to recharter the district under its new name. Superintendent Kron estimated the cost of the name change to be about $10,000.115

Mike Barclay, Beverly Boyle, and Fred Weissborn, of Greenhills, Tom Byron of

Springfield Township, and Mary Taylor, of Forest Park, filed a 10-count complaint

against the Greenhills-Forest Park Board of Education in Hamilton County Common

Pleas Court on behalf of CQS. Spokesmen Rick Walkenhorst stated, “We are asking that

the levy not go forward, to halt the consolidation and that no money be spent to add

classrooms on the Forest Park High School.” Board President Emily Spicer preferred not

to comment on the lawsuit at this time.116

Before the area composing Forest Park had been developed Greenhills had always

supported tax levies that supported the school. The Greenhills Village Council, in a

unanimous vote, opposed the proposed 9.07 mill levy. Council asked the school board

and administrators to reconsider its position on the high school merger and to develop a

114 Sue Kiesewetter, “Study Backs School Board Plan,” Cincinnati Enquirer, 25 September 1990, sec. Extra, p. 5.

115 “District Name Change Approved by Board,” Cincinnati Enquirer, 10 October 1990, sec. C, p. 2.

116 Sue Kiesewetter, “Suit Filed to Halt Plan for Merger,” Cincinnati Enquirer, 19 October 1990, sec. D, p. 1.

137

fiscal plan for the district. Councilman Kenny Burek commented, “We think it (the

resolution) expresses the views of the community and the individual council members.”

Springfield Township Trustees had passed a similar resolution two weeks previous.

Forest Park City Council had voted earlier in the month to support the tax increase and

displayed the message on a sign in front of the municipal building. The Greenhills-Forest

Park Teachers Association, as well as the School Board Advisory Council also supported

the levy. Wyoming City Council, the municipality of Fleming Meadows, did not take a

position.117

In November the levy was defeated overwhelmingly by a vote of 7,581 to 3,052.

Board President and spokesperson Emily Spicer stated, “This is not a final decision. This step only gives us the added option of placing an emergency levy on the February ballot.”

The board voted 3-0 to ask the county auditor to certify the need for $2.7 million

annually for five years to avoid a deficit. Board members Louis Lococo and Michael

Woods were not present for the vote. “A great many people are dissatisfied with the

district and have shown it,” said Rick Walkenhorst. “The reason it failed is not because

voters had a problem with operations but because of the merger. It was an all-or-nothing issue.” The Cincinnati Post reported Walkenhorst as saying CQS would support a levy if it were broken into two issues, one for operations and the other for the cost of the merger.

“Our group doesn’t want to harm the district and would likely support the portion for the operating funds. But we calculate that 20 percent of the (9.07 mill) levy was going to pay for the merger, and we won’t support that.” Spicer reiterated that the board would not

117 Sue Kiesewetter, “”Greenhills Council goes on Record Against Tax Levy,” Cincinnati Enquirer, 31 October 1990, sec. E, p. 4.

138

back down from its merger decision. The district would be facing program cuts in the

schools.118

After the defeat of the levy, the school board held two emergency meetings to

determine the next step needed to keep the district solvent. More than 100 residents

attended each of these meetings. Comments from attendees were similar to that

expressed by Springfield Township resident R.P. Fiesinger. “We voted (down the levy)

out of anger over your merger. You are not listening to us. Tuesday (Nov. 6) you

received 7,000 against the merger.” The board moved its next meeting to the middle

school in order to accommodate an anticipated larger than usual crowd. Even if a levy

passed in February the district still needed to implement budget cuts. John Pennycuff

still favored the high school merger. “The question is what do we cut. If we go for a

levy and lose, what additional cuts will have to be made?” Superintendent Kron said cuts

would likely be in the areas of after-school activities, including sports, support services, operation of non-instructional services, and some trims in instruction. Depending on the size of the projected deficit, cuts might also be necessary in such areas as psychological services, elementary guidance counselors, and teacher’s aids. Lococo and Woods again asked the other board members to postpone the merger until the high school enrollment declined to a point where all secondary school students could be accommodated in one building. “I think to go out in February with the same levy request is unwise,” stated

118 Sue Kiesewetter, “Greenhills-Forest Park may try again in Feb.,” Cincinnati Enquirer, 8 November 1990, sec. B, p. 4. Patrick Crowley, “Kron: Levy will go back to Voters,” Cincinnati Post, 8 November 1990, sec. Neighborhoods, p. 1.

139

Lococo. Remaining board members Spicer and Gustafson reiterated their support for the

merger.119

At the end of November the school board voted 3-2 to place an 8.83 five-year

emergency levy on the February ballot. Predictably Loccoco and Woods voted against

the majority of Spicer, Pennycuff, and Gustafson. Walkenhorst said the CQS would

again aggressively work against the passage of the levy. “Unfortunately, we have no

change of position,” Walkenhorst said. “This is not a tax revolt. This is opposition to the

merger of the high schools.” Superintendent Kron stated that this was an operating levy

only and plans for a $2 million addition to Forest Park High School had been halted.

Without this addition, grades 10, 11, and 12 would attend school at Forest Park High

School, grades 7 and 8 would go to Greenhills High School, and the ninth grade would

attend classes at Greenhills-Forest Park Middle School in Forest Park.120 “The board is not going to build at Forest Park High School, they are still going ahead with the merger,” Walkenhorst said. “That shoots the whole theory that this merger will save money, because if they don’t build, they’ll be operating both high school buildings.”

Walkenhorst further stated his group would likely support a levy if the board agreed to halt the merger.121

119 Sue Kiesewetter, “School board Studies Options after Levy Failure,” Cincinnati Enquirer, 16 November 1990, sec. Extra, p. 1. Patrick Crowley, “Greenhills-Forest Park Schools Start Slashing,” Cincinnati Enquirer, 12 November 1990, sec. A, p. 6.

120 This facility was located on Waycross Road in Forest Park and was previously the Forest Park Middle School. The original middle school in Greenhills, the original Community Building built in the 1930’s, no longer was used as a school.

121 Patrick Crowley, “Greenhills-Forest Park Group Vows to Defeat Levy,” Cincinnati Post, 27 November 1990, sec, West Neighborhoods, p. 17.

140

As the district waited for the outcome of the February levy request, the board

announced the changes that would occur over the winter break. Students returning to

classes would find the new name of the district, Winton Woods School District, painted

on buses. In an effort to save money the district decided not to purchase new stationary

or re-paint school signs. The real changes would occur in the 1991-1992 school year

when students would attend classes according to the merger plan. The school colors were

changed to kelly green, royal blue, and white, and the teams would be known by a new name, the Warriors. The chosen colors were a combination of the ones used at the separate high schools and would allow the use of some of the current band uniforms.

Other changes were also announced. Greenhills High School principal Annie Wade would become the principal at the combined high school. The Activities Review Board had also recommended coaches for sports and other activities. They made the following

recommendations for coaches: football, Lou Cynkar; boys’ soccer, Bruce Bagley; girls’

soccer, John Robinson; golf. Ernie Petrie; volleyball, Lynn Gardner; cross country, Mo

Henning; tennis, Jay D’Arcy; cheerleaders, Sharon Hoffman; and drill team, Carol Becci-

Youngs. The recommendations would be presented to the board after the February 5 levy vote.122

In late January, Common Pleas Judge Gilbert Bettman refused to grant an injunction

to stop the merger of the high schools. This was the suit that had been brought earlier, it

will be remembered, by five members of CQS.123

122 Sue Kiesewetter, “School District Changes Name,” Cincinnati Enquirer, 28 December 1990, sec. Extra, p. 2.

123 “Judge Refuses to Halt Merger of High Schools,” Cincinnati Enquirer, 26 January 1991, sec. C, p. 2. 141

The February levy was defeated. Despite the efforts of the CCCS and CQS the planned merger would take place in the 1991-1992 school year. As the battle escalated the lines were drawn, you were either for the merger or against it. Comments by the affected students ranged from optimism to resignation. Alison Yeager opted to take extra classes, foregoing her senior year, in order to graduate from GHS, the last class to graduate from the school. “I decided to skip my senior year so I could get out of this mess. I can’t wait until it’s over and I graduate.” Other students expressed their opinions as well.

“We’re losing the name of our school. We have to be mature enough to let this happen. We have to come into school next year with a positive attitude and look forward to it. Let’s just accept it.” Sonia Ficklin, Forest Park freshman.

“I understand very much where the Greenhills people are coming from. I’ve kind of taken the attitude that I’m going to take what is given to me and make the best of it.” Greg Edmonds, Greenhills junior.

“Greenhills students feel like, since we (Forest Park) still have our building, then we still have our school. But we don’t. To me we can’t have school spirit if we don’t have something to cheer for. If we work together, there’s no stopping Winton Woods High School.” Michelle Glandorf, Forest Park sophomore.

“First, I didn’t think it would go over too well, but now I’m looking forward to it. If we can work together, we can make it work.” Iris Wang, junior from Fleming Meadows.

Kecia McGriff was bitter that she wouldn’t be able to graduate from Forest Park High School with a full slate of extracurricular activities on her college applications. “Some of the parents are to blame for that. Because of their opposition, we’re not going to have anything.”

“I think the merger is good for the two schools; it’s going to make it better. Mostly it’s the parents who are against the merger, not the kids, and I don’t understand why they have such problems with it.” Tad Ignatz, Forest Park sophomore.

“I think the parents are really distorting the whole thing. If the parents have a negative attitude, then the students will have a negative attitude. The students are what’s going to make this school work next year.” Matt Gunnels, Forest Park junior.

142

“We’re going into a new school, and not going to have sports, drama club, anything.” David Zins, Forest Park junior, lamenting the levy failure.

Junior Robert Bouldin felt combining the academic and sports talents of the two schools would only make Winton Woods High School dominant. “Don’t worry about it. We have to try to have the best time we can. And they (Greenhills students) have to make their new years the best they can.”

Parents also expressed their thoughts.

Forest Park resident Saundra Baran, whose four children graduated from Forest Park High between 1981 and 1990, reluctantly supported the merger. “It’s sad to see it happen. I’m all for two high schools if we can afford it. But I don’t think we can afford it and if we’re paying for two high schools we’re throwing money away.” Baran noted that class offerings had declined since she moved to the district fourteen years earlier.

“A bigger school is not better. There is more opportunity at a smaller school where you don’t have as many kids competing for the same thing. You can’t have a band with 500 children for example. I know things have to change. But they keep closing all the Greenhills schools. We don’t have equal representation on the school board. I just feel we need equal representation.”124 Jean Canada, who, along with her husband and three daughters, attended GHS.

“People have been led to believe the two – levy and merger – are the same. They believe if they turn down the levy, they can stop the merger.” Jim Letton, Forest Park parent.

Superintendent Kron commented that the students and staff were caught in the middle

and were the ones who had to deal with the uncertainties of the reorganization. “I know

it (the merger) is on the minds of the kids and staff. I’m not naïve to believe it isn’t the

topic in the teachers’ lounges, in the cafeterias, at dinner tables. It is disruptive, but it has

not stopped instruction dead in its tracks,” stated Kron.125

The school board was still divided on the issue. Former board member Charlotte

Philpot observed, “A lot of the problems are adult problems. If they’d (adults) let the

124 In addition to closing Greenhills Middle School, Damon Road Elementary school was also closed. Land had been set aside for the Damon Road school when the village was built in the 1930’s.

125 Sue Kiesewetter, “Split by the Merger,” Cincinnati Enquirer, 26 April 1991, sec. Extra, p.1.

143

kids alone, they’d (kids) work it out and be fine.” Rick Walkenhorst and the CCCS said

the merger was the only reason his group was against the merger. “Let the people decide

if they want to pay for two high schools.” Board member Louis Lococo was still asking

that the merger be delayed until the high school population fell from its current level of

1,550 students to 1,000. He would not present his compromise proposal to the board

until he had at least one other board member other than Michael Woods supporting the

measure. “The approach the board is taking is polarizing the district,” said Lococo.

Board President Emily Spicer felt opposition to the merger had diminished. “The

opposition is not as large a group as people would be led to believe. I will not be swayed.

“It’s a done deal, now let’s move on. I’m optimistic that, at some point in time we’ll be

able to get together and heal and let the education process begin.”126

Changes in the composition of the school board could come as early as the November

elections. The seats of Emily Spicer, Louis Lococo, and Michael Woods would be up for

election. None of the three had stated whether they would seek re-election. If three

members were elected that opposed the merger, it would be possible to make another

change. The possibility of the merger being undone concerned Superintendent Kron.

“After moving a whole year toward merger, I’m worried that a year later we’d have to

make just as big a change the other way. But on the practical side, nothing is

impossible.” Louis Lococo was still in disagreement, stating, “There are some people

who are unwilling to work with people in the district. There’s a certain contingent in this

126Sue Kiesewetter, “Split by the Merger,” Cincinnati Enquirer, 26 April 1991, sec. Extra, p.1. Gina Gentry-Fletcher, “Forest Park: New Kids Welcome; Extra-curricular cuts a far deeper concern,” Cincinnati Enquirer, 26 April 1991, sec. Extra, p. 2.

144

district that feels they can do what they want. I’ve tried a couple of times to compromise

but…” 127

For many people in Greenhills the closing of GHS meant a further loss in the community’s identity and marked the end of a longstanding tradition of community pride in neighborhood schools. Springfield Township junior Michelle Niehaus said students were trying to make the best of their last year at GHS. “It’s been really hard. The

Greenhills spirit is such a tradition.” About the loss of the high school Michelle said,

“Everyone’s worried about it. I think it’s mostly that the high school is being taken away. I don’t know what Greenhills is going to be like without the high school.”

Greg Edmonds was a junior at GHS from Mason who was eligible to attend GHS because his parents worked for the district. “I understand very much where the

Greenhills people are coming from,” he said. “I’ve kind of taken the attitude to take what is given to me and make the best of it. Next year is a very pivotal year; it could be great or it could be horrible. We have things at our school that are great, and there are things at

Forest Park that are great. We can take the two goods from the different schools and make it one great one.”

Mark Woods, son of board member Michael Woods, disagreed. “Forest Park people are looking out for Forest Park’s best interests. I have a lot of friends that are not going to get to play (sports),” Mark said. “I don’t want my friends to have bad (high school) years.

Forest Park junior Nicole DeMarcia noted that while extra-curricular activities contribute to a student’s education, the districts problems went beyond that. She felt well

127 Sue Kiesewetter, “Autumn Vote will Address big Issues,” Cincinnati Enquirer, 26 April 1991, sec. Extra, p. 1. 145

meaning parents might be doing more harm that good when they engaged in protests and

verbal sparring. “They need to listen to their children. I think…they came in this with a

bad attitude and are going of come out with a bad attitude.” Nicole also thought the

merger would bring more racial balance, which she saw as a good thing.

Finally, sophomore Desmond Tidwell said that most parents who opposed the merger

did so because they felt it was in the best interests of their children. The merger wasn’t

that big a deal to Desmond. “I like sports and I like learning. Those are the important

things.”128

When the 1990-1991 school year ended Forest Park High School and Greenhills High

School closed their doors for the last time. The Chargers (FPHS) and the Pioneers

(GHHS) gave way to the Warriors. Forest Park principal Fred Maccioli handed the keys to what would become Winton Woods High School to Annie Wade, Greenhills High principal, who would be the new principal at the merged high school. Graduating seniors felt privileged to be the last graduates of their respective high schools. Some students, such as Tanya Flanigan, lamented the fact that the schools new name could not retain something of the previous two schools, preferring the name Forest Hills for the new school.129 Athlete Tony George commented, “It’s fun for us from an athletic point of view. We’re going to be a powerhouse.” Parent Teacher Student Association parent Jeri

Russell, which sponsored an end of the year party, commented that students were “ready

to get on with the next year. We’re going to start fresh.” English teacher Kathy Enright,

128 Gina Gentry-Fletcher, “Greenhills” Despite Sense of Loss, Pioneer Spirit will be a Piece of new School,” Cincinnati Enquirer, 26 April 1991, sec. Extra, 2.

129 Cincinnati already had a suburban Forest Hills School District.

146

whose job had been cut for the next year, remarked the students were “resilient to

change.”130

The 1991-1992 school year opened at the new Winton Woods High School without

incident. The students, at least, had decided to make the best of the situation and

embrace the new school. Conflict between the two communities, however, would not be

at an end. Budget cuts due to the failed levies caused some parents to enroll their

children in private and parochial schools. Although the merger of the two high schools

had occurred opponents were not ready to concede defeat. In July, McLauchalan &

Associates were hired to solicit opinions of residents on a number of topics, including the

merger, teachers and administrators salaries, and tax levies. One hundred-fifty randomly

selected residents would be surveyed in July. Merger opponent and school board

member Michael Woods said community input was necessary if the district was going to

seek another tax levy. “The public needs to tell us if and when they would support a tax

increase. I’m not sure November is the right time to put another levy on the ballot.”

Woods also suggested the board host a number of public forums to give residents an opportunity to ask specific questions and voice their opinions.131

A survey, commissioned by the Concerned Citizens for Community Schools (CCCS),

found “that the majority of people in the Winton Woods City School District do not

support the merger of the high schools.” This survey was conducted by University of

Cincinnati professor George F. Bishop, a Springfield Township resident. Bishop worked

130 Brian Williams, “Students optimistic about Schools’ Merger,” Cincinnati Post, 6 June 1991, sec. Neighborhoods, p. 3.

131 “Cuts Boost Private, Parochial Schools,” Cincinnati Enquirer, 8 March 1991, sec. Extra, p. 5. Patrick Crowley, “Winton Woods Schools to Conduct Opinion Poll,” Cincinnati Post, 9 July 1991, p. 8.

147

as an unpaid consultant when he did the June research. His survey stated 41 percent of

Forest Park residents, 14 percent of Springfield Township residents, and 7 percent of

Greenhills residents supported the merger.132 School board member John Pennycuff

“slammed the survey and its findings saying it was done by a group ‘with a

predetermined position.’” CCCS spokesman Rick Walkenhorst “said the survey shows

that the school board did not ‘take the time to find out what the parents wanted before

making the decision’ to merge the high schools.” He defended the survey “saying it was

done in a ‘scientific manner.’” The board was still awaiting the results of the study they

had commissioned.133

Three seats on the school board were up for election in November. The Greenhills

Village Council voted unanimously to endorse David Horine and William Rutherford, of

Greenhills, and Lori Handler, of Springfield Township. They took this action because

they felt Forest Park City Council would endorse the other three candidates, Jim Letton,

Joyce Smith, and Sue Heidotting, who lived in Forest Park. Council Member George

Fecher, who introduced the resolution, said council wanted “the board of education to be

more balanced. We feel we had an obligation to our residents to endorse somebody, so

we went with the people from our community. We also feel these are the best

candidates.”134

The McLauchlan report showed the communities of Greenhills and Springfield

Township opposed the merger while Forest Park residents supported the merger. In

132 Population wise the majority of the residents lived in Forest Park.

133 Patrick Crowley, “School Merger Blasted,” Cincinnati Post, 27 August 1991, sec. Neighborhoods, p. 1.

134 Patrick Crowley, “School Board Slate Supported in Greenhills,” 24 November 1991, sec. Neighborhoods, p. 1.

148

March, 1992, the school board once again looked to the communities for answers on the merger and financial situation. The board planned to hold meetings with voters, teachers, administrators, support staff, students, and elected officials in the three communities in

the school district. Board member Lori Handler said, “I would like us to take a good hard

look at where people stand today.” Fellow board member David Gustafson urged the board to consider the McLauchlan report. Board members agreed the district needed a levy, but disagreed on what kind of levy voters would support.135

The board placed a 9.7 mill levy on the ballot in August, 1992, with new members

Lori Handler, David Horine, and Bill Ruterford voting in favor and veteran board

members John Pennycuff and David Gustafson opposing. The levy would not only raise

much needed operating money to alleviate the districts financial difficulties, but would

undo the merger as well. “This (August decision) is an end point. After the August

election, we will have a defined direction,” stated Horine. Handler stated that the data

collected over the last five months indicated that 54% of respondents favored returning to

two High schools. Pennycuff disagreed stating, “If we look at the data, there is just

nothing that says disassemble (the single high school). I will not support this. It’s just

too much tax. It is more than is needed. This program will harm our students.” This

seemed to be the opinion of the more than 100 residents who attended the board meeting

and the ten speakers who spoke in favor of the merger. “I believe this resolution is not

fiscally responsible,” Gustafson said. “The hard scientific data supports a single high

135 Sue Kiesewetter, “Winton Woods Schools Study Tax Levy, Dissolving Merger,” Cincinnati Enquirer, 17 March 1992, Extra 3, p. 2. 149 school. The majority of people (in our district) want the best education at the lowest possible price.” No one spoke in opposition to the merger.136

In June board President William Rutherford announced that a campaign manager would be announced soon to lead the levy campaign, which would raise about $3 million annually. An anti-levy group, APPLE, Advocating the Preservation of a Positive

Learning Environment, began its campaign with a protest meeting at the board of education meeting. Rick Walkenhorst, who had worked against past levy attempts, changed sides and supported this levy.137

The levy was defeated with 6,766 votes against, and 2,081 votes in favor. Still in financial difficulties the board agreed to seek a smaller 7.5 mill levy which would not undo the merger. “It’s time to move on, I guess,” Rutherford said election night. “But moving on means we still need to get a levy passed.” The smaller levy would enable the district to avoid a $1.8 million deficit by June 1994. The levy committee, chaired by

Forest Park resident Dean Shoup, geared up for an aggressive campaign. The last three levies had not had the support of the full Board of Education, as this one did. It was hoped that this would enable the passage of the latest levy and prevent further cuts in the district.138 In January, 1992, Ohio Governor George Voinovich cut spending for education at the state level by $88 million. This would cause financial problems not only

136 Sue Kiesewetter, “Double Schools Possible,” Cincinnati Enquirer, 27 May 1992, sec. C, p. 1.

137 Patrick Crowley, “Winton Woods Schools Gear for Levy Vote,” Cincinnati Post, 18 June 1992, sec. Neighborhoods, p. 3.

138 Patrick Crowley, “Schools Eye Next Levy,” Cincinnati Post, 13 August 1993, sec. Neighborhoods, p. 1. Patrick Crowley, “Winton Woods Starts Levy Drive,” Cincinnati Post, 15 September 1992, sec. Neighborhoods, p. 1. Patrick Crowley, “Winton Woods Campaign fashions message of need,” Cincinnati Post, 29 September 1992, sec. Neighborhoods, p. 5.

150

for Winton Woods, but school districts throughout Ohio.139 Voters also rejected this levy.

The district was having severe financial problems in January 1993. Four levies had

been defeated, 9.07 mills in November, 1990, 8.83 mills in February, 1991, 9.7 mills in

August, 1992, and 7.5 mills in November, 1992. According to Superintendent Thomas L.

Ritchey, without a levy the district would have to cut an additional $1.3 million from the

1993-1994 budget.140 Ritchey stated, “Sufficient cuts have been made in the past. Any future cuts we think will directly impact the quality of programs and classrooms.”

District Treasurer Shirley Moro felt residents had reconciled themselves with the

infeasibility of two high schools and would pass a levy. The district had cut $2 million in

the previous two years. Cuts included eliminating 19 certified teacher positions saving

$700,000 annually (1987-1988), consolidating the middle schools saving $430,000

annually (1989-1990), consolidating the high schools (1990-1991), and reductions in

programs and staff saving $1.4 million annually (1990-1991). “Obviously,” said board

Chairman Bill Rutherford, “we are going to find ourselves in dire straits very shortly.

Obviously we’re going to have to do a couple of things—raise more money and cut

costs.”141

Voters would eventually pass a 7.5 mill levy in August, 1993 after previously

defeating five levies. The levy narrowly passed with a vote of 3,567 to 3,438. “I think

that it removes the cloud over the heads of many people in the system,” said

139 “More Cuts Feared,” Cincinnati Post, 29 September, 1992, sec. Neighborhoods, p. 1)

140 The districts budget for the year was estimated at $24 million.

141 Al Andry, “Winton Woods District Considers $1.3 million Cut,” Cincinnati Post, 28, January 1993, sec. Neighborhoods, p. 5.

151

Superintendent Tom Richey. “It’s a breath of fresh air for us because it’s given us a new hope, a new perspective, a new sense of purpose and certainly a new sense of commitment.” The district was also joining several neighboring districts in sending a message to the state legislature that more adequate funding for the schools was needed.142

THE DISTRICT TODAY

Declining enrollment and the closing of schools was accompanied by other changes at several district schools in 2007/2008. Beechwoods was renamed Winton Woods Primary

North, housing Kindergarten thru second grade. Lakeside became Winton Woods

Primary South, and housing pre-K thru second grade. Winton Forest became Winton

Woods Elementary, with grades three and four. Waycross Elementary, which had opened in 1968 as Forest Park Middle School, became Winton Woods Intermediate, with grades five and six.

Superintendent Camille Nasbe announced in July 2007, that the district would be proceeding with plans to offer Chinese classes to third and fourth grade students. Classes would be taught by a visiting Chinese teacher, who would follow the students to grades five and six. At this time the district would decide if it will continue offering Chinese classes through middle school and high school. The future of the classes, according to

Pennycuff, depends on funding. “It’s a very fragile situation in our district,” he said.

Earlier, in the 2006-2007 school year, the district had offered a community education

Chinese course that was paid for, in part, by grant money. More grants will probably be needed if the program is to continue. At the board’s July 23 meeting, Kun Shi, the director of the K-12 Chinese Flagship Program at Ohio State University, congratulated

142 Denise Wilson, “Tax Levy Pumps New Hope into Winton Woods Schools,” Cincinnati Post, 5 August 1993, sec. Neighborhoods, p. 1. 152

the district on being one of the first districts in Ohio to offer early Chinese education

courses. Less than 500 students in thirteen districts were enrolled in Chinese language

classes the previous school year. “Shi urged the board to not only start the program, but

to maintain it as well. He said learning Chinese does no good to students if their

education is stopped at the middle school level.”143

A major change in the last seven years has been the substantial increase in the number

of students whose families receive Aid to Dependent Children (ADC), as indicated in

Table 15. This indicates that many families in the district are less well off, and their

children bring additional challenges to the district that a low income imposes on families.

School Board President John Pennycuff believes this will challenge the district even more

than the issue of race and declining enrollment. In personal correspondence Pennycuff

elaborated on the challenges that he saw this would bring to the district.

The increase in the number of children who are receiving ADC is the biggest change/challenge for the district. Personally, I think the influx of ADC eligible students dwarfs the issues related to high school merger and other building reconfigurations. As a group, ADC kids have less exposure to learning opportunities at home (e.g., fewer family trips to museums, fewer newspapers and magazines, fewer home computers, etc.), less parental involvement in PTA and other school activities (both parents must work), less reinforcement of concepts taught in school (parents are less well educated and may not know the material themselves). Also, ADC kids are more likely to be ID’d as Special Ed. Perhaps, those parents cannot afford or do not have access to as much health care as families who are more well off. The Special Ed population has a significant impact on test scores under No Child Left Behind and will therefore affect the public’s perception of the quality of the school. There appears to be a high correlation across the state between percent of ADC kids and percent in Special Ed. To be clear, I am not saying that ADC kids are less capable and cannot achieve at outstanding levels. Many do. But as a group, ADC students come to school somewhat behind their peers in development, with less educated models around them, and with more health issues. Thus, schools with high percentages of ADC students have to devote extra resources to compensate for the lack of resources at home and the diverse starting points at school. Some voters balk

143 Rob Dowdy, “Chinese to be taught to Winton Woods third-, fourth-graders,” Hilltop Community Press, 1 August 2007, A4. 153

at paying more taxes to help schools overcome the effects of development and health issues that some kids bring to school.144

Table 15: District Enrollment, students receiving Aid to Dependent Children (ADC), and students being bused to non-public schools

Year High District ADC ADC Bussed to Percentage Ending School Total Percentage non- Bussed public 1980 2,436 7,119 143 2.0% 1981* 2,301 6,734 148 2.2% 1982 2,152 6,300 178 2.8% 1983 1,985 6,000 170 2.8% 1984 1,942 5,716 140 2.4% 1985 1,876 5,413 133 2.5% 593 9.1% 1986 1,757 5,222 142 2.7% 557 9.4% 1987 1,729 5,061 124 2.5% 532 10.5% 1988 1,616 4,969 155 3.1% 1989** 1,524 4,847 159 3.3% 1990 1,456 4,746 191 4.0% 508 10.7% 1991*** 1,381 4,731 203 4.3 481 10.2% 1992 1,272 4,654 246 5.3% 1993 1,227 4,604 263 5.7% 1994 1,217 4,505 333 7.4% 1995**** 1,267 4,455 370 8.3% 818 18.4% 1996 1,336 4,527 409 9.0% 753 16.6% 1997 1,360 4,519 366 8.8% 781 17.3% 1998***** 1,354 4,478 336 8.6% 664 14,8% 1999 1,329 4,412 7.2% 563 12.8% 2000 1,278 4,151 852 20.5% 641 15.4% 2001 1,279 4,144 594 14.3% 611 14.7% 2002 1,214 3,991 874 21.9% 738 18.5% 2003 1,245 3,992 1,021 25.6% 658 16.5% 2004 1,250 3,958 873 22.0% 687 17.3% 2005 1,213 3,912 35.9% 2006 1,230 4,059 1,111 27.4% 2007****** 1,211 3,931 Source: School Board President John Pennycuff, 2007.

*Last year for Damon Road ****Last year for Kemper Heights **Last year for two Middle Schools *****Last year for Forest View ***Last year for two High Schools ******Last year for Cameron Park

144 Personal correspondence from John Pennycuff to author pertaining to author’s questions, 13 August 2007. 154

. An increasing percentage of district students are also attending non-public schools, although the actual number of students has not increased significantly. The recent increase in charter schools has been an issue for some districts. Pennycuff did not feel that charter school attendance is an issue for his district. A small number of the district’s students are home schooled, a practice that has grown throughout the country.

Standardized testing has become an issue in the country since the implementation of

No Child Left Behind (NCLB). School districts are evaluated on student performance at various grade levels. One criticism of the test is that schools “teach to the test.”

Nevertheless, these tests have become important in evaluating student and teacher performance and school districts. The performance of Winton Woods tenth grade students on the Ohio Graduation Test (OGT) administered in March 2007, are given in

Table 16.

Table 16: Ohio Graduation Tests-Grade 10 Winton Woods City School District (Preliminary Results)

Subject Number Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Tested Proficient Advanced Accelerated Proficient Basic Limited Or Above Reading 299 82.6 9.0 25.8 47.8 9.7 7.7 Math 299 75.6 17.1 25.1 33.4 13.4 11.0 Writing 298 86.6 0.7 43.6 42.3 8.4 5.0 Science 299 58.2 11.0 21.4 25.8 25.1 16.7 Social 299 61.5 21.7 17.4 22.4 19.1 19.4 Studies All Five 297 50.5 Source: Ohio Department of Education

Table 17 gives a comparison of the percentage of tenth grade students who scored proficient or above between nearby districts, Cincinnati Public Schools, and Winton 155

Woods students. Looking at the basic numbers Winton Woods does not measure up well against surrounding suburban districts in Hamilton County and has a score slightly lower than the urban Cincinnati Public School system.

Table 17: School District Comparison

School District Number Tested Percent Proficient or Above On all five Sections Cincinnati City 2034 52.6 Finneytown Local 146 61.6 Mount Healthy 223 53.4 Princeton City 427 60.4 Winton Woods City 297 50.5 Wyoming City 173 91.9 Source: Ohio Department of Education

The state also issues a yearly report card which evaluates each district in the state on a number of criteria. Table 18 shows a comparison of Winton Woods with the same five school districts in Table 17.

Superintendent Camille Nasbe responded to my request for her comments on the districts academic performance as measured by the states.

In comparing our district’s performance on the OGT with surrounding districts, we have maintained our effective rating while meeting AYP, a truly remarkable accomplishment given our demographics. Thirty-five percent of our students are economically disadvantaged, over 80% are minorities, nearly 18% have identified special needs, and 3.5% are limited English proficient. If you examine OAT145 data for grades 3-8, as well as OGT data, you will see that we are moving students along the continuum of limited, basic, proficient, accelerated, and advanced, with many scores being on the cusp of the next designation. These achievement categories on state tests are weighted and used to calculate the performance index, one basis for the report card rating. We have laid a solid foundation at the early grades, so we should see continued progress through high school in the near future. Another indicator of academic progress is the increase in our graduation rate. Due to a variety of alternative programs and caring professionals, we are serving previously unsuccessful or highly mobile students with a mix of high tech and high

145 Ohio Achievement Tests 156

touch in alternative settings. Four years ago our graduation rate was 78%, while the graduation rate for the 2006-2007 school year exceeds 94%. So while we will not be satisfied until our entire district has an excellent rating based on state standards, we acknowledge the continuous strides our teachers are making with a very diverse, mobile student population.

Table 18: 2005-2006 School Year Report Card Comparison

District District Number of Performance Adequate Years in Designation* Indicators Index Yearly District Met** Score*** Progress Improvement Status Cincinnati Continuous 6 81.5 Not Met Improvement City Improvement Year 3 Finneytown Effective 21 96.9 Not Met At Risk Local Mount Continuous 8 84.8 Not Met Improvement Healthy Improvement Year 1 Princeton Continuous 17 95.3 Not Met Improvement Improvement Year 3 Winton Effective 14 90.1 Not Met Improvement Woods City Year 1 Wyoming Excellent 25 108.6 Met OK City Source: Ohio Department of Education *Designations – Excellent, Effective, Continuous Improvement, Academic Watch, Academic Emergency ** Out of 25 *** 0 to 120 points

After reading Superintendent Nasbe’s comments I have included the additional criteria she suggested were important in comparing Winton Woods with surrounding districts. The Ohio Achievement Tests were administered to students in grades three thru eight between April 30 and May 11, 2007. Tests in grades three and six included reading and mathematics; grades four and seven included reading, mathematics, and writing; and grades five and eight included reading, mathematics, science and social studies. The

preliminary test results reported by the Ohio Department of Education are given in Table

157

Table 19. Ohio Achievement Test Scores Winton Woods City Schools146 (Preliminary Results)

Grade subject Number %Prof.Or %Adv. %Accel. %Prof. %Basic %Limited Tested Above 3 reading 263 73.4 28.9 27.0 17.5 12.9 13.7 3 math 264 86.0 21.6 20.8 43.6 11.4 2.7 4 reading 141 97.2 26.2 47.5 23.4 1.4 1.4 4 math 142 97.9 50.7 21.1 26.1 2.1 0.0 4 writing 141 97.9 8.5 53.9 35.5 1.4 0.7 5 reading 273 69.2 6.6 13.9 48.7 15.4 15.4 5 math 272 48.5 12.9 8.5 27.2 28.3 23.2 5 science 272 54.0 3.3 22.4 28.3 37.9 8.1 5 S.S.* 272 37.1 2.2 14.0 21.0 54.4 8.5 6 reading 332 70.2 4.5 12.0 53.6 16.9 13.0 6 math 332 66.0 17.5 18.4 30.1 20.8 13.3 7 reading 337 67.7 6.2 17.8 43.6 20.5 11.9 7 math 336 56.0 0.6 8.6 46.7 33.3 10.7 7 writing 337 73.6 1.2 27.3 45.1 25.5 0.9 8 reading 321 71.7 8.1 20.9 42.7 17.8 10.6 8 math 324 63.6 2.2 12.0 49.4 28.7 7.7 8 Science 321 43.3 7.2 8.4 27.7 43.6 13.1 8 S.S.* 322 35.1 7.8 5.6 21.7 39.8 25.2 SOURCE: Office of Assessment, Ohio Department of Education, July 2007. *Social Studies

19. Table 20 shows a comparison of the number of students’ proficient or above between the Winton Woods City School District and the same districts compared in Tables 17 and

18. Using the OAT results, Winton Woods City School students score significantly higher than students in Cincinnati City Schools. Scores are similar to those in nearby

Finneytown Local and Mt. Healthy districts, with Winton Woods’s students scoring higher in some categories and lower in others. Wyoming schools consistently score

146 Test results are available at the Ohio Department of Education web-site at http://webapp1.ode.us/proficiency_reports/data/csvtoasp.asp?filename=May_200

158

Table 20: Students Scoring Proficient or Above on 2007 Ohio Achievement Tests Comparison (Preliminary Results)

Grade Subject Cincinnati Finneytown Mt. Princeton Winton Wyoming City Local Healthy Woods City 3 reading 54.9 76.4 66.7 80.1 73.4 93.0 3 math 68.1 85.2 78.7 85.5 86.0 97.0 4 reading 54.7 79.8 58.2 75.8 73.5 97.2 4 math 50.2 82.6 52.5 75.3 74.0 97.9 4 writing 61.0 87.2 75.7 84.4 76.1 97.9 5 reading 56.0 84.8 78.2 77.4 69.2 99.4 5 math 34.8 65.7 52.2 55.6 48.5 91.8 5 science 35.6 57.6 46.4 61.7 54.0 91.2 5 S.S.* 32.0 53.5 39.5 53.8 37.1 79.2 6 reading 56.4 86.2 68.5 75.3 70.2 96.0 6 math 51.2 77.7 67.7 69.7 66.0 95.3 7 reading 54.5 76.0 51.9 75.9 67.7 94.7 7 math 50.9 68.0 48.4 74.3 56.0 92.7 7 writing 64.7 77.3 61.0 81.5 73.6 93.3 8 reading 64.6 80.1 65.9 72.7 71.7 98.2 8 math 53.5 68.1 51.4 61.3 63.6 95.2 8 science 31.9 66.7 29.8 48.3 43.3 87.3 8 S.S.* 27.1 53.9 19.3 43.3 35.1 95.2 SOURCE: Office of Assessment, Ohio Department of Education, 2007. *Social Studies significantly higher than the other districts being compared, but the students in this district come from families in a higher socio economic status.

Another criteria used to access the effectiveness of a school is the high school graduation rate. Table 21 lists the graduation rates of the same schools, as well as the per pupil expenditure for each district.

Winton Woods’s graduation rate is significantly higher than Cincinnati City, slightly lower than Finneytown Local, and even lower than the other three districts being compared. Per pupil expenditure does not correlate with success on the other indicators, 159

Table 21: Graduation Rates and Per Pupil Expenditures

School District Graduation Rate Per Pupil Expenditure Cincinnati City 77.2% $12,550 Finneytown Local 88.5% $10,602 Mt. Healthy 93.2% $10,283 Princeton 96.3% $14,434 Winton Woods City 86.9% $11,693 Wyoming 99.4 $10,677 SOURCE: Ohio Department of Education

probably because of the higher cost of educating students from disadvantaged families.

On June 28, 2007, a more conservative Supreme Court, in a five to four vote, invalidated programs in Louisville, Kentucky and Seattle, Washington that sought to maintain integration by taking into account a student’s race.147 Although the programs in

both cities had been upheld by lower courts, and were similar to plans in hundreds of

other school districts, Chief Justice John G. Roberts “said such programs were ‘directed

only to racial balance, pure and simple,’ a goal that he said was forbidden by the

Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection.

The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race,” he said. His side of the debate, the chief justice said, was “more faithful to the heritage of Brown,” the landmark 1954 decision that declared school segregation unconstitutional. “When it comes to using race to assign children to schools, history will be heard.

Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito, Jr., and Anthony

Kennedy joined in the majority opinion. Although in agreement with the majority,

Justice Kennedy was critical of Justice Robert’s “all-too-unyielding insistence that race

cannot be a factor in instances when, in my view, it may be taken into account.”

147 In the Louisville case, Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education (No. 05-915), the mother of a kindergarten student filed suit when her son was not allowed to transfer to another kindergarten class because the school he wanted to leave needed to keep white students to stay within racial guidelines. In the Seattle case, Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 (No. 05- 908), parents formed a nonprofit corporation to fight the school assignment plan of the city’s high schools. 160

The four justices were “too dismissive” of the validity of these goals, Justice Kennedy said, adding that it was “profoundly mistaken” to read the Constitution as requiring “that state and local school authorities must accept the status quo of racial isolation in schools.”

As a matter of constitutional doctrine and practical impact, Justice Kennedy’s opinion thus placed a significant limitation on the full reach of the other four justices’ embrace of a “colorblind Constitution” under which all racially conscious government action, no matter how benign or invidious its goal, is equally suspect.

Among the measures that Justice Kennedy said would be acceptable were the drawing of school attendance zones, “strategic site selection of new schools,” and directing resources to special programs. These would be permissible even if adopted with a consciousness of racial demographics, Justice Kennedy said, because in avoiding the labeling and sorting of individual children by race they would satisfy the “narrow tailoring” required to meet the equal protection demands of the 14th Amendment.

Justice Stephen Breyer, who was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, David H.

Souter, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, wrote the dissenting opinion. Speaking from the bench, Breyer said, “It is not often in the law that so few have so quickly changed so much.”

In his written opinion, Justice Breyer said the decision was a “radical” step away from settled law and would strip local communities of the tools they need, and have used for many years, to prevent resegregation of their public schools. Predicting that the ruling would “substitute for present calm a disruptive round of race-related litigation,” he said, “This is a decision that the court and the nation will come to regret.”

He said chief justice’s invocation of Brown v. Board of Education was a “cruel irony” when the opinion in fact “rewrites the history of one of this court’s most important decisions” by ignoring the context in which it was issued and the Supreme Court’s subsequent understanding of it to permit voluntary programs of the sort that were now invalidated.

Justice Stevens stated, “it is my firm conviction that no member of the court that I joined in 1975 would have agreed with today’s decision.” Ironically Chief Justice 161

Roberts had, at one time, been a law clerk for one of those justices, Chief Justice William

H. Rehnquist.148

Justice Clarence Thomas, the only African American on the Court, siding with the

majority, “suggested the concept of integrations was inherently demeaning to black

children because it implied they needed to mix with whites to achieve excellence,” and

describing “people who promote integration as faddish theorists.”

…..In writing a separate concurrence, he dismissed the notion of the court’s minority that “racially balanced schools improve educational outcomes for black children.” He said that, “In reality, it is far from apparent that coerced racial mixing has any educational benefits, much less that integration is necessary to black achievement.”

Justice Thomas’s opinion concurred with his earlier writings on the subject of affirmative action in higher education.

In the context of higher education, Justice Thomas said earlier that affirmative action programs cruelly deceived black students admitted to elite law schools under special programs who then found that they could not compete. “These overmatched students take the bait,” he wrote in 2003, “only to find they cannot succeed in the cauldron of competition.”

Justice Thomas was himself a beneficiary of a set aside program for minorities when

he was accepted to Yale Law School, “although his limited public comments on the

subject suggest he has resisted accepting that he was given special treatment.”149

Pennycuff did not feel the latest Supreme Court ruling would affect the school district.

Winton Woods’s students will begin the 2007-2008 school year with one less

elementary school (Cameron Park) as well as changes in the configuration at the

elementary level to grade level buildings. The district also has a new slogan, “Winton

148 Linda Greenhouse, “Justices, Voting 5-4, Limit the Use of Race in Integration Plans,” New York Times, 29 June 2007.

149 Neil A. Lewis, “Justice Secures His Place as a Critic of Integration,” New York Times, 9 July 2007.

162

Woods City School District: Cultivating a World Class Education.” District

communications coordinator Sharon Oakes stated the new slogan “gives a better sense of the global direction the district is heading in.”150

The Winton Woods City School District has gone through substantial changes since

its inception in 1938 from a small district serving the homogeneous residents of the

greenbelt town of Greenhills. North Greenhills was sold after World War II and became

Forest Park, which meant a major change for the community of Greenhills. Greenhills

itself changed when the government divested itself of the three greenbelt towns. The

issues the district faced are issues faced by school districts across the country. These

issues include school prayer, racial integration, school funding, and declining enrollment.

School violence that has plagued a few other school districts has not been a problem. In

the past predictions have been made as to where the district was headed, for example

predictions of future student population, and what steps the district should take. At times

these predictions have not been accurate. Hindsight is always better than foresight, but

school districts need to plan. This is especially important today as school funding issues

are particularly problematic for districts across the country.

150 “Students in Winton Woods face changes,” Hilltop Press, 22 August 2007, A6. 163

Conclusions

The Winton Woods City School District has faced, and continues to face, many of the

challenges that face schools throughout the country. These include the issues of school

prayer, rapid increase in student population, racial integration, funding, declining

enrollment resulting in the closing of school buildings, and performance on standardized

test as a result of No Child Left Behind (NCLB). Racial integration of the system was

one of the major hurdles the district faced in the 1970’s and 1980’s. Due to housing

patterns, the exclusion of African Americans from Greenhills in 1938, and racial steering

by realtors, minority populations were clustered in certain areas. There was also a

clustering of the population along economic lines because the various subdivisions that were developed with similarly priced homes. When the Supreme Court decision in

Brown v. Board of Education overturned Plessey v. Ferguson in 1956 past practices needed to be corrected. This was oftentimes unsuccessful as school districts resisted efforts to integrate. In Cincinnati, the NAACP brought a law suit against Cincinnati public schools on behalf of Mona Bronson. When the law suit was amended to include several suburban districts, Greenhills-Forest Park was included. Rather than take a wait and see attitude, district administrators took a pro active role in addressing the lack of racial balance among schools in the district due to housing patterns. I believe this is one of the reasons the district was successful in its efforts.

This is not to say this was not a difficult task with much emotion being expressed by many parties. When the administration devised several alternative plans for integration, they elicited community input. This allowed all sides to express their viewpoints, which often resulted in heated exchanges. The district also received unwelcome news coverage, 164

but this is part of the democratic process. In the end a compromise solution was reached

that satisfied, in part at least, all parties. I believe this is a lesson that all school districts

can learn from. It is necessary to conduct the business of schools in the open with all

shareholders given the opportunity to express their feelings. Parents and community

members have a large stake in the operation of schools. Parents, who want what is best

for their children, entrust them to the schools. Even community members without

children have a stake in the schools because it is a primary component of property values.

Much has been said about the effects of property values and whether or not it should be

considered in decisions concerning the operation of schools. The fact is, for most middle

class families, their home is their biggest investment. The financial survival of their

family is in a large part related to the value of their home. Even those families who rent

their residences want to live in a stable environment which requires a stable housing

market. Property taxes provide a large part of the revenue for funding schools, which is

another reason for a stable housing market. The issue of integration, I am sure, caused

some families to move or decide to send their children to non-public schools. I do not

think this is necessarily a negative. These people would not have been committed to making integration work and might have changed the outcome. In all, the measures taken by the school board resulted in a peaceful outcome. Unfortunately, I think the burden of integration may have fallen on African American families in the lower income sections of the community.

I would like to say a word about my own feelings on racial integration. I grew up in

Dayton, Ohio, at time when the schools were not integrated. As a child I did not give much thought to this. It was not until I went to college at Ohio University that I came 165

into contact with African Americans. I attended Ohio University between 1967 and

1971, which was during an active period in the Civil Rights movement. I sensed

uneasiness between members of different racial groups and was not aware of much

socializing between them. This was also a time of conflict against the war in Viet Nam,

which was the primary source of tension at the University. One of the reasons I wanted

to live in Forest Park was because it was an integrated community. I wanted my children

to grow up knowing people of all races and nationalities and to see the commonalities

and respect the differences. Knowing people who are different from oneself enriches a

person and gives one a more enlightened perspective. I believe this is the primary reason integration in schools is so important. Although I have not always been happy with the educational process at the school, I have never regretted that my children attended school with diverse groups of students. My three sons are better for this experience. Academic subjects can be learned anywhere, and I often supplemented their education, but the friendships they developed and lessons they learned about people could not have been learned in another setting.

Throughout the country school desegregation has been less than successful. People with money can choose to move to a non-integrated school, or sent their children to non-

public schools. You cannot force people to believe what you feel is right; they have to

believe in their hearts that it is right. Minorities do not always perform as well as they

are capable. Justice Thomas, the only African American on the current Supreme Court,

voted with the majority in the cases of Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education

and Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District, stating that

integration was demeaning to black children. Justice Thomas, a gifted student, was the 166

beneficiary of a set aside program for minorities at Yale Law School. Without this

benefit it is possible that he would not be on the Supreme Court today. Let us hope that

we do not return to the days of “separate but equal.” An integrated society is the only

way for society to progress.

Another major hurdle the district faced was the closing of the high school in

Greenhills. This was perhaps the most emotional time for the district. The residents of

Greenhills felt an immense attachment for their schools and especially their high school.

This is probably, in part, due to the beginnings of the district when the school was in the

Community Building. This was a building that also served the needs of the adult

residents of the community by being a place for movies, dances, and other activities. The

people of Greenhills had a sincere attachment to their schools and felt they were a strong

part of community identity. The closing of the high school was very emotional and one

that I don’t feel residents of Forest Park truly appreciated. While at the time the common

belief was that it was a racial issue, today I do not think that was true. Although

declining enrollment, financial difficulties, and the low number of high school students in

Greenhills made it necessary to close the high school, I believe the situation could have

been handled with more consideration. I regret the uninformed beliefs I had at the time.

As more districts go through the growth and decline in student population cycle the

Winton Woods City School District has gone through, they must carefully assess how school reorganization is accomplished. The situation in this district was complicated by

the two distinct communities, which may not be an issue in other situations.

Today districts face the issue of being evaluated on test scores as a result of No Child

Left Behind (NCLB). This can have profound effects on a school district and its ability 167 to operate effectively. I, along with many others, am not a supporter of NCLB and feel it does not support the best interests of students and does not promote quality education.

My views on this were reinforced after spending a summer grading these tests. There are several reasons I am opposed to this method of evaluating students and districts. These include:

1. The testing is expensive; these dollars could be better spent on direct educational

benefits to students.

2. The tests are time consuming; a great deal of time is spent preparing students for

these tests.

3. Teachers find they must teach to the test, especially when the students are

disadvantaged.

4. Students have individual educational needs; having a single test given state wide

does not allow for meeting the needs of individual students.

5. The tests only evaluate what is asked on the test; the gifts of students who excel in

art, music, and other areas are not measured.

6. The tests may lead to an increased number of high school dropouts because

passing the tests is a requirement for graduation. Students who do not feel they

are going to pass the test may choose to leave school.

7. Control of knowledge is given to outside individuals who do not know the

students and their needs.

I do agree that school districts and teachers need to be evaluated. When the Greenhills

Rural School District came into being in 1938, parents were involved in the school and helped to accomplish this. Perhaps we need to trust parents more and make them more a 168 part of the educational process. I believe students achieve the best outcome when teachers, parents, and students have a cooperative relationship with the goal of meeting the child’s needs. As a parent whose children were in the district, I often felt this was not the case. In speaking with School Board President John Pennycuff, I was left with the impression that the opinions of parents and community members was not valued as much as I feel is necessary. This seems to stem from a philosophy that seems prevalent today that teachers are the professionals with the answers with not much concern given to the parents. However, when I would take my children to the doctor, he valued my observations of a sick child and included them in her diagnosis. Perhaps educators could learn from this.

The challenge facing the district today concerns the changing financial demographics of the school community. A considerable percentage of district students are in families receiving Aid to Dependent Children (ADC). The reasons for this, to my knowledge, are not fully known. The economy in the area has not been doing well due to the closing of manufacturing enterprises that once provided good jobs. The jobs that have replaced them have not provided the same income or benefits as the old jobs. The housing market, increased gasoline costs, and the rise in the cost of food and other essentials have hurt many families. I suspect this is largely responsible for the increase in ADC students. It is important the administration not blame parents for the situation. Families that lack financial security are under enormous pressures that may make them appear to be non- caring parents. Often times they lack transportation and time off from working multiple jobs to attend to the needs of their children as they would like. This is an issue of societal 169

responsibility and not necessarily an issue of individual failure. Schools should support

students and their families and try to meet their needs as much as possible.

Schools should also teach to the children they have, not the ones they wish they had.

Currently the district is offering Chinese language classes to all third and fourth grade students. This is an innovative, and I am sure, beneficial course of instruction.

Knowledge of the Chinese language will certainly be important in the future in the international economic arena. I do, however, wonder if it is a luxury the district cannot afford. The district will have to raise additional money to continue the program and the district, I have heard, expects to ask for additional funding in 2008. With the number of students in families receiving ADC and the increases in food and fuel, I am afraid that many families will be unable to pay additional taxes for the schools. It is not that these families do not support the schools and their children’s education; it is a matter of being able to afford it. It is imperative that the administration gain input from all segments of the community on a tax increase.

The district has a new slogan, “Winton Woods City School District; Cultivating a

World Class Education.” I am not certain what the meaning of the slogan is, but suspect it has to do with preparing students to be able to participate in a global economy. In this way they will be meeting the future needs of the students. I feel this is backwards. The goal of schools should be to meet the present needs of the students in order for them to successfully participate in the economic system. I would be more comfortable with the slogan, “Winton Woods City School District, Striving to Meet the Needs of all Children.”

Childhood is a precious time that you only get one chance at. It should not be wasted.

170

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abraham, Richard, Alexander Kerensky: The First Love of the Revolution. New York: Columbia University Press, 1987.

Acton, Edward, ed., Critical Companion to the Russian Revolution, 1914-1921. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1987,

Beevers, Robert. The Garden City Utopia. London, Macmillan Press, Ltd., 1988.

Bellamy, Edward. Equality. Upper Saddle River, N. J.: The Gregg Press, 1968. First published in 1897 by D. Appleton & Company.

______Looking Backward. Boston: Ticknor and Company, 1888; New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1996.1953.

Berle, Jr., A. A. The 20th Century Capitalist Revolution. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1954.

Berle, Jr., A. A., and others. America’s Recovery Program. New York: Oxford University Press, 1934.

Bowman, Sylvia. Edward Bellamy. Twayne’s Unites States Authors Series, David J. Nordloh, Ed. Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1986.

Bridges, Ernest, ed. The Libertarian: A Southern Magazine Upholding the Principles of Liberty. Greenville, South Carolina, November 1925.

Brooks, Van Wyck. Helen Keller: Sketch for a Portrait. (New York: E. P. Dutton & Co., Inc., 1956).

Chapple, Joe Mitchell. Warren G. Harding-The Man. Boston: Chapple Publishing Company, Limited, 1920.

Conrad, M. J., C. B. Smith, and James Clark. School Building Needs: Greenhills Exempted Village Schools, Greenhills, Ohio. The School Plant Division, The Bureau of Educational Research and Service, The College of Education, The Ohio State University, August 1960.

Cord, Steven B. Henry George: Dreamer or Realist? Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1963.

Davis, Kenneth S., FDR: The New Deal Years. 1933-1937, A History, New York: Random House, 1979.

171

Dean, John W. Warren G. Harding, The American Presidents Series, ed. Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. New York: Henry Holt and Company, LLC, 2004

Downes, Randolph C., The Rise of Warren Gamaliel Harding 1865-1920. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University Press, 1970.

Duvall, Elizabeth S. “Hear Me for My Cause: Selected Letters of Margaret Sanger 1926-1927. Northampton, Massachusetts: Smith College, The Sophia Smith Collection, April, 1967.

Evensky, Jerry. Adam Smith’s Moral Philosophy. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005.

Fishman, Robert. Urban Utopias in the Twentieth Century: Ebenezer Howard, Frank Lloyd Wright, and Le Corbusier, New York, Basic Books, Inc., 1977.

Flynn, John. The Roosevelt Myth. The Winds, 1997.

Foner, Philip, ed., Helen Keller: Her Socialist Years. New York: International Publishers, 1967.

Freidel, Frank, ed. The New Deal and the American People, Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1964.

Fried, Albert. F D R and His Enemies, New York, St. Martin’s Press, 1999.

______Socialism in America: From the Shakers to the Third International. New York: Columbia University Press, 1992.

Harvey, David. Social Justice and the City. Baltimore, The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1973.

George, Henry. Progress and Poverty: An Inquiry into the Cause of Industrial Depressions and of Increase Want With Increase of Wealth. New York, Robert Schalkenbach Foundation, 1929. Fiftieth Anniversary Edition.

______Social Problems. New York: Doubleday & McClure Co., 1900.

Gray, Madeline. Margaret Sanger: A Biography of the Champion of Birth Control. New York: Richard Marek Publishers, 1979.

Hansen, Alvin H. A Guide to Keynes. New York: McGraw-Hill Book, Inc., 1953.

Hoover, Herbert. The Memoirs of Herbert Hoover: The Great Depression 1929-1941. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1952.

172

Howard, Ebenezer. Garden Cities of Tomorrow. Great Britain: Faber and Faber Ltd., 1902; Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1965. (Originally published as Tomorrow: A Peaceful Path to Real Reform, 1902.) Edited with a preface by F. J. Osborn. Introductory essay by Lewis Mumford.

Ickes, Harold L., with a forward by Jane D. Ickes, The secret Diary of Harold L. Ickes: The First Thousand Days 1933-1936, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1954. Issued for the International Conference celebrating the Henry George Centenary, New York, 1939, by the International Union for Land Value Taxation and Free Trade, 34 Knightrider Street, London, E. C. A.

Kerensky, Alexander, The Catastrophe: Keerensky’s own Story of the Russian Revolution. New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1927.

______, translated by G. Kerensky, The Crucifixion of Liberty. New York; The John Day Company, 1934.

______, Russia and History’s Turning Point. New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce, 1965.

Kombluh, Joyce, Rebel Voices: An IWW Anthology. Chicago, Charles H. Kerr Publishing, 1988.

Leach, Charles Bradley. Greenhills, Ohio: The Evolution of an American New Town. Ann Arbor, Michigan, Michigan University Microfilm, 1978.

Lipow, Arthur. American Socialism in America: Edward Bellamy & the Nationalist Movement. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1982.

Lippmeier, Carol A. Act of Congress, Greenhills, Ohio, 1835-1976. Greenhills Civic Foundation, 1976.

Macdonald, William, The Menace of Recover: What the New Deal Means, New York: The Macmillan Company, 1934.

Macek, Josef. An Essay on the Impact of Marxism. University of Pittsburg Press, 1955.

Magil, A. B., Henry Stevens, The Peril of Fascism: The Crisis of American Democracy, New York: International Publishers, 1938.

Marquette. Bleeker, “The History of Housing in Ohio.” Presented at the Conference of Ohio Housing Authorities. Youngstown, Ohio, June 1936.

Martin, MaryJoy. The Corpse on Boomerang Road: Telluride’s War on Labor 1899- 1908. Montrose, CO, Western Reflections Publishing Company, 2004.

173

Mayer, Albert, Greenbelt Towns Revisited, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1968.

Meacham, Standish. Regaining Paradise: Englishness and the Early Garden City Movement. New Haven, Yale University Press, 1999.

McJimsey, Gerald, ed. Documentary History of the Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidency, Volume 3: The Bank Holiday and the Emergency Banking Act, March 1933. University Publications of America, 2001.

Miller, Randall M., and Paul A. Cimbala, eds. American Reform and Reformers: A Biographical Dictionary. Westport: Greenwood Press, 1996.

Miller, Zane. Suburb: Neighborhood and Community in Forest Park, Ohio 1935-1976. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1981.

Moley Raymond. After Seven Years. New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1939.

______, edited with a forward and epilogue by Frank Freidel, Realities an Illusions 1886-1931, The Autobiography of Raymond Moley, New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1980.

Morgan, Arthur E. The Philosophy of Edward Bellamy. New York: King’s Crown Press, 1945.

Myers, Ph. D., William Starr. Socialism and American Ideals. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1919.

Neal, Steve. Happy Days Are Here Again: The 1932 Democratic Convention, the Emergence of FDR—and How America was Changed Forever. New York: William Morrow, an Imprint of Harper Collins Publishers, 2004.

Parsons, Kermit C. and David Schuler. From Garden City to Green City: The Legacy of Ebenezer Howard. Baltimore, The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002. Center Books on Contemporary Landscape Design, Frederick R. Steiner, Consulting Editor, George F. Thompson, Series Founder and Director.

Patai, Daphne, ed. Looking Backward, 1988-1888: Essays on Edward Bellamy. Amherst: The University of Massachusetts Press, 1988.

Patterson, Stuart. “Constructing Ideal Families in Ideal Communities: The Case of Arthurdale, West Virginia.” The Emory Center For Myth and Ritual in American Life Working Paper 12, Emory University, Institute of the Liberal Arts, April 2002.

Perkins, Frances. The Roosevelt I Knew. New York: Viking Press, 1946.

174

Purdom, C. B. The Garden City: A Study in the Development of a Modern Town. New York, Garland Publishing, Inc., 1985.

Ricardo, David. The Principles of Political Economy & Taxation. London, J. M. Dent & Sons, 1911.

Roosevelt, Elliott, ed. The Roosevelt Letters: Being the Personal Correspondence of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. London: George G. Harrap & Co. Ltd, 1949.

Rosen, Elliot A. Hoover, Roosevelt, and the Brains Trust: From Depression to New Deal. New York: Columbia University Press, 1977.

Rosenman, Samuel I., ed. The Public Papers and Addresses of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Volume Two: The Year of Crisis. New York: Random House, 1938.

______, The Public Papers and Addresses of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Volume Four: The Court Disapproves, 1938, New York: Random House, 1938.

______. Working With Roosevelt. New York: Harper & Brothers, Publishers, 1952.

Ross, Leland M., and Allen W. Gobin. This Democratic Roosevelt: The Life Story of “F. D.” New York: E. P. Dutton & Co., Inc., 1932.

Rozwenc, Edwin C., ed. The New Deal: Revolution or Evolution. Boston: D. C. Heath and Company, 1949.

Sanborn, F. B., ed. The Single Tax Discussion. Saratoga: American Social Science Association, September 5, 1890.

Sargent, James E. Roosevelt and the Hundred Days: Struggle for the Early New Deal. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1981.

Schlesinger, Jr., Arthur M. The Crises of the Old Order: 1919-1933. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1957.

Schlesinger, Jr. Arthur M. The Coming of the New Deal: 1933-1935. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1958: Mariner Books, 2003.

Schwartz, Jordan A. The Interregnum of Despair: Hoover, Congress. and the Depression. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1970.

Shapiro, Herbert and David Sterling, eds. I Belong to the Working Class: The Unfinished Biography of Rose Pastor Stokes. (Athens, Georgia: The University of Georgia Press, 1992.

175

Sharp, Kathleen Ann. “Rose Parker Stokes: Radical Champion of the American Working Class, 1879-1933.” Ph.D. diss., Duke University, 1979.

Sitkoff, Harvard, Fifty Years Later: The New Deal Evaluated, Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1985.

Smith, Adam. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. London, J. M. Dent & Sons, Ltd.

Sowards, Frank E. “An Historical Overview of the Village of Greenhills, its Schools and Projections for the Future” (Masters thesis, Ohio State University, 1952).

Steiner, Frederick. The Politics of New Town Planning: The Newfields, Ohio Story. Athens, Ohio, Ohio University Press, 1981.

Stellhorn, Paul A., ed. Planned and Utopian Experiments: Four New Jersey Towns. Papers Presented at the Tenth Annual New Jersey History Symposium, December 2, 1978. Trenton, New Jersey Historical Commission, 1980.

Sternsher, Bernard. Rexford Tugwell and the New Deal. New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1964.

Sullivan, Patricia. Days of Hope: Race and Democracy in the New Deal Era. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1996.

Taft, Charles, P. You and I—and Roosevelt. New York: Farrar & Rinehart, 1936.

Thomas, John L. Alternative America: Henry George, Edward Bellamy, Henry Demarest Lloyd and the Adversary Tradition. Cambridge: The Belknap Press, 1983.

Tugwell, Rexford Guy and Howard Hill. Our Economic Society and Its Problems. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1934.

Tugwell, Rexford. FDR: Architect of an Era. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1967.

______, The Battle for Democracy, New York: Columbia University Press, 1935.

______. “The Economic Basis of Public Interest.” Ph.D. thesis, University of Pennsylvania. Menasha, Wisconsin: The Collegiate Press, 1922.

______. The Brains Trust. New York, The Viking Press, 1968.

______. In Search of Roosevelt. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1972.

______. Roosevelt’s Revolution. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., 1977. 176

______. To the Lesser Heights of Morningside. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1982.

Widdicombe, Richard Toby. Edward Bellamy: An Annotated Bibliography of Secondary Criticism. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1988.

Wiers, Brandon. “A Chapter in Forest Park History: Some Significant Events in the History of Diversity in Forest Park, Ohio. As presented to The Forest Park Historical Society, February 2000

Wilcox, Claire, Herbert F. Fraser, Patrick Murphy Malin, eds. America’s Recovery Program. London: Oxford University Press, 1934.

Zinn, Howard. The Peoples History of the United States: 1492-Present. New York: Harper Collins Publishers, Inc., 1999; Perennial Classics 2003.

NEWSPAPERS

Cincinnati Enquirer. 13 September 1981, 2 October 1981, 15 January 1982, 15 January 1986, 22 January 1986, 4 November 1986, 22 April 1987, 11 May 1987, 28 September 1987, 7 October 1987, 13 October 1987, 5 November 1987, 28 January 1988, 22 March 1988, 24 March 1988, 12 April 1988, 19 April 1988, 30 August 1989, 27 February 1990, 12 June 1990, 18 June 1990, 19 June 1990, 20 June 1990, 24 July 1990, 18 September 1990, 25 September 1990, 10 October 1990, 12 October 1990, 30 October 1990, 31 October 1990, 8 November 1990, 16 November 1990, 19 November 1990, 28 December 1990, 26 January 1991, 26 April 1991, 14 June 1991, 17 March 1992, 27 May 1992, 13 April 2002

Cincinnati Post. 18 December 1973, 19 January 1979, 29 September 1979, 17 December 1980, 20 January 1986, 10 February 1986, 17 December 1986, 30 July 1987, 18 June 1990, 19 June 1990, 20 June 1990, 8 November 1990, 12 November 1990, 27 November 1990, 6 June 1991 9 July 1991, 27 August 1991, 24 October 1991, 18 June 1992, 13 August 1992, 15 September 1992, 29 September 1992, 28 January 1993, 5 August 1993, 8. January 2000, 11 October 2000

Phillip County News, Malta, Montana. “Tugwell Predicts New Regulations for Land with Federal Control.” 4 January 1934.

The New York Times. 26, March 1911, 27, March 1911, 28 March 1911, 29 March 1911, 3 March 1911, 31 March 1911, 27 April 1912, 27 September 1913, 12 March 1914, 4 May 1933, 16 June 1935, 25 June 1935, 11 December 1935, 2 February 1936, 27 February 1936, 3 March, 1936, 12 March 1936, 26 March 1936 May 1936, 19 May 1936, 20 May 936, 15 July 1936, 16 August 1936, 1 September 1936, 8 September 1936, 2 November 1936, 3 November 1936, 13 November 1936, 18 November 1936, 21 November 1936, 2 September 1937, 10 October 1937, 26 August 1938, 24 177

November 1938, 16 June 1940, 2 May 1944, 31 October 1944, 30 August 1948, 16 October 1955, 9 September 1970,

The San Francisco Bay Guardian, Burton H. Wolfe, “The Monopolization of Monopoly, The Landlord’s Game, 1976.

INTERNET SOURCES

America’s Great Depression: Timeline. Available at http://www.amatecon.com/gd/gdtimeline.html

Baer, John W. The Pledge of Allegiance: A Centennial History, 1892-1992. Annapolis, Md., John W. Baer, 1992. Available at http://history.vineyard.net/pdgech3.htm.

Bartleby.com. “Calvin Coolidge, Inaugural Address, 4 March 1925. Available at http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres47.html.

Cincinnati Historical Society Library. “Guide to 20th Century African American Resources: Housing and Neighborhoods.” Available at http://library.cincymuseum.org/aag/housing.html

Cincinnati Historical Society Library. “Guide to 20th Century African American Resources: Theodore M. Berry.” Available at http://library.cincymuseum.org/aag/bio/berry.html

Cincinnati Historical Society Library. “Guide to 20th Century African American Resources: Theodore M. Berry.” Available at http://library.cincymuseum.org/aag/bio/berry.html.

City of Cincinnati. Community Development and Planning. “Laurel Homes Historic District.” Available at http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/cdap/pages/-6748-/.

“Columbia Encyclopedia,” 6th ed., s.v. “city planning.” Available at http://www.bartleby.com/65/ci/city plann.html

Education on the Internet & Teaching History Online, “Rexford Tugwell,” Available at http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USARtugwell.htm

Encarta Encyclopedia. “Economics.” Available at http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761562677/Economics.html.

George de Mille, Agnes. “Who Was Henry George?” The Robert Schalkenbach Foundation. Available at http://www.progress.org/books/george.htm.

Hahnel, Robin. “Edward Bellamy and the Twenty First Century.” The Participatory Economics Project. Available at http://www.parecon.org/writings/hahnelbellamy.htm. 178

Harris, Trudier. “Sharecropping.” Modern American Poetry. Available at http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/poets/a_f/brown/sharecropping.htm.

Heart o’ Scotland. “Adam Smith – Economist.” Available at http://www.heartoscotland.com/Categories/adam-smith.htm.

Henry George School of Social Science. “A Chronology of the Life and Work of Henry George.” The Henry George School of Social Science and Birthplace Museum, Philadelphia. Available at http://www.geocities.com/henrygeorge school/hg_chronology.html?200612.

Higgs, Robert, “A Tale of Two Brain Trusts.” The Independent Institute, 1 October 2002. Available at http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=201.

History Detectives, Episode 2, Board Games, Arden Delaware, 2004. Available at www.pbs.org/historydetectives.

History Resource Center: U.S., “Rexford Gut Tugwell, 1891-1979” The Public Library of Cincinnati and Hamilton County. Available at http://galenetgroup.com/servlet/HistRC/hits?docNum=BT100017778&tab=1&rto+...

Houghton Mifflin, The Reader’s Companion to American History. “Robber Barons.” Available at http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/rcap/html/ah_075300_robberbarons.htm

“Norman Thomas.” Available at http://www.spartacus.schoolnent.co.uk/USAthomas.htm.

Ohio Department of Education. Available at www.ode.state.oh.

Interfaith Worker Justice. “Historical highlights of the religion-labor movement.” Available at http://www.iwj.org/aboutus/mvm_history.html.

Preiser, Hank. “Redirecting the Global Market Economy Toward Bellamy’s Quest of a Just Society.” Available at http://www.Soc.nu/utopian/competitors/prop_final.asp?ID=145.

Sneath, Wayne D. “Edward Bellamy, Laurence Gronlund, and the Equality Colony: A Brief Story of Utopian Socialism in Action.” Available at http://www.bgsu.edu/departemtns/acs/1890’sbellamy/gronlund.html.

“The Labor Union Movement in America” Available at http://www.socialstudieshelp.com/EcoUnionization.htm.

The White House. “Warren G. Harding.” Available at http:www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/wh29.html. 179

The White House. “William McKinley.” Available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/wm25.html.

“Planned Communities, Part II: Levittown and Beyond,” University of Maryland Libraries. Available at http”//www.lib.umd.edu/NTL/postwar.html.

“Preamble to the IWW Constitution.” Available at http://pdx.iww.org/preamble.html.

Smithsonian Archives of American Art. Interview with Grace and Rexford Tugwell. Conducted by Richard Doud in Santa Barbara, California, 21 January 1965. Available at http://www.aaa.si.edu/collections/oralhistories/transcripts/tugwell65.htm

Socialist Labor Party. “Facts about the Socialist Labor Party of America.” Available at http://www.slp.org/facts.htm.

Socialist Labor Party. “Socialism in the U.S.-From Utopia to Science.” Available at www.slp.org.

Wikepedia Encyclopedia. “Monopoly.” Available at http://en.wikepedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_%28game%29.

Wolfe, Burton H., Free Press Contributor. “Anti-Monopoly, A professor and a freelance writer are determined to set history straight on the origin and theft of a favorite American pastime. Available at http://www.washingtonfreepress.org/36/monopoly.html.

PERIODICALS

Abrams, Charles. “Housing and Politics.” Survey Graphic, Magazine of Social Interpretation 29 (1 February 1940): 91.

Editorial, “Black Labor and the Codes.” Opportunity: Journal of Negro Life (August 1933).

Editorial, “The Supreme Court Swings the Ax.” The Nation (15, January 1936).

GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS

U. S, Congress, Senate, Subcommittee of the Committee on Banking and Currency. Sale of Greentown Suburban Resettlement Projects. 81st Congress, 1st Session on S. 351, 22 February and 24 March 1949.

180

THEODORE BERRY PAPERS (NAACP) Archived at the Cincinnati Historical Society at Union Terminal.

Box 2: Folder 6 – Housing 1939,1945,1949, n.d. Folder 7 – Housing addresses, resolutions, articles, etc., 1950, 1951 Folder 8 – Publications, 1950-1951 Folder 9 – Addresses, etc., 1952-1953 Folder 10 – Publications, 1953

Box 3: Housing 1953-1955

Box 4: Housing 1956-1959

Box 5: Folder 3 – NAACP 1954-1965 Folder 4 – NAACP 1960-1964 Folder 5 – Newspaper Clippings

NAACP Papers. Archived at the Cincinnati Historical Society at Union Terminal.

Box 4: Folders 15-16 – Fair Housing Program (1976) Box 7: Folder 7 – Planning the end of Hamilton County’s Slums (1966) Box 19: Folder 15 – Mona Bronson et al vs. Cincinnati Board of Education (1974) Folder 25 – Urban High School Reform Conference (1978) Box 31: Folder 2 – Housing Committee (Theodore Berry) 1962 Box 32: Folder 1 – Cincinnati Profiles Folder 14 – HOME Reports 1976 Folder 25 – HOME Reports 1977

181

APPENDIX 1

DIVISION OF SUBURBAN RESETTLEMENT RESETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATION – WASHINGTON, D. C

HOUSING QUESTIONNAIRE

The Resettlement Administration is building a new suburban community northeast of Mount Healthy to provide houses for employed workers of limited income in Cincinnati and the Mill-Creek Valley region. It will plan and develop the town and surrounding acres for the preservation and best use of natural resources. Located in rolling country twelve and a half miles from Government Square in Cincinnati, and five miles from the City line, the community will have ready access to working and shopping centers in Cincinnati.

The development will embody the following features of a modern, planned community:

• It will be surrounded by a green belt—a wide encircling strip of land containing wood and farmland and recreational area—in order to insure a permanently natural surrounding. • Houses will be close to green spaces and play area, safe from traffic and noise, and will be convenient to schools, shops, and other facilities located within the community itself. Major traffic thoroughfares will not pass through the town. • Each dwelling will have adequate sunlight and ventilation, sanitary equipment, and privacy. • Dwellings will include houses of various types and sizes, and rental will be within reach of families of modest incomes. • Management of the town and the houses will include representatives of the tenants.

The Administration is eager to get information from people interested in the project as to the type of housing they need and the rents they are able to pay. Your cooperation in answering this questionnaire quickly and accurately will be of great value. Please use the attached franked envelope for returning it to us.

The answers to this questionnaire will be kept entirely confidential and will not in any way be considered as an application for a home in the project. You do not need to sign your name to the questionnaire unless you wish.

182

PRESENT HOME

1. Are you interested in the possibility of living in the Resettlement community near Mount Healthy?

2. Your home address______

3. How many persons live in your home?______

A. Members of the family were to be listed along with their age, sex, and country of birth.

B. The number of lodgers and roomers that were not family members.

4. Do you Own your Home?______or Rent it?______

If you rent, how much is the rent per month?______

Does this rent include heat?

Does this rent include garage?

Does this rent include furnishings?

I have actually paid______Dollars in rent in the past twelve (12) months. (Do not count any amount owing but not paid)

5. Which of the following rooms do you have in your present house?

Living Room Dining Room Kitchen Private Bath Number of Bedrooms______Porch Garage

6. Do you own an automobile?

Do you own a washing machine?

Do you own a Piano?

Do you own a mechanical refrigerator____ electric_____ gas_____ none_____

183

WORK, CHURCH AND SCHOOL

7. Please fill in the following blanks for the principal wage-earner and all other wage-earners in your family. (Do not include roomers or lodgers. Fill out A and B for each wage-earner.

A. Section A required the applicant to:

• list the wage-earner(s) • the street and town where employed • type of employment they were engaged in • kind of job.

B. Section B required the applicant to:

• list the relationship between the worker and applicant • the usual mode of transportation to work (bus, trolley, train, auto, or walking) • the cost of round trip transportation from home • length of time for one-way trip to work • weekly earnings • the number of weeks worked in the last twelve months • Amount earned in the last twelve months

8. What was the total family income for the last twelve months? (Do not include rent received from roomers or lodgers.)

9. What income, if any, did you receive from renting rooms to roomers of lodgers in the last twelve months?

10. What church, if any, do you or your family attend?

11. How many children in your family attend Public Schools?

Private Schools?

THE NEW COMMUNITY

12. What rooms do you need in a new home for your family (not including roomers or lodgers?) Remember that every room adds to the rent.

184

• Living Room • Small Kitchen and separate Dining Room Or Large Kitchen with space for eating Or Kitchenette and Dinette • Number of Bedrooms • Porch • Garage

13. Would you prefer to have your home in an • Apartment building • Attractive group building of not more than six houses • Single house costing more per month than an apartment or group house

14. Which of the following facilities would your family use frequently? (Note: Schools and the usual shopping facilities will be provided?)

Day nursery Basketball courts Bowling alley Playground for small children Community Social Hall Swimming pool Library Tennis courts Restaurant Baseball diamonds Tavern Football field Beauty Parlor Handball courts

What other facilities?______

15. Would you expect to do your own laundry or patronize a wet-wash laundry?

16. Would you cultivate a flower garden at your home?

Would you cultivate a vegetable garden at your home?

Would you cultivate a vegetable garden if a few blocks from your home?

17. Please make and additional comments or recommendations on a separate sheet.

Date______Name______(sign only if you wish to)

Source: Charles Bradley Leach, “Greenhills, Ohio: The Evolution of an American New Town” (Ph.D. diss., Case Western Reserve, 1978), 297-300. 185

APPENDIX 2

Correspondence from School Board President John Pennycuff, August 13, 2007

Susan, You have my permission to quote me on all the questions except number four. For question #4, I did some further research and would like you to disregard the first answer and use the following modified text as your starting point:

4. The increase in number of children who are receiving ADC is the biggest change/challenge for the district. Personally, I think the influx of ADC eligible students dwarfs the issues related to high school merger and other building reconfigurations. As a group, ADC kids have less exposure to learning opportunities at home (e.g., fewer family trips to museums, fewer newspapers and magazines, fewer home computers, etc.), less parental involvement in PTA and other school activities (both parents must work), less reinforcement of concepts taught in school (parents are less well educated and may not know the material themselves). Also, ADC kids are more likely to be identified as Special Ed. Perhaps, those parents cannot afford or do not have access to as much health care as families who are more well off. The Spec. Ed population has a significant impact on test scores under NCLB and will therefore affect the public’s perception of the quality of school. There appears to be a high correlation across the state between percent of ADC kids and percent in Spec. Ed. To be clear, I am not saying that ADC kids are less capable and cannot achieve at outstanding levels. Many do. But as a group, ADC students come to school somewhat behind their peers in development, with less educated models around them, and with more health issues. Thus, schools with high percentages of ADC students have to devote extra resources to compensate to the lack of resources at home and the diverse starting points at school. Some voters balk at paying more taxes to help schools overcome the effects of development and health issues that some kinds bring to school.

By the way, if you would like to review those newspaper clippings from 1988- 1992, let me know how to get them to you. For example, I could leave them in a big envelope for you at the Board office. I would need to know the you are coming by so as to properly alert the receptionist. And yes, I would like to read your more current draft of your paper. Perhaps you could leave a copy, marked to my attention, at the Board Office.

186

APPENDIX 3

187

APPENDIX 4

Theodore Berry Papers on Housing

In 1933 Cincinnati requested $7,000,000 from the Housing Administration of the

WPA during the Roosevelt Administration for the construction of Laurel Homes.1 Laurel

Homes was located in the West End of Cincinnati and was bounded by Liberty Street,

John Street, Linn Street, and Ezzard Charles. It was designated a Historic Place on May

19, 1987.

Laurel Homes was the second largest Public Works Administration public housing project in the country. It illustrated the housing ideas in planning circles in the 1930’s and represented a milestone in Cincinnati humanitarian efforts to improve the living conditions for the poor. The district consisted of 25 brick apartment buildings with 4 subsidiary brick buildings each three and four stories tall with flat roofs. Between 2000 and 2002 all but three buildings in Laurel Homes were demolished to make way for a new public housing project; the three remaining buildings were rehabilitated but now lack the strong sense of time, place, and history that was so integral to the complex. While no action has been taken to remove this resource from the National Register it no longer retains sufficient integrity to merit listing.2

In 1951 Bleeker commented on the shortage of housing in the basin area at the Annual

Meeting of the Better Housing League held at the Y.W.C.A. on February 15, 1951. He stated that between 1941 and 1950, 3,582 dwellings had been demolished and only 1,015 low rent housing units had been constructed in Lincoln Court. There were 2,567 fewer housing units in 1950, despite a population increase of 7,763, or about 2,200 families.

We are in the present dangerous world situation of the bitter conflict of opposing ideologies. Communism uses the false but effective argument to the deprived peoples of the world that their system produces a better way of life. We know that theirs is lying propaganda. Yet in that propaganda they point to America’s slums and we are vulnerable. Aside from a wise plan for helping backward nations to improve their standards of living is there any sounder way of immobilizing

1 Bleeker Marquette, “The History of Housing in Ohio.” Presented at the Conference of Ohio Housing Authorities, Youngstown, Ohio, June, 1939, 6. Marquette was the Executive Secretary of the Better Housing League and a Consultant to the Cincinnati Metropolitan Housing Authority. 2 City of Cincinnati, Community Development and Planning, Laurel Homes Historic District, available from http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/cdap/pages/-6748-/, accessed 10 May 2008. 188

communist propaganda than by a great program to make American communities the envy of the world.3

According to Berry’s papers, in the 1950’s to the mid-1960’s, the NAACP was mainly

concerned with providing adequate housing. They were concerned that housing units

were lost by the elimination of slums without building an adequate number of replacement housing. They were also concerned with having federally insured loans available to African Americans. These included FHA insured, VA guarantied, VA direct,

FNMA held loans, OA direct loans for prefabricated housing, and OA direct for college

and university housing. The also saw problems with housing owned by the Federal

Government. This included not only the greenbelt towns, but also included war or

military housing and federally owned property managed locally under a “lease”

agreement. In addressing the legal issues it had to be determined who the plaintiff and

defendant were, where the suit should be filed, and what type of action could be taken.

They were also concerned with improving policing in slums, fighting blight in

deteriorating areas, and preventing new blight.4

3 Bleeker Marquette, Address at the Annual Meeting of the Better Housing League, Cincinnati, Ohio,15 March 1951, 4.

4 Theodore Berry Papers. Housed at the Cincinnati Historical Society, at Union Terminal, Cincinnati, Ohio.