DOCUMENT RESUME ED 029 916 o UD 002 767 By-Usdan. Michael D. New York City and the Politics of School Desegregation:Edited from a Study by David Rogers with Faith Kortheuer and Roslyn Mensel. Center for Urban Education. New York, N.Y. Pub Date Jul 63 Note-278p. EDRS Price MF-$1.25 HC-$14.00 Descriptors-Administrative Organization. *Boardsof Education. *Bureaucracy. Caucasians. City Demography. *City Government. Community Organizations.Community Relations. Decision Making. Educational Change. Housing Patterns. Neighborhood SchoolPolicy. Organizations (Groups). *Political Influences.*Public School Systems. School Integration. Teachers.Urban Schools Identifiers-New York City This document is an abridged versionof a longer study of the New York City school system which has beenpublished under the title '110 LivingstonStreet (see UD 007 624). Discussed here areNew York City's struggle over schooldesegregation. the Board of Education and its topdecision makers, and the demographicand housing patterns in the city. Alsoincluded are chapters on the neighborhoodschool issue, civil rightsorganizations. the 'moderates: and the relationshipbetween the Board and the city government.(NH) (7,?6 A 056 NEW YORK CITY AND THE POLITICS OF SCHOOL DESEGREGATION tNt, Edited from a Study by David Rogers ts with Faith Kortheuer and Roslyn Menzel July 1968 The Center for Urban Education elm ow U.S. DEPARTMENT Of HEALTH, EDUCATION & WELFARE OFFICE Of EDUCATION THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM THE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGINATINS IT.POINTS Of VIEW OR OPINIONS STATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE OF EDUCATION POSITION OR POLICY. .> ImPASYIRFIATION NEW YORK CITY A tit 1'TOPOLITICS 011 SCIDIL Edited from astudy by David Rogers with Faith Kortheuerand Roslyn Menzel : Center for UrbanEducation July 1968 IABLE OF CONTENTS Ns Introduction by Robert A. Dentler Chapter 1 The New York City School Struggle 1 2 The Board and Its Top DecisionMakers 17 3 Demographic and Housing Patterns 47 4 The "Neighborhood School" Opposition 59 103 5 Civil Rights Organizations 6 The Moderates 160 7 Tile Board of Education and. NewYork City Government . 198 8 Sane Conclusions 220 259 Footnotes INITIODUCTXON ls 1965, the Center for UrbanEducation funded a study of the political schools in the City of New York.It 4 Obstacles to desegregation of the vas our belief that theissue of school desegregation wouldultimately be resolved only through decision-makingprocesses extending beyond professional educators into communitiesand political bases.Because the size of the school system inNew York City introduces complexities into tracking the progress of changeand innovation, we felt that such studywould. offer illuminating materialfor other big cities, and data forthetimevhen the issue is rejoined in NewYork. City. The Center, since its inception,has been deeply engaged in the 4 work of planning; for the desegregationof schools and has committed its resources to developing qualityintegrated education for all stu- dents; therefore, we are raeased topublieh this studywhichcontributes to an understanding ct how theissue of desegregation has beentreated within New York City. David Rogers, who conducted thestudy, with the assistanceof Faith Kortheyer and Roslyn Menzel,brought to it the perceptionof the sociologist and the insight of a studentof management. The report stands as a personal interpretationof a rich collection of datapains- takingly gathered over a two-yearperiod, ending in June1967. It perhaps is worthwhile notingthat the report carries thecustomary strengths and weaknesses of the casestudy method: richness anddepth of detail about process and forces,but the limitations that accruefrom lack of comparative data andadequate means for validatinghypothetic inferences. The following material is anabridgment of Rogers' 15-chapteratudy, and runs to about one-fourthof the original. The abridgment was pre- pared by Micbael. D. Utdan, anassociate professor ofeducation in the educational administration departmentof Teachers College, Columbia library University. The full report isavailable for reference at the of the Center for Urban Education. A commercial pyblicationof the study is currentlyscheduled bran independentpublisher for late in Robert A. Dent ler Chapter One THE HEW YORK CITY SCHOOL STRUGGLE introduction A New York City edhool strugglehas been goine on since the Supreme Court decision of1954, outlawing segregation.The surface issue relates to the nature, speed, amd scoreof the Board of Education's desegregation efforts. The New York CityBoard of Education, like its counterparts in otner cities, bss beencaught in a crcas-pressure situ- ation tetween civil rights groups whichhave protested that it wasn't moving ahead fast enough, and white,neighborhood school groups which claimed that it was moving much too fast. BUt more is at stake in New YorkCity than the simple question of how much desegregation is taking place.The desegregation issue relates to a nUmber ofothers on which pdbliccontroversies have developed. They include such matters as the extentof professionalism in the schools and accountability of the school systemto the pUblics it serves; the vtability of its administrativestructure, codes, and operations for realizing its stated goals of qualityintegrated education; and its relations with the mayor, other cityagencies, and the community. It is all but impossible to discussthe desegregation issue without getting into all these other questions. This is a study, then, of politicaland social forces that have affected the extent of Board-mandated reformsince 1954. I an con- cerned with innovation and reform aswell as with the issue of deseg- regation. I focus on the Board's handling ofthe latter issue as a vehicle fbr studying the operations ofthe total system. 2 Indeed, desegregation was the catalytic issue that brought to the fbre a number of larger questiow. One of these pertained to the inter- est group politics of New 'York City as they affect the power of its Negro and Puerto Rican populations to secure educational services equal to those of the white middle class. Desegregation was one politi- cal strategy civil rights groups followed for achieving such services. AAIwill point out in the study, it didn't work. Fbr a variety of reasons the Board of Education bas not desegregated the schcols on any scale. Indeed, the amount of segregation has increased since 1954. When most civil rights leaders became convinced that it was beyond their power to wess for more desegregation, they turned to other strat- egies. The basic question of how they can upgrade the quality of educa- tion for Negro and Puerto Rican pupils still remains. So does the ques- tion of Negro and Puerto Rican power to influence the Board's decisions. Another issue which has been triggered off by the desegregation controversy is the capacity of the Board of Education as an institution to accommodate to the rapid demographic, social, political, and economic changes going on around it. The fact that the Board did not implement its desegregation plans and was not able to significantlyr update the quality of education in ghetto sdhools, despite its many compensatory wograms, has called into question tbe integrity and adequacy of the entire institution. The rising tide of communtty ccatroversy over de- segregation made more visible a number of shortcomings and maladapta- tions of the system that had existed years before the 1954 decision.. In sum, the school desegregation issue was syMbolic and symptom- atic of much larger issues.They involved matters of politics1 power, 3 and of the codes and assumptions.on, which the Board of Education, city government, and other related institutions and interestgroup alignments were based. Why New York City New York City's experiences on these matters make it a strategic case for severalreasons.1 First, its school system has often been a model for those in other large cities. The city is generally farther along in the formulation of desegregation plans and their limited imple- mentation on a selective, local basis than any other large Northern city, The successes and failures of its school and political officials and of various civic groups involved in desegregation controversies are taken into account by their colleagues elsewhere and become guidelines for their actions. Second, conditions for school desegregation are in many respects more favorable in New York City than elsewhere. Regardless of some impediments to change inherent inits fragmented and bureaucratic governmental institutions, Reif York Cityhas long been a center of coamopolitan values, of progressive politics,and of innovation in manyfields.la Its present lay Board reflects this, dominated as it is by people with a long record of support for progressive labor and civil rights causes. These individuals share an egalitarian, social reformist outlook that has been a hallmark of the city's political life. Yet, desegregation is not taking place in New York City. It is import- ant to know why, because if it doesn't take place in New York City, there is serious question as to whether it would in any other large Northern city. Finally, all public educationcontroversies that have beenplayed out around the nation have been contestedin their most dramatic forms in New York City.Negro and white parent boycotts overdesegregation, demands for more community participation, andteacher strikes or threats of strikes are all commonplace here. In the words of one cynic, the New York City