DOCUMENT RESUME ED 049 330 24 UD 011 419 AUTHOR Maroson, Simon TITLE Dc';entralization and Community Control in Urban Areas. INSTITUTION Rutgers, The State Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. SPONS AGENCY National Center for Educ-,tional Research and Development (DHEW/CE), Washington, D.C. BUREAU NO BR-9-0551 PUB DATE 15 Jan 71 GRANT OEG-2-9-400551-1070(010) NOTE 22hp, EDRS PRICE EDRS Price M.7-$0.65 HC-$9.87 DESCRIPTORS Administrator Attitudes, *Community Control, *Community Involvement, Educational Facilities, Integration Effects, Parent Attitudes, Public Schools, *Research Ciiteria, *School Integration, Statistical Data, Student Attitudes, *Urban Schools ABSTRACT This is the report of a project executed to assist in developing research policies on urban education. Data vas gathered from several large cities, but detailed reports are included from Cleveland, Boston, Philadelphia, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, and Oakland. Trends in urban education with respect to decentralization and community control are discussed, drawn from interview, observations, and statistical data These data provide the basis for determination of a plan for research on urban education, the development of a theoretical framework, and the development of research priorities in urban areas. (Author/DM) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION E. WELFARE OFFICE OF EDUCATION THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM THE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGINATING IT POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONS STATED 00 NOT NECES- SARILY REPRESENT OFFICIAL OFF ICE OF EDU CATION POSITION OR POLICY DECENTRALIZATION AND COMMUNITY CONTROL IN URBAN AREAS BY SIMON MARCSON RUTGERS UNIVERSITY UNDER A GRANT FROM U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION No. 0EG-2-9-400551-1070(010) January 15, 1971 1 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION Chapter 1. DECENTRALIZATION ANE COMMUNITY CONTROL OF SCHOOLS: THE BOSTON CASE 1 2. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION AND DECENTRALIZATION IN THE CLEVELAND, OHIO SCHOOL SYSTEM 37 3. PARTIAL ADMINISTRATIVE DECENTRALIZATION IN PHILADELPHIA 70 4. THE ADAMS-MORGAN COMMUNITY SCHOOL PROJECT: WASHINGTON, D C 88 5. LOS ANGELES: GUIDED PARTICIPATION AND COMMUNITY CONTROL 106 6. ATTITUDES ABOUT DECENTRALIZED ANP COMMUNITY CONTROLLED SCHOOLS: OAKLAND 138 7. DETROIT: VOLUNTARY "DECENTRALIZED SCHOOL PLAN" . 167. 8. CHICAGO; CONTROLLED ADMINISTRATIVE DECENTRAL- IZATION IN AN URBAN SCHOOL SYSTEM 182 9. RESEARCH ON DECENTRALIZATION AND COMMUNITY CONTROL 202 INTRODUCTION A In pursuit of my project for developing research policies on urban education, I visited the following cities: Philadelphia, Washington, D.C., Boston, Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles and the Berkeley-Oakland area. However, the reports on the cities of Cleveland, Boston, and Oakland were included in this study through contractual arrangements with specialists in these areas. The visits to these cities have presented me with a picture of the trends in urban education with respect to the issue of school decentralization and community control. There is quite a variation in decentralization and community control activity for each of the cities.They range all the way from a city such as Detroit, which, under State legislation, must draw up decentralized community school boundaries by January, 1970 to OaWand, California where seemingly very little is occurting in school innovation, although there are deep community con- flicts going on. Cities such as Cleveland and Chicago are approaching problems of decentralization as administrative in character and have adopted a variety of administrative types of decentralization, with Chicago also adopting for one area of the city, a ccmmunity advisory council with a good deal of local decision- making power. both Philadelphia and Washington, D.C. are examples of cities which have undertaken small experiments in decentralization and community control and have delegated a number of powers to one or two areas in these cities. Boston is in a state of flux and has the possibilities of developing a system of integration of its own, but there is a race against time there with legislation possibly forthcoming from the State which may mandate decentralized school boundaries. Los Angeles is in somewhat the same position with experiments going on in which the school system has delegated powers to two complexes in the city which have local advisory conmunity committees. At the same time, there is a movement on for establishing school integration through a mandated busing system which has little likelihood of being voted in, and if It is not voted in, the State will, 3 wIthin a year or so, vote legislation mandating school boundaries possibly in the same manner as the city of Detroit. While there are some heartening events taking place In public education, especially in such cities as Los Angeles and Philadelphia, there is much to be discouraged about as these city school systems meet the profound problems of urban education. The city Inner-core schools have suffered from evey conceivable social and human problem, and continue to do so.one of the effects has been to stimu- late a demand on the part of the racial and ethnic groups involved in these areas for control of their schools in their communities so as to 1 nrrcsato thuir cr111.1.1.1 tic effectiveness. This, obviously, would encourage a move towards not only urban area segregation, but also freeze the school segregation situation.Suppor- ters of public education have countered with demands that integration in the schools should be implemented and extended. A chief instrument of school Inte- gration in these cities is the institution of busing, so as to create a balance of school attendance by races and ethnic groups. However, school busing is, in turn, counteracted by powerful groups in the city. The result of this has been the rise of militants who have stated that since attempts at school Integration are a failure, the only solution is school decentralization with local community control. As this expresses itself in a city like Detroit, it means the establish- ment of school boundary lines along racial lines, thus giving the city &facto segregation. This has come to a head in Detroit with State legislation which makes it mandatory that the city establish boundary fines by January, 1970. The city, at the moment, Is divided as to whether to create school districts along integrated lines or de facto segregated lines. If the school board which is headed by integrationists decides in favor of the black militants, it will be creating a de facto segregated school boundary line system. The Courts have decided for the city in favor of "magnet" schools. The same demands are being expressed in Los Angeles, Oakland, Chicago, Washington, D.C. and Philadelphia. The Boston situation is slightly different because of the relatively smaller 4 proportlor. of Negroes in the city population and the manner in which they are distributed. So Boston has a chance of working out integration if the State, In the meantime, does not pass similar legislation to that of Michigan, and thereby force a quick decision on the part of the city which then might go in the direction of de facto segregated school districts. In the meantime, school systems such as that of Los Angeles, have under- taken a number of interesting innovations to meet the challenge of the lower achievement levels of the ghetto schools, while Philadelphia is experimenting in quite a different manner by taking a very large ghetto high school and decen- tralizing it so as to create an organization of smaller school units as a basis for providing a new system of motivation. All of these cities, except Oakland, are experimenting with the recognition of the role of parents in the community, In parental participation as a motivating factor in child learning. Each of the cities that I have visited are described in greater detail as to their background characteristics and their educational trends. This data provides the basis for a determination of a plan for research on urban education and for the development of a theoretical framework for such research. it is also utilized to develop a plan of research in terms of priorities in selected urban areas. Numerous school officials, teachers, parents, and community leaders have given generously of their time in lengthy interviews and to them, I wish to express my deep gratitude. Many colleagues in the universities of these cP.les have been of assistance in guiding me to helpful sources of data, and tn them Iwish to express my thanks and appreciation. Several colleagues in universities have participated actively in this study by contributing chapters and these Iwant to single out for my personal commendation:Professor Ronald G. Corwin; Professor Leila Sussman, and Dr. Glen P. Nimnicht. I am indebted also to my secretary, Mrs. Sondra Palmieri, for her inestimable assistance In facilitating the work onthis project and for typing and binding.To Robert 5 Marcson, my gratitude goes for numerous and arduous tasks involving research, clerical work, and proof - reading. Finally, to Robert Havlghurst, my thanks for wise guidance. CHAPTER I DECENTRALIZATION AND COMMUNITY CONTROL OF SCHOOLS: THE BOSTON CASE Introduction Of the major city school systems included in this study, Boston could achieve school integration before any other if the factors favoring such a development were utilized. The fact that only 16% of Boston's population in 1970 is Negro is, in itself, an important assist in developing an integrated system. At the same time that the percentage of Negro in the population is low, the concentrated Negro population while high (54'/o in model city area; 60% in Roxbury area; 69% in Washington Park area) have not reached the density depths to be found in ghettos in other cities. Population concentrations of this type remain amenable to reduction to at least 50% levels in urban planning programs. While much of the impetus for decentralization his come from the Black Power movement, these groups remain relatively weak and would not be able to successfully obstruct a strong integrationist movement.