schooling and civil rights history is central tah workshop jack dougherty trinity college march 2008

Schooling and Civil Rights

History is Central TAH Workshop

Jack DoughertyTrinity College

March 2008

NAACP attorneys Hayes, Marshall, & Nabrit, 1954

Rethinking how we teach Brown v Board

Uncritical use of popular civil rights images have “frozen the movement in time”

Patricia Sullivan and Waldo Martin call upon educators to“Challenge the conventional or master narrative of civil rights

history”

NAACP attorneys Hayes, Marshall, & Nabrit, 1954


Comparing Historical Interpretations of Desegregationa jigsaw learning exercise

Legal and political background:

After 1954 Brown decision banned legalized school segregation, lower federal courts followed Briggs dictum:

US Constitution “does not require integration. . . It merely forbids the use of governmental power to enforce segregation”


Legal and political background:

White deseg resistance strategies:

-1956 Alabama bans NAACP activity

-1956 Southern Manifesto calls for reversal of Brown

-1957 Close all public schools (Prince Edward County, Virginia)

-1957 White mob protest (Little Rock)

-“Grade-a-year” and “Freedom of choice”desegregation plans

NAACP goes to court to demand more affirmative steps on deseg


Guiding Question:How did two different

Southern Black communities experience school

desegregation?


What challenges and opportunities do you face in teaching about the history of race and schooling?

Race and Education in Connecticut: A Brief Overview

1830s Whites Oppose Black Ed in Connecticut

1831 New Haven citizens vote 700-4 against proposal to open first college for Black men

1833 White teacher Prudence Crandall opens private boarding school for African-American girls in Canterbury, but local whites respond violently and shut it down

1834 Additional controversies prompt CT legislature to pass “Black laws,” banning the teaching of out-of-state Black students (only state above Mason-Dixon line to do so at that time)

“Race Problem in City Schools” Evening Post (Hartford)

Hartford school superintendent Thomas Weaver proposed segregated evening schools for older students to retain Blacks who were “slighted and ignored” by Whites; Black pastors form Ministerial Alliance to oppose segregation; Weaver drops plan

1917

Report identified “racial imbalance and poverty”

as key problems facing Hartford and its schools

1965

Hartford total non-White Population, 1960

Hartford School Population, 1964

Grade % Non-White

K-9 50%

9-12 32%

Recommended two-prong plan:

• HPS school construction for desegregation

• suburban districts should enroll some low-income Hartford children (perhaps two per classroom)

1965

1966 Controversy over Project Concern voluntary city-to-suburb school deseg

Hartford Times 1968, Hartford Public Library

Some suburban districts voted to accept city students, with state funding; others refused

1966 Controversy over Project Concern voluntary city-to-suburb school deseg

Hartford Times 1968, Hartford Public Library

Some suburban districts voted to accept city students, with state funding; others refused

Project Choice enrollment

1989 Sheff v O’Neill lawsuit filed

Ten-year-old Milo Sheff and sixteen other plaintiffs filed suit against then-Governor O’Neill, charging that Hartford’s segregated school system deprived them of equal opportunity under Connecticut constitution

Milo Sheff and mother, Elizabeth Horton Sheff,

Hartford Courant

Since 1974 Milliken v Bradley federal ruling in Detroit blocked mandatory city-suburban desegregation remedies, Sheff plaintiffs turned to Connecticut state courts instead Hartford 91% minority

students (1988-89)

11 week trial

1,000 pieces of evidence; 50 witnesses

State defended its position by arguing that government action did not create segregated schools; individual decisions in housing market was to blame

1992 Sheff lawsuit finally goes to trial

Hartford Courant

1996

What the court did (and did NOT) rule:

• racial segregation in schools violates state constitution, but no specific remedy for legislature to follow, and no deadline

• school boundary lines have caused unconstitutional segregation, but no mandate to change boundaries in Hartford or metro region

Republican Gov. Rowland and Democratic legislative leaders agree not to force suburban districts to integrate; voluntary only

2003

The Settlement emphasizes:• voluntary city-suburban

enrollment through magnet schools

• voluntary city-suburban transfers through Project Choice (formerly Project Concern)

• raise Hartford minority student enrollment in voluntary deseg from 10 to 30 percent by 2007

Sheff attorney Horton, Atty Gen Blumenthal & Comm of Ed Sergi with Sheff plaintiffs, H Courant

Four questions to consider

Q1: Are voluntary measures sufficient to meet Sheff goals? And the other 70%?

• voluntary city-suburb enrollment in 22 magnet schools


• voluntary city-suburb enrollment in 22 magnet schools

• voluntary city-suburb transfers through Project Choice


The current Sheff settlement does

NOT redraw city-suburban district boundaries, nor does it require

suburban districts to participate in

Project Choice or magnet school

programs.

Are mandatory measures the

answer?

Even if the current Sheff settlement reached its goal, only 30% of Hartford minority students (about 7,000) would be enrolled in “reduced-isolation” magnet schools or suburban districts

The remaining 70% would remain in Hartford neighborhood schools, which tend to be racially isolated and have low achievement levels.


Even if the current Sheff settlement reached its goal, only 30% of Hartford minority students (about 7,000) would be enrolled in “reduced-isolation” magnet schools or suburban districts

The remaining 70% would remain in Hartford neighborhood schools, which tend to be racially isolated and have low achievement levels.

“Is it the vision we started with 14 years ago? No. It is a giant step forward? Yes.”

“It’s a good thing. . . This isn’t the end of it. We’ll come back and see where we are in four years.” - Elizabeth Horton Sheff Hartford Courant January 23, 2003


Q2: Do Hartford parents experience “freedom of choice” or “forced choice”?

2) Project Concern alumni oral history interview: "If you are stuck, as a parent. . . and you can’t put yourself in the neighborhood that you want your kids to go to school in, then you have no choice but to be in the city-to-suburb desegregation program.” (Banks & Dougherty, 2004)

See: 1) Proj Choice Campaign DVD

Q3: What do specific cases of high-achieving minority schools mean for Sheff?

4th grade CMT avg 2007

Percent minority SYE 2007

Free lunch SYE 2007

State avg 62 34 27Montessori Magnet 57 78 28Jumoke charter 56 100 >95UHart Magnet 45 74 30Breakthrough Magnet 41 73 34Hartford Pub Sch avg 20 94 70MD Fox elem 18 94 66Moylan elem 16 99 69McDonough elem 10 98 74

Jumoke Academy, public K-8 charter school located in Hartford’s North End

On CT “failing school” list 2002-05, but now on top-10 list of high-achieving elem schools for Af-Am and low-income students

Q4: What do changing suburban demographics mean for Sheff?

Four questions to consider

Q1: Are voluntary measures sufficient to meet Sheff goals? And what about other 70%?

Q2: Do Hartford parents experience “freedom of choice” or “forced choice”?

Q3: What do specific cases of high-achieving minority schools mean for Sheff?

Q4: What do changing suburban demographics mean for Sheff?

What’s the current status of Sheff?Proposed Legal Settlement(aka Sheff II), spring 2007:

- Increase state support for Project Choice and interdistrict magnet schools

-Add charter schools and vocational-technical schools

-5-year goal to raise Hartford minority student enrollment in desegregated settings from 22% (08-09) to 41% (by 2012)

July 2007: Sheff II agreed to by CT Atty General and Sheff plaintiffs

But Hartford officials object, and CT legislators do not act on bill

Nov 2007: Plaintiffs to back to court; Jan 2008: Judge calls for Legislature to respond

Feb 2008: Sheff II bill introduced

March 2008: CT Atty Gen withdraws Sheff II agreement; more negotiations continue. . .

Reassessing Brown: A Century of Race & Ed Reform

How do we make sense of school desegregation struggles, particularly from our perspective in the post-Brown era?

Review Evolution of Federal Legal and Political Struggles1896 Plessy v Ferguson - Court upholds “separate but equal”


1930s to NAACP shifts Court opinion, from focusing on lack of equal 1954 facilities, to attacking the principle of racial separation



1955 to NAACP persuades Court to require more affirmative deseg1974 actions, in an effort to halt white resistance to Brown




Third period of change:1974 Milliken v Bradley1991 Oklahoma City1995 Missouri v Jenkins2003 U Michigan cases2007 Seattle & Louisvillle




Third period of change:1974 Milliken v Bradley - bans city-suburb deseg if no intentional

seg1991 Oklahoma City - deseg plans removed if good faith (not

results)1995 Missouri v Jenkins - voluntary city-suburb magnet plan cut

back2003 U Michigan cases - no race points in adm, but diversity goal

OK 2007 Seattle & Louisville - are voluntary race deseg plans

allowed?

Review Evolution of Federal Legal and Political Struggles

2007 Seattle & Louisville cases

Facts: Seattle Public Schools, about 40% white, 60% non-whiteStudents assigned to neighborhood schoolsDistrict voluntarily adopted a racial integration goal that

each school would be ± 10% of the citywide minority averageRising 9th graders may choose high schoolsAbout 97 percent of students received 1st or 2nd choiceAbout 3 percent (300 students) affected by district use of

race

Question: Does the US constitution prohibit school boards from using race-conscious criteria in a limited way to achieve racial diversity and integration in K-12 schools?

Review Evolution of Federal Legal and Political Struggles

2007 Seattle & Louisville casesQuestion: Does the US constitution prohibit school boards from using

race-conscious criteria in a limited way to achieve racial diversity and integration in K-12 schools?

US Supreme Court divided in a 4 -1 - 4 decision

Breyer, Stevens Kennedy Roberts, ScaliaGinsburg, Souter Thomas, Alito

School districts may <---consider race

---> Seattle and Louisvilledeseg plans violate theconstitution because they

act in “non-individualized, mechanical way” on race

schooling and civil rights history is central tah workshop jack dougherty trinity college march 2008

Documents

hartford school population

city students

legalized school segregation

black ed

black laws

private boarding school

hps school construction

whites black pastors