Michelle
Heatherly
While
the purpose of education can be viewed a multitude of ways, it has
been generally understood by the working class as the route to a
better life. Whether education meant one’s child could have the
tools to become a physician, or simply the ability to understand all
of their one’s natural rights as a resident of the United States
(instead of citizen, because not everyone who attends school in U.S.
is an American citizen), working class parents have known over time
that education could help their children—the next
generation—experience more upward socioeconomic mobility.
Historically, the movement to make public education more available,
more efficient, and equal for all has been difficult and filled with
obstacles. Working class families wanted their children to be
educated on the same level as other families living above their
means, but were often not given the same resources to do so. As a
center of immigration and working class history, New York City
provides a powerful example as to what the possession of an education
meant to working class families. While the struggle for a better
system of public schools in New York City seems to be a permanent
one, the 20th century held many important changes for the New York
City school system, which directly affected the education given to
working class families.
According
to the 1900 United States census, Over 3 million people lived within
New York City.1
Many new immigrants from western and eastern Europe were com City to
find a better life for their families. Within the first fifteen years
of the century, New York City public schools doubled in attendance to
over 800,000 pupils.2
While the first compulsory education laws in New York City were
passed in 1854, the earliest, child labor laws were passed in the
early 1900s. A fourteen year old youth could legally resign from
school and begin to work in the various factories throughout the
city. Though youths desired to contribute to their family unit many
of their parents and relatives held the notion that their children
should go to school, even if the family would suffer economically
because of it.
At
this time, school conditions were less than desirable. Extreme
overcrowding (of as much as seventy children per classroom) led to
the quick spreading of illness and a lack of individualized
instruction by teachers. were very strict places and were very
crowded (large classrooms featuring anywhere in between 35-70
children.)3
A teacher could not devote individual time to any student. Many
schools had very limited supplies and resources, and several could
only offer children a half day school program. Furthermore, working
class immigrant children, who did not speak English as a first
language, did not have the English as a Second Language programs that
we do today. They were negatively labeled for the rest of their
educational careers.
One
group who attempted to improve the educational opportunities of the
working class was the Teachers Union, founded in 1916. At this time
the union was a locally formed group of teachers, with no larger
union affiliation. Essentially, Teachers Union members joined
together for the greater good of student welfare and creating power
for themselves. Many members came from underprivileged or working
class backgrounds themselves, and a good percentage had more liberal,
socialist, or even communist leanings. By the beginning of World War
II, out of “...the 6034 members of the TU, well over 5,000 were
Jewish”.4
That
gave them a special knowledge of what it was like to be socially
marginalized in the United States, and to know what better
educational circumstances could be. A good portion of the Teachers
Union’s work was responding to the blatant racism that pervaded New
York City at the time. The Americanized school curriculum was highly
racist and left out the histories and cultures of many groups of
people due to the White Anglo-Saxon Protestant backgrounds of many
school textbook writers. The Teachers Union sought to make the
curriculum more inclusive and appreciative of every culture's
contribution to America.
Another
tremendous challenge facing working class families in New York City
was career tracking and IQ testing. Children in kindergarten and
first grade were being tested from an early age to put them on a
“career track.” Those of racial minority background es “produced”
at least 20% “retarded” children, according to these culturally
and linguistically biased examinations. 5
Similarly, biased testing put the children of working class immigrant
families into worse schools, because the tests were in English.
Otherwise bright children were categorized as “retarded” because
they could not yet read English. It is obvious that there was a
severe racism as the time. Groups of immigrants would live in their
own neighborhoods, which was fortunate in Brooklyn, because unlike
the other boroughs, Brooklyn fought, for and maintained, for
sometime, district/neighborhood control over their own schools.
Minimally, the underprivileged races and those of a different
background could create school environments more conducive to their
needs.
Alongside
the work of the Teachers Union, the progressive education movement
changed the dynamics of education of the working class. A progressive
education means that every child will have the education that is best
for them; no student should be bored in school. Some schools would
offer courses in animal husbandry, mechanics, beauty salon work, or
culinary skills: according to the student's desires. A child's
education should have everything, including the core basics of
education. For the sake of brevity, the issue with progressive
education and the working class is its real impact on the child. Some
argued that progressive education trained the working class for
manual labor, otherwise known as vocational training. Others praised
progressive education, saying it offered more than a working class
child would get at home: health education, gym programs, and options
so that school becomes enjoyable for them. Fortunately (or not,
depending on one’s perspective) New York City did not experiment so
much with progressive education, but smaller details like gym
programs began to grow within schools.
Between 1945 and1965, New York City went from an industrial city full
of factory jobs, to a service oriented city. Working class jobs went
to service jobs, and good portion of factory work moved out west. Due
to the nature of jobs and the changing demographics of New York, a
different type of working class was born. The distinctions between
races and classes become more prevalent. Neighborhoods became more so
what they are like today. A borough like Brooklyn then started having
clear boundaries between wealthy neighborhoods, which were
historically white, and poor neighborhoods, which were historically
comprised of racial minorities. About 800,000 white people left New
York City during the “white flight” era of the 1950s, and about
the same number
of Blacks and Puerto Ricans entered it.6
During the 1940s and 1950s, education experts moved strongly towards
the “one size fits all” approach to education. The power of
schools in New York City were centralized, which essentially gave the
mayor all control over the schools. The money and availability of
good schools for the working class decreased. These two decades were
an incredibly stressful period, and when you have as large as a
student body like in New York, it is hard find a complete solution.
There was no excuse to wait until the mid 1950s for relief.
The solution for many desired
during the 1950s to the 1960s, was for neighborhoods to have local
control of their schools. Ideally, minority parents wished for
greater school integration, but New York City was not making this
possible. The parents of African Americans and Puerto Ricans believed
that their neighborhoods were experiencing "discriminatory
zoning,” meaning
that their children were forced to attend more underfunded schools,
due to their race. These minority neighborhoods wanted to locally
control the schools in their neighborhoods,
to ensure their children were given the best education for their tax
dollar. In response to the need and desire for new schools for all
races, the mayor at
the time, John Lindsay, did not have a direct plan. He gave the
decision making power to the Board of Education. One important
decision was to revamp all of the junior high schools in New York
City. That led to the creation of IS. 201 in Harlem. Parents demanded
either they get local control over that school, or the school was to
be 100% integrated. Since the major could not guarantee the latter,
in 1969 New York City mayor John Lindsay relinquished mayoral control
over New York City schools to the Board of Education. Then the Board
of Education created school districts. A Time Magazine article at the
time suggest that relinquishing the control of schools
(decentralizing) was an inadequate way to fix the problems. 7
Nevertheless, for a period of time districts created programs which
benefited the children within their jurisdiction.
The
20th century highlights the transformations that have taken place
within the sphere of public education. The decades succeeding the
early 1970s show an alternating belief between the importance of a
more individualistic type of education, and the desire for an
increasing bureaucratization of education. To understand the
direction of our public education system, we have to assess the
historical events which have played a part in the understanding of
what public education means. We still use testing to determine the
worth and intelligence of a child, and a vague sense of
discriminatory zoning of schools still exists. The Teachers Union
understood schooling as a primary way democracy is upheld in society.
The working class should be told their history, their struggle to
maintain control over their child's education, so that they may know
their
rights as inhabitants of the United States.
1
1.
Rosenwaike,
Ira. 1972,
80 Population
History of New York City.
New
York: Syracuse University Press,
2
Ravitch,
Diane. 1974,168
"The
Great School Wars, New York City, 1805-1973. A History of Public
Schools as Battlefield of Social Change.”
New York: Basic Books, Inc.,
3
Ibid, 169
4
Taylor, Clarence.
2010. Civil
Rights in New York City: From World War II to the Giuliani Era.(Chpt
1, 1st page, last paragraph-Google-books)
5
Ravitch, Diane. 1974. "The
Great School Wars, New York City, 1805-1973. A History of Public
Schools as Battlefield of Social Change.”
New York: Basic Books, Inc. 178
6
Ravitch, Diane. 1974,
261
"The
Great School Wars, New York City, 1805-1973. A History of Public
Schools as Battlefield of Social Change.”
New York: Basic Books, Inc.
No comments:
Post a Comment