document resume ed 19b 237 · document resume. ed 19b 237. ud 021 240. author bosnia, boyd. title...

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 19B 237 UD 021 240

AUTHOR Bosnia, BoydTITLE Planning for and Implementing Effective School

Desegregation: The Role of Teacher Associations.SPONS AGENCY National Inst. of Education (ED), Washington, D.C.PUB DATE Nov BOCONTRACT 400-77-0088NOTE 55p.

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

MF01/PC03 Plus Postage.Black Teachers: Classroom Desegregation: CommunityRelations: Contracts: *Desegregation Effects:*Desegregation Litigation: *Desegregation Plans:Elementary Secondary Education: Faculty Integration:Policy Formation: *School Desegregation: *TeacherAssociations: Teacher Attitudes: *Teacher Role

ABSTRACTThin paper provides an overview of events and issues

in school desegregation that have significant impact on teachers andteacher associations. The displacement of black teachers as a resultof desegregation prior to 1972 is assessed. Various court decisionsin 1972-73 and the passage of.the Emergency School Aid Act are citedas marking a turning point in the era of teacher displacement.Current Policy and enforcement issues that affect the role ofteachers and their associations in desegregation policy and planningat the local, state, and national levels are reviewed. Suggestionsare also provided to assist teachers and teacher associations in moreeffectively planning for school desegregation. Areas covered include:(11 contracts, negotiations, and agreements: (2) facultydesegregation: and (3) inservice education. Organizational strategiesare outlined regarding the assessment cf desegregation needs,community relations, policy statements, uti2ization of technicalinformation, and planning. The protection of teacher and studentrights, the Maintenance of quality education, and the provision ofequal opportunity are discussed in relation to the implementation ofschool desegregation plans. (Author/APM)

***********************************************************************Reproductions supplied by BOBS are the best that can be made

from the original document.***********************************************************************

PLANNING FOR AND IMPLEMENTINGEFFECTIVE SCHOOL DESEGREGATION:THE ROLE OF TEACHER ASSOCIATIONS

Written by Boyd Bosma

Edited by Florence Hamlish Levinsohn

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONShirley M. Hufstedler, Secretary

Steven A. Minter, Under Secretary

OFFICE OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND IMPROVEMENTF. James Rutherford, Assistant Sedietary

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATIONMichael Timpane, Director

Marc S. Tucker, Associate DirectorEducational Policy and Organization

November 1980

3JAN 2 6 1981

This publication was prepared with funding from the NationalInstitute of Education, U.S. Department of Education, undercontract no. NIE 400-77-0088. The opinions expressed in thispublication do not necessarily reflect the positions or policiesof NIE or ED.

II

FOREWORD

Less than a half dozen people in the Nationcould describe with such authority and compas-sion, as Boyd Bosma has done in this monograph,the impact of the desegregation process onteachers and their associations. Boyd's restraint inwriting this monograph is admirable. His descrip-tions of many events about which he has strongfeelings are objective while compassionate. This iscommendable considering that Boyd has been partof most of this saga, especially those events thattook place after 1968. That year, Boyd resignedhis job teaching language arts and social studies ina Detroit suburb and gave up his newly won seaton the NEA Board of Directors to devote his timefully to the struggle for civil and human rights ineducation as a member of the staff of the NEACenter for Human Relations,

As coordinator of civil liberties and intergrouprelations for the NEA Center, Boyd served as aconsultant to state and local affiliates of the NEA.He also worked closely with the HEW Civil RightsOffice, the Civil Rights Division and CommunityRelations Service of the Department of Justice,the League of United Latin American Citizens, theNational Association for the Advancement ofColored People, the National Urban League, theSouthern Christian Leadership Conference, theAmerican Friends Service Committee, the Wash-ington Research Project, the American CivilLiberties Union, and others. He has had the op-portunity to see the inner workings of agencies,associations, and civil rights groups.

Boyd's introduction to the civil rights move-ment predated'his 1968 move to he NEA. His firstinvolvement came when he chaired a MichiganEducation Association (MEA) fundraising projectfor the benefit of children in freedom schools inPrince Edward County, Virginia. Boyd traveledthrough Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi at the

41.

height of the voter registration marches, and waslucky enough to get out with some narrowescapes. From that point on, there N;as no turningback. He was anything but the average suburbanteacher of the restless decide Of the late fifties andearly sixties. He helped to organize human rela-tions activities in his own MEA Region, as well asthe first State Association Human Relations Com-mission for the MEA.

In 1963, he was a delegate to the NEA conven-tion in Detroit, and joined with other nonestab-lishment black and white teachers who formed agroup later called the National Committee ofEducators for Human Rights (NCEHR). By 1964,the NCEHR had become the most important in-fluence within the NEA for integration and forcivil and human rights in education. At the NEAconvention in Seattle in 1964, Boyd was a primaryactor when the NCEHR scored in its first majorvictory: the passage of Resolution 12 that bannedrace as a criterion for membership in NEA affili-ates and directed the eventual merger of formerlyseparate associations in the South.

Surprisingly perhaps for a persbn who has beenso intimately involved in the -major battles overdesegregation for so long, Boyd is optimisticabout the future of desegregation in America. Hesincerely believes that education associations canprevail in many instances where lawyers, judges,school boards, and central administrators havefailed to rise to the challenge of desegregation.

For association leaders whose districts are inlitigation or under a voluntary plan, thismonograph should be necessary reading. It offersa number of specific suggestions on which teacherorganizations could build a viable support systemto enhance quality integrated education. Boydsuggests that teachers have only two choices: to be

iii

a part of the problem, or to be a part of the solu-tion. To withdraw or to avoid positive leadershipis to invite disaster. He points out that appropriatetargets for association concerns are numerous:equity in the teacher transfer plan and in hiring;inservice preparation for teachers, administrators,parents, and community leaders; protection ofstudent rights; access to academic and extracur-ricular programs for the transferring students; andacceptance of parents of transferring studentsthe advisory and governance opportunities at theschool. Associations should also be concernedabout bilingual education and about sexist andracist materials and curriculum.

However, teacher associations run a terriblerisk, in my opinion, when they involve themselves,without exception, in all facets of desegregationplans. Associations should be concerned aboutwhat happens to the child at the end of the walk orat the end of the bus ride, not about how the childgets there. The teacher association should notbecome involved in such issues as the pupiltransfer plan, the student percentages in eachschool, and the mode of transportation, no matterhow bad a particular plan may seem to be. Asmany people will be against the judge's plan orHEW's plan or the school board's plan. This is an

iv

area in which the parents, the school, and theagencies of government must fight out the details.Energy spent in trying to reach consensus withinthe association, or agreement between the associa-tion and the public, could be more effectively usedon matters where such understanding is more easi-ly reached. Dr. Wade Wilson, chairperson of theNEA Task Force on Human Rights, says, "It isnot necessary for a person at a ball to dance everynumber." In other words, every association orevery person does not have to take a position onevery issue. As a matter of group survival, it maybe necessary for teachers to express their opinionsOn such issues through civil, social, political, andother organizations to which they belong.

My only criticism of this much needed and veryuseful monograph is that Boyd discusses too brief-ly some issues that merit fuller treatment. Somereaders may disagree with some of the positionsadvocated in this monograph. I urge that it beread carefully. Boyd's experiences in nearly allaspects of civil and human rights in education givehim perspectives about the quality of life in ourpublic schools that are not often shared by others.His observations and recommendations meritclose attention.

6

Samuel B. EthridgeAssistant to the Executive Director

National Education Association

INTRODUCTORY NOTE

School desegregation has been in the forefrontof the national consciousness for 25 years. It hasbeen a source of joy, frustration, and pain atalmost every level of our population, with millionsof dollars spent and endless hours of work ex-pended both to effect the peaceful transition to in-tegrated schools and to oppose that process.

Millions of words have been written about theintegration process, largely by academicians andother researchers attempting to make sense of theproblems and to aid the efforts. Among thosenumerous books, articles, and monographs,however, there has been little said about the vitalrole of the teacher organizations that give leader-ship to their members.

More important- than the absence of reportingabout teachers and their organizations is the causethat underlies that virtual silence: teachers aremore often than not ignored by those who arestruggling with the problems. It has been left tothe teachers and their organizations to find theirown roles, to insert themselves where they havenot been invited. But, of course, where people arenot invited they do not always venture. It is notsurprising, then, that in many cities undergoingdesegregation the teachers and teacher associa-tions have been mute.

There are good reasons why teachers and theirorganizations have not taken a more active rolethan they have to date. They are, for the mostpart, alienated from their systems because they areseldom included in decisionmaking. In fact,teachers are relegated to keeping their place in

their classrooms, with little or no encouragementfor participation in any of the larger processes ofthe school or the system. But, both as teachers inthe classrooms in desegregated schools and as par-ticipants in the process of desegregating facultiesas well, teachers not only play an enormous role inthe successful desegregation of the schools butalso bear the burden of disruptions in their ownlives.

This monograph is Boyd Bosma's effort to sup-port the efforts of those teachers and their or-ganizations who feel locked out of this dramaticsocial change that is taking place in our Nationand who are looking for guidance to take theirrightful role. The monograph is also addressed tothose community and educational leaders wholook to teachers and their organizations forassistance in effecting school desegregation. Manypeopic engaged in efforts to gain desegregationand to ensure a peaceful transition realize thatthey can profit from the assistance of teachers andtheir organizations, but they are unable :o makethe gears mesh to accomplish that alliance. Also,many teachers wanting to reach out and help feelignored and alienated.

To provide assistance to teachers, theirorganizations, and their potential allies in schooldesegregation, this monograph first provides anhistorical portrait of school desegregation as it hasaffected teachers and teacher associations. Themonograph next looks at some current issues inthe desegregation process. And finally, it presentssome strategies that will contribute to the successful integration of the Nation's schools.

Florence Hamlish Levinsohn, Editor

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

There is simply no way to adequately expressappreciation to all those who have contributed tothe completion of this project. Teachers in virtual-ly every section of the country, Federal agency of-ficials, state leaders, and national organizationrepresentatives, including the staff of the NationalEducation Association, have been willing to pro-vide information and materials that have been in-valuable to me in putting together this monographon the role of teachers and their associations inschool desegregation.

There is also no way to tell the full story in asingle volume; the great mass of data remainslargely untouched. Experiences gained from work-ing with teachers, with civil rights activists, withnational groups and agencies for more than 15years have given me personal enrichment andsatisfaction that are unmatched. The greatestreward from participation in the struggle for equalopportunity in education has come from the op-portunity to work with truly human and dedicatedpeople. All of them have affected the preparationof this work.

Although I cannot possibly list tile hundreds ofpeople to whom I am indebted, a few individualsdeserve special recognition. Without Amos Isaac,this project would have been impossible: his per-sonal support and encouragement have been in-estimable. Sam Ethridge has made contributionsthat are unmatched in this field, and his assistancehas been especially valuable. Don Shire andChristine Kirk have each given special help.Ramon MacFarlane of the Ohio EducationAssociation has been particularly helpful indemonstrating the value of state educationassociation efforts in desegregation. Finally, mywife, Madeline Duran Bosma, and my child:zndeserve thanks for their forbearance while Iworked on this project.

I am, especially indebted to the NEA, whichgranted me leave to take on this task. It should benoted here, however, that any statements madeare my personal views, based upon my experiencesand involvement, and do not necessarily representthe official policies of the NEA or other teacherorganizations unless specifically stated.

Boyd Bosnia

vii

CONTENTS

PageFOREWORD

iii

INTRODUCTORY NOTE

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS -vii

1. INTRODUCTION1

2. TEACHER ASSOCIATIONS AND DESEGREGATION: AN HISTORICALCONTEXT

5

Displacement: Key Impact of Desegregation on Black Teachers 6The Turning Point in the Era of Displacement: 1972-73 10

3. SELECTED FACTORS IN SCHOOL DESEGREGATION AFFECTINGTEACHER ASSOCIATIONS

11

Contracts, Negotiations, and Agreements11Faculty Desegregation13Inservice Education22

4. ORGANIZATIONAL STRATEGIES FOR TEACHER ASSOCIATIONS 25

Assessing Desegregation Needs26Developing Policy Statements27Identifying and Using Technics' Information29Planning30

Establishing Community Relations and Coalition Building_ 31

EPILOGUE35

NOTES37

GLOSSARY45

9 ix

1. INTRODUCTION

Since 1954, school desegregation has been in theforefront of national consciousness. Local, state,and national policies and political structures havebeen affected. Occasionally, violence has erupted.Millions of dollars and untold efforts have beenexpended. New code words and symbols havecome into ourlanguage.

The welfare and future of children in all groupsin our society have been affected by events relatedto school desegregation, sometimes positively andsometimes negatively, depending on the course ofevents in specific localities and the perception ofthe observer. This is true also for teacher associa-tions and teachers, whose preparation for, par-ticipation in, and support of efforts to extenddesegregation and eliminate the remaining vestigesof discrimination are direct determinants of thesuccess or failure of efforts to meet student needsin desegregated settings.

In spite of their importance, teachers in manycommunities have had little opportunity to par-ticipate in or provide input to influence decisionsthat have a significant impact on their maintainingeffective learning climates in their classrooms. Incommunity debates over busing and studentassignment plans, teachers often are treated as aspecial interest group when opinions are voicedregarding the efficacy of one plan over another.Lawyers for both parent plaintiffs and defendantschool boards tend to respond to the most im-mediate political and legal issues of desegregation,often overlooking issues that relate to educationalquality within desegregated classrooms. Parents,frustrated by delays and obstructions placed byschool boards and administrators, tend tomisunderstand the real nature of the decisionmak-ing process, and teachers often become scapegoatsfor the faults of undemocratic and unresponsiveschool systems. Overall, the costs of desegregation

have been enormously high for teacners, whoalmost universally bear unfair and dispropor-tionate shares of the burden of change.

Despite these problems, most teacher associa-tions and their members have long supported thegoals of school desegregation, and there arecountless examples of individual teachers andteacher groups that have moved courageously andaffirmatively in helping to desegregate publicschool systems. The most successful examples ofpeaceful and effective desegregation have oc-curred in communities and school districts wherethe quality of dialogue and participation has beenenhanced for all groups directly affected by andconcerned with the educational process. The op-posite condition almost invariably has charac-terized those situations in which conflict amongadults has dominated the struggle to achieve evenminimal compliance with desegregation laws.I

Teachers and teacher associations are a criticallink to making the law work, not only with regardto the decisions and actions leading to desegrega-tion implementation, but with regard to suchsignificant concerns as student discipline, com-munity coalitions and support processes, school/community yelations, conflict prevention andcrisis intervention, curriculum innovation,cultural and linguistic relevance, interpersonal andintergroup understanding, and the protection offundamental civil and human rights of studentsand educators.

The desegregation experience offers new andsignificant opportunities for school system reformand for the introduction of innovative processes.If the conditions necessary for providing quality,integrated education can be adequately under-stood, if achievement of those conditions canreceive adequate support from key actors and

101

decisionmakers in school communities, if schoolsystems can be made more open to the full involve-ment and participation of their constituentgroups, including teachers and teacher associa-tions, and if the courts and Federal and stateauthorities do not renege on their legal and con-stitutional obligations to such a degree that effec-tive change is no longer possible, then no greateropportunity for the improvement of Americaneducation exists than that provided by the con-tinuation of the national momentum toward de-segregation and the integration of our schools.

Unfortunately, school leadership structures,like those of other social institutions; can becomeself-perpetuating and resistant to change as theyadhere to goals and practices of previous genera-tions. Sometimes this occurs when teachers andteacher associations forget their responsibilities asthey attempt to maintain the support of the moreaffluent and influential groups within the com-munity. In such cases, those within the system areoften as incapable of recognizing their arbitraryroles as they are unaware Of their own victimiza-tion by discriminatory and arbitrary practices andprocedures. Such situations usually remain staticuntil the intervention of influential groups withinthe system or outside creates an awareness of theneed for change.

When the abdication of responsibility by schoolofficials results in blocking or slowing the momen-tum for change, teacher associations have some-times been able to assist their communities in com-ing to grips with the real problems and conditionsnecessary to bring about their resolution. Andwhen teacher associations play such vital roles,they earn the respect and approval of other groupswhose support can be helpful in improving theconditions of teaching and learning.

Many teacher associations have acted affirm-atively through their organizational strength toimprove their educational systems and removediscriminatory conditions, thereby enhancingtheir leadership role within their communities.2 Inturn, in those few cases where teacher groups havechosen to ignore or actively oppose progresstoward desegregation, the results can be seen incontinuing conflicts and polarization within the

2

school and the community, in pervasive problemswith student discipline and disruption, in highnumbers and differential rates of suspensions, ex-pulsions, and dropouts, in poor teacher and stu-dent morale, and in lower achievement rates.3

During the past decade, an extensive literatureon school desegregation has emerged owing to theefforts of scholars in academic settings, courtdecisions, lawyers, and civil rights activists.' Amajor element missing in this literature fir,,s beenthe substantive assessment and reporting of therole of teachers and teacher associations in thisprocess.

Most school desegregation efforts since 1954have centered on the elimination of student racialand ethnic isolation and of those discriminatorypractices that have accompanied segregatededucation. Only occasionally has the impact ofschool desegregation on teachers and other schoolpersonnel come to national attention, despite theimportance of teacher assignment and recruitmentpractices, inservice education, and school person-nel policies to the success or failure of schooldesegregation plans.

The lack of adequate attention to the role ofteachers and teacher associations it: schooldesegregation continues to characterize many cur-rent desegregation efforts, even while the courts,Federal and state agencies, school districts, andprivate litigants have shifted from one position toanother with regard to the attainment of studentdesegregation. V;rtually every student desegrega-tion plan since 1954 has been accompanied bysubstantial faculty desegregation. And in most in-stances, there have been highly disproportionateeffects on minority teachersin the South,through dismissals and demotions, and elsewherein transfers and reassignments resulting in thedisruption of programs.

Specific references and, in some cases, extensivedocumentation are available with regard todesegregation issues. And various works byChesler,5 Noar,6 and others7 have dealt withspecific aspects of the role of teachers in desegre-gation and integration planning. However, there ispresently no single source of information that at-

11

tempts to examine the overall impact of teachersand teacher associations on desegregation and in-tegration in their communities and the Nation andthat can be used by teacher leaders, desegregationplanners, attorreys, Federal officials, and non-profit organizations concerned with the formula-tion and implementation of effective schooldesegregation and integration plans. Thismonograph attempts to bring together experiencesgained in organizational efforts and in institu-tional settings that may be useful for others asthey attempt to help schools become more respon-sive. To this end, this monograph:

Provides a brief overview of selected eventsand issues in past school desegregation thathave had significant impact on teachers andteacher associations.

Reviews a number of current policy and en-forcement issues that significantly affect therole of teachers and teacher associations indesegregation planning and policy formula-tion at the local, state, and national levels.

Provides suggestions that can assist teachersand teacher associations to be more effectivein their own planning for school desegrega-tion, especially with regard to the conduct ofefforts leading to better protection of teacherand student rights, the maintenance of goodschools and quality education, and the provi-sion of equal educational opportunity aspredictable results of the implementation ofschool desegregation plans.

Space and time limitations and the complexityand controversial nature of many of the issuesunder consideration prevent exhaustive discussionof some aspects of specific problems, but it ishoped that this document will serve as a usefulbeginning resource in examining organizationalissues and strategies to enable teachers, students,and parents to achieve the most satisfactory ex-periences possible in school desegregation situa-tions.

123

2. TEACHER ASSOCIATIONS ANDDESEGREGATION: AN HISTORICAL CONTEXT

The developing roles of teacher associations inschool desegregation can best be understood in thecontext of the treatment of minority teachers inAmerican public schools from the early days ofslavery to the 1954 Supreme Court decision inBrown v. Board of Education of Topeka et al. 8and the developments affecting teachers in de-segregating schools from 1954 to 1972, whendesegregation became a truly national issue.

Although abolitionists and church groups, mostnotably the Quakers, struggled to gain universalpublic education, the early attempts to provideschooling for the children of slaves and freedmenmet with harassment and violence. Many planta-tion owners found it convenient to educate someslave children for tasks and occupations such asaccounting and carpentry, but this was mostly tofurther the economic self-sufficiency of the plan-tation. Most of the teachers of the slave andfreedmen's children who did receive some educa-tion were white. But surprising numbers of blacksalso achieved levels of education that enabledthem to teach, and black teachers could be foundin all parts of the Nation.

The earliest record of a duly constituted groupof black teachers was in Springfield, Ohio, in1861. It was designated "The First Annual Meet-ing of the Colored Teachers Association."Twenty-three members were listed, of whom 11were women. The sessions were held in a church(presumably a black church), and they generallybegan with singing and sometimes with prayer.9

Following emancipation, a corps of blackteachers with a few devoted white northerners wasemerging to teach in the public schools that hadbegun during Reconstruction. Lonely andfrustrated, these teachers from small towns and

villages across the Southern States began toorganize teacher associations. White teacherorganizations had been fornied in the South in the1850's, and by 1877, the teachers of black students(themselves both black and white) founded thefirst state organization of black teachers in Ken-tucky. By 1904, there was a National Associationof Teachers in Colored Schools (later known asthe American Teachers Association, whichmerged with the National Education Associationin 1966). These associations, and others like them,provided an important voice for black educatorsuntil, following desegregation, they merged withthe predominantly white education associations intheir states.°

The history of American education faced acritical challenge on May 17, 1954, when theSupreme Court set forth its ruling in Brown v.Board of Education,11 known as Brown I. Brown Ioverruled the separate but equal distinctions ofPlessy v. Ferguson,12 as they had applied since1896, in holding that racially separate publicschool facilities are inherently unequal and con-stitute a denial of equal protection of the laws toblacks as a class. In the 1955 implementation deci-sion, Brown II, the Court ordered local schoolauthorities to make a prompt and reasonable starttoward full compliance with Brown I in order thatadmission to public schools without considerationof race could proceed with all deliberate speed. 13

Brown I came as a major shock to the Nation,but even more so to the southerners for whomlegal segregation was the way of the world. Manydistricts (such as Louisville) in the Border Stateswith small numbers of black students and teachersmoved promptly to open up attendance and to in-stitute at least minimal levels of desegregation. Inother parts of the South, where black populations

5

were larger, the dual systems were harder todislodge. to

DISPLACEMENT: KEY IMPACTOF DESEGREGATION ON

BLACK TEACHERS

In the earliest days following Brown, the impactof the decision on black teachers and principals re-mained hidden. But as desegregation enforcementgained momentum, so too did such discriminatorypractices as the demotion and dismissal of blackteachers and principals. This was compounded bythe national trend toward school consolidation.I5

It is expensive to maintain teachers in small, in-efficient schools with small or. irregularly sizedclasses, even when other expenses are kept down.Since the major costs of education are always in-structional, mostly to pay teacher salaries, savingscould be realized simply by = increasing and stan-dardizing class size in new, larger schools and byreducing the numbers of teachers. Further, blackteachers at that time frequently had higher averagesalaries, because of having higher educationalqualifications and greater seniority than theirwhite counterparts. Thus, consolidations and clos-ings of former black schools offered unique op-portunities to dismiss the higher paid blackteachers as white administrators souett toeconomize and to appease their white consti-tuents.16

School administrators also argued that teachershad been employed to teach in specific schools andthat they had no employment rights in the schooldistrict.17 The courts failed to take action, permit-ting wholesale terminations of black teachers andprincipals.

With national attention focused primarily onstudent desegregation, and in the absence of legalprecedents protecting black educators, relativelyfew (aside from those directly involved) noticedwhat was happening to the black teachers andprincipals who suddenly found themselves dis-placed. So long as there was a shortage of teachersnationally, and so long as relatively few schools

6

were desegregated, displaced teachers and prin-cipals could find jobs in other school districts. Forthis reason, and from fear of reprisal, very fewfiled complaints.18

Nevertheless, the impact on those displaced in-dividuals was severe. Homes were lost, and peoplewere forced to leave family and friends in com-munities where they had lived and enjoyed rela-tively high prestige for years. In addition, manywere forced to accept lower wages or otherwiseless desirable positions.° These losses were alsofelt by local communities, where the blackeducators had represented the pinnacle of educa-tional achievement, community leadership, andprofessional status. J.C. James effectively sum-marized the impact of the elimination of the blackprincipals on their communities and on the region:

The Negro principal has been important inthe past for the position of authority andresponsibility which he occupied in thesystem of "Negro Education" in the South.With the passing of that system, it would ap-pear from the record that he is threatenedwith extinction, and the implications of thisare startlingly grave for Negro leadershipcapability in the years to come. Since thebest Nf..-zro minds have traditionally gone in-to education, it remains the greatest singlereservoir of talent and skills so necessary tothe changing South, and the deliberatedestruction of this valuable resource is oneof the tragedies of our time."

No accurate figures are available from anysource for the total number of educators actually.dismissed for racially discriminatory reasons dur-ing the desegregation of Southern schools. Mostfigures simply never came to light. Many teachersand principals failed to report their cases for anumber of reasons, including a fear of harassmentor intimidation in local communities, a fear ofreprisal by white administrators or of their refusalto provide a good recommendation for -employ-ment in other school districts, hope of transfer toother positions (which sometimes were higher pay-ing but without effective authority or responsibil-ity), lack of awareness of possible sources of

14

assistance, and discouragement because of thelack of response from Federal authorities or theexcessive time and expense (including costs in-curred during the period of unemployment)necessary to prosecute successful appeals.21

Reaction of Teacher AssociationsIn 1965, the National Education Association

called together concerned agency and organiza-tional officials and brought national attention tothe growing displacement problem through a land-mark study of teacher displacement in the 17states originally subject to Brown. The 1965Report of the Task Force Survey of Teacher Dis-placement in Seventeen States (conducted underthe auspices of the NEA and the Office of Educa-tion), coordinated by Sam Ethridge and Robert L.Cousins, reported on interviews with 480 of the721 teachers displaced or downgraded from Maythrough September 1965.22

In addition to reporting on unfair and discrim-inatory dismissals, misassignments, loss of statusand salary, unethical practices by administrators,and arbitrary and unreasonable terminations, thestudy identified 95 teachers unable to find re-employment. These teachers seemed to fall intoone or more of three general categories: (1) thosewho had been active in the civil rights movement;(2) those who had 15 or more years of experience;and (3) married women whose family ties keptthem from seeking employment elsewhere.23

Although leadership in both white and blackeducation associations in the South ultimatelysupported faculty integration and sponsored con-ferences in all of the states, reactions of teacherorganization leaders (in other parts of the country)to the prospect of teacher transfers for desegrega-tion purposes were mixed. The predominantlyblack teacher associations correctly predictedreduction of membership and loss of support asone-way transfers of black teachers to whiteschools occurred.

Most northern teacher groups initially wereunaffected by the prospect of mandatory transfersbecause of the small numbers of minority teachersin many parts of the North and the general state of

white isolation in most schools. However, manyof the leaders of northern urban associations hadaligned themselves with the liberal forces in the in-ternal NEA struggles over the merger between thesouthern affiliates, school desegregation, andhuman rights issues, and they actively sought waysto support meaningful desegregation implementa-tion.24

Resort to the CourtsOne of the major approaches to arresting the

tide of dismissals and demotions was throughresort to the courts. Although not totally suc-cessful as a deterrent, legal action did result in anumber of unprecedented victories and in theestablishment of standards governing some of thepolicies and practices of local districts, the states,and the Federal Government.

The filing of litigation, however, was an expen-sive and inefficient process. It was not surprisingthat many black educators had little faith in thejudicial process and that legal actions becamemost effective when accompanied by political andorganizational strategies. Since individual schooladministrators and school board members wererarely, if ever, made personally accountable forthe acts of discrimination against students orteachers, the primary effects of litigationstrategies were seen as deterrents to improper ac-tions.

Significant Early Cases. Until 1966, there wereno significant legal precedents establishing therights of dismissed black teachers. In that year,the NEA and the Virginia Teachers Associationwon a favorable ruling on behalf of seven blackteachers when their schools were closed inFranklin v. Giles County.25

Perhaps the most significant case for the NEAin the history of teacher displacement was Johnsonv. Branch,26 also in 1966, which concerned aHalifax County, North Carolina, teacher dis-missed for civil rights activity. When WillaJohnson was awarded a $20,000 settlement, thecase had widespread repercussions. It was triednot so much as a civil rights case as on firstamendment rights. The case led to protection of

157

constitutional rights for all teachers, not just blackteachers. It was one of the many first and four-teenth amendment cases that the NEA pursued.

Dozens of additional cases were filed across theSouth by the NEA, the Justice Department, andthe NAACP Legal Defense Fund. The "JeffersonDecree" in 1967 provided for the first time thatwhile race was not to be a factor in hiring, assign-ment, promotion, demotion, or dismissal ofteachers and other professional staff members(including student teachers), it might be taken intoaccount in order to counteract or correct the effectof segregated assignment of faculty and staff inthe dual school system.27

The Supreme Court in 1968 upheld a Tennesseeruling to the effect that faculty desegregation can-not be left to the free choice of the teachers, butrather the board must exercise its authority inmaking faculty assignments so as to assist in"bringing to fruition the benefits of school deseg-regation."28

In Alabama, teacher displacement was reducedsignificantly after a 1968 ruling in Lee v. Macon:29a three-judge court ordered 76 districts to changetheir dual systems and to close certain schools so"that all teachers assigned to the schools or gradesbeing closed be absorbed by transfer to otherpublic schools within the system."

By the 1970's, administrators began, indismissal cases, to develop extensive dossiers, in-cluding minute records of alleged infractions andapparent strict conformity to the standards of dueprocess (e.g., statement of cause, advance notice,opportunity for appeal, and access to assistanceand advice). Teachers were often assigned out oftheir subject areas or grade level experiences topositions for which they were not legally certifiedor for which they had inadequate experience, withdismissals following later on the basis of allegedincompetency or unsatisfactory job performance.Two letters were received by this writer within thesame week in 1970 from two teachers in twodistricts. Both letterwriters complained of beingassigned to teach high school German while theirsubject matter specialty, certification, and ex-perience were in music."

8

The Singleton Case: 1969. The establishment ofa single-standard in the assignment, dismissal, anddemotion of teachers and other personnel in theimplementation of desegregation finally came in aMississippi case, Singleton v. Jackson,31 in 1969.

Although Singleton did not stop all staff reduc-tions in desegregating districts, the order providedan effective defense against the massive dismissalsand demotions of black teachers and principals byrequiring "objective" and "reasonable" stan-dards:

If there is to be a reduction in the number ofprincipals, teachers, teacher-aides, or otherprofessional staff employed by the schooldistrict which will result in the dismissal ordemotion of any such staff members, thestaff member to be dismissed or demotedmust be selected- on the basis of objectiveand reasonable nondiscriminatory standardsfrom among all the staff of the schooldistrict. In addition, if there is any suchdismissal or demotion, no staff vacancy maybe filled through recruitment of a person ofa race, color, or national origin differentfrom that of the individual dismissed ordemoted, until each displaced staff memberwho is qualified has had an opportunity tofill the vacancy and has failed to accept anoffer to do so....Prior to such a reduction,the school board will develop or require thedevelopment of nonracial objective criteriato be used in selecting the staff 'member whois to be dismissed or demoted....32

Singleton also assisted by clarifying standards forthe elimination of racial identifiability of schoolscn the basis of faculty assignment.

The so-called "Singleton Ratio" is still appliedin cases across the Nation, with the language ofthe order remaining current:

(T)he district shall assign the staff...so thatthe ratio of Negro to white teachers in eachschool, and the ratio of other staff in each,are substantially the same as each such ratiois to teachers and other staff, respectively, inthe entire school system.33

16

Despite the advances that the Singleton Ratiomade over earlier rulings, it failed to clarify anumber of crucial issues. For example, some prob-lems developed as a result of Singleton's impliedacceptance of reduction of star followingdesegregation and the requirement of-objectivecriteria for dismissals or demotions. After Single-ton was adopted, many districts began to evaluateblack teachers for the first time in their history.One case was reported in which black teacherswere evaluated six times in the same week. Newconcern arose over language differences, andsome professors from the white university systemsearned substantial consultant fees by conductingor supervising evaluations that would permit thedistricts to dismiss black teachers in the name ofthe objective standards under Singleton.34

Another development, which paralleled Single-ton, gave Federal agencies another tool for use incountering teacher displacements. A new policyon "Nondiscrimination in Elementary and Secon-dary School Staffing Practices" was distributedon January 14, 1971, as a memorandum by theHEW Office for Civil Rights Director J. StanleyPottinger.35 This policy was issued after nearly 2years of negotiations between the NEA and J.Stanley Pottinger and his predecessor, LeonPanetta.36 The policy provided the first effectivetool in handling employment problems in desegre-gation under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of1964, and marked the first time Federal policyreferred directly to the maintenance of racial orethnic composition of school faculties. Followingthe passage of the Emergency School Aid Act(ESAA) in 1972, regulations went even further inrequiring the retention of all minority teachers,not just those past victims of discriminatory ac-tions, when school policies, practices, and pro-cedures led to significant differences in the rates ofstaff reductions.37

Impact of the National TeacherExamination

One of the issues discussed by the 1965 NEAstudy of teacher displacement was the use of theNational Teacher Examination (NTE) in Floridaas a device in the dismissal of black teachers."

Certification and employment requirements basedon NTE scores were also put in force in SouthCarolina, North Carolina, and Texas. Sales of theNational Teacher Examination climbed to about120,000 per year as cutoff scores and test re-quirements were adopted in newly desegregatingdistricts in Mississippi and Louisiana, the last ofthe states in the Deep South to be affected by en-forcement.

Perhaps no single device caused as muchdamage as the NTE in its effects on the employ-ment and certification of black educators in theSouth. Given the appearance of objectivity in thereporting of NTE scores, administrators were ableto claim that dismissals were unrelated todiscrimination. The use of the NTE acquiredspecial significance because it presented the mostconvenient means for legitimizing the blackteacher dismissals in the guise of objectivity. Thefirst attempt to challenge the misuse of the NTEwas in Florida in 1966. After the newly mergedFlorida Education Association filed suit on behalfof 108 dismissed teachers, the state legislatureagreed to revoke state test score requirements, andthe suit was abandoned.39

The first successful court challenge of the NTEwas in Louisiana, where 84 of 85 black teachers inWest Feliciana Parish successfully boycotted theadministration of the test while appeals were beingcarried out.40 When the teachers stayed away dur-ing the three administrations of the NTE, thedistrict was left with no objective grounds underSingleton for the projected dismissal of 27teachers. Subsequent cases in local districts inMississippi, South Carolina, and Virginia havegenerally established the standard that the NTE isinappropriate for use with teachers in service, par-ticularly if intentionally discriminatory employ-ment policies can be demonstrated. Favorable rul-ings in cases brought by the Justice Departmentand the NEA in North Caroline and SouthCarolina42 against state certification requirementsbased on NTE scores were set aside by a three-judge court early in 1971. The Supreme Courtupheld the South Carolina verdict in 1978.43

179

THE TURNING POINT IN THEERA OF DISPLACEMENT: 1972-73

In reviewing the historical events of this period,it seems clear that the turning point in the historyof the massive displacements of black educatorsand students was seen by 1972-73, as the effects ofprior and current events became more evident."

The number of overt dismissals and demo-tions of black teachers and principals wasreduced sharply as a result of victories in thecourts, the achievement of desegregation inmost southern districts, and improved en-forcement of desegregation legislation by theHEW Office for Civil Rights.Passage of the Emergency School Aid Act in1972 and adoption of the ESAA regulationsin February 1973 provided more effectivepenalties and incentives as a result of the rulesrelating to displacement of minority staff.ESAA also provided more effective guidelinesrelating to the elimination of other forms ofdiscrimination in schools and offered specificfinancial incentives to school districts in theprovision of support for inservice education;human relations, and new models for teacher,parent, and student involvement in thedesegregation process.

The landmark ruling in Keyes v. SchoolDistrict No. 1, Denver45 established desegre-gation as an issue for the entire Nation andprovided new legal guidelines for dealing withsystematic forms of discrimination and theelimination of desegregation in the North andWest.

Judge Pratt's historic 1973 decision in Adamsv. Richardson46 set new mandates for actionby HEW to resolve continuing complaints of

10

discrimination and segregation in the South.The "Adams Decision" also resulted even-tually in stro.Thger enforcement activities innorthern segregation and discrimination, andin a number of collateral areas of exclusion ineducation (including sex discrimination,language discrimination, and discriminationagainst the handicapped).The issue of sex discrimination in educationtook on new significance following the adop-tion of Title IX of the Higher EducationAmendments of 1972, and public employees,including teachers, acquired new statutoryprotections against discrimination in employ-ment with the passage of the 1972 amend -ments to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The role of Chicanos in school desegregationin the Southwest acquired new significance.Support for programs of bilingual/biculturaleducation increased, and desegregation plansin Austin, Dallas, Corpus Christi, and othercities were seen to provide for extensive mix-ing of blacks- and Chicanos in the name ofdesegregation, while excusing many whitesfroth reassignment.

Although most of the major problems in thestruggle to provide desegregated education in ourschools had by no means been solved, and manymajor new ones were only beginning, the periodfrom 1972 to 1973 represented a major turningpoint in the types of desegregation problemsneeding attention and the role of the FederalGovernment and the courts in its progress. Themovement of school desegregation from the Southto other regions of the Nation was a developmentof gigantic proportions; whatever the outcome,education in the United States would never be thesame.

is

3. SELECTED FACTORS IN SCHOOLDESEGREGATION AFFECTING TEACHER

ASSOCIATIONS

As indicated in section 2, the events surroundingdesegregation in the first decade or so followingBrown made teacher displacement the most com-pelling issue facing black teacher associations.However, these associations were concerned withmore than displacement. There were and still re-main many complex problems regarding desegre-gation that can have an impact on teacher associa-tions, although at first glance they may not appeardirectly related to teachers. These issues relate tovoluntary and involuntary desegregation plans,magnet schools, metropolitan desegregation,pluralism and multiculturalism, bilingual andbicultural education, Federal civil rights data col-lection and reporting, developmentsin affirmativeaction, student rights (including student due proc-ess rights, testing, tracking and grouping, and stu-dent pushouts), and resegregation.

To discuss the full spectrum of such issues inthis monograph would not be possible. Therefore,the following discussion is limited to those factorsthat should be of most immediate concern toteacher associations when their school districtsdesegregate; namely:

Contracts, negotiations, and agreements,which can provide a framework for dealingwith the various contingencies of desegrega-tion and thereby ease the process;

Faculty desegregation, without which deseg-regation can be neither complete nor suc-cessful;

Inservice education, which can foster a senseof involvement by all teachers in thedesegregation process.

CONTRACTS, NEGOTIATIONS,AND AGREEMENTS

Perceptive teacher leaders involved in desegre-gation will want to move early to develop plans todeal with issues that will require negotiation withthe school board or the administration. Part of thehomework to be done includes listening to theconcerns of the community and of students, aswell as being aware of legal regulations and theirpotential impact on negotiations. Frustration anddissatisfaction among teachers, students, and per-sons in the community can be the unhappy conse-quences of leaving things to chance or of not mak-ing preparations in time and in tune with otherevents in desegregation.

With California having become the most recentof the larger states to enact compulsory negotia-tions legislation,'" most urban school systemsundergoing desegregation will have alreadyadopted master Lontracts between teacher associa-tions and boards of education.48 Even in stateswithout compulsory collective bargaining laws,such as Texas and Arizona, teacher groups shouldhave some process for formal communicationsand the equivalent of a master contract to enun-ciate basic relationships and teaching conditions inthe system.

Although master contracts between the asso-ciation and the board of education receive thegreatest attention in negotiations activity, manyother types of communications occur betweenteachers and administrators in the day-to-dayoperation of the schools. And in actual practice,many significant areas of school policy and prac-tice are left outside the scope of the contract or are

1911

included only in general terms. Teachers need tolook at the whole range of potential agreementsthat can enhance their role in protecting teacherand student rights and in implementing associa-tion policy on desegregation.

Some available tools are contract supplementsor amendments to existing provisions andmemorandums of understanding on specific issueswithin the scope of the master contract. These in-struments usually are signed by the associationand the administration, and they do not requireaction by the school board. In addition, ad hocagreement's not requiring formal written state-

a' ments or joint signature may cover temporaryconditions or problems that do not require revi-sion of major policies.

The master contract, in addition to establishingwages, hours, and conditions of employment,should state policy for a number of areas that haveimmediate effects on the implementation of deseg-regation plans and on relationships among groupsin the system. Commonly included in such agree-ments are:

Statements of compliance with laws againstdiscrimination on the basis of age, race,ethnic group, sex, religion, and other criteria.

Procedures for protecting the due processrights of teachers and students and for pro-tecting teacher employment rights.

Procedures for voluntary and involuntaryassignment, reassignment, and transfer ofteachers.Statements regarding teacher seniority rightswithin buildings, departments or grade levels,and the district, and the rights of teachersassigned to state and federally funded pro-grams.

Procedures for the provision of bilingual/bicultural education and statements of thespecial rights of bilingual staff.

Procedures for resolving problems, includinggrievance processing in teacher complaints,mediation, and arbitration.Procedures for recruitment, employment, andpromotion, including affirmative action pro-

12

grams for the employment and promotion ofminorities and women.

Procedures for the provision of inserviceeducation programs, including district sub-sidies and/or sponsorship of graduate educa-tion courses.

The wording of contract clauses will vary fromdistrict to district, and all of these provisions willnot be found in all contracts. The inclusion oflanguage on these issues, however, may be impor-tant at the time the district moves to desegregate.Complacency when good contracts have beennegotiated can be dangerous, and contracts shouldbe read and reread to ensure that no item in thecontract violates the constitutional rights of anystudent, teacher, or other person in the system.Teacher organizations can be sued along withschool boards when they negotiate agreementsthat violate laws against discrimination.49

Contracts should also be reviewed to ensure thattheir language is sufficiently flexible to permit re-sponse to unforeseen contingencies and situationsin which rigid or restrictive language would limitoptions. Further, the contract language should notdeter innovative approaches in developing newprograms, relationships, and processes as desegre-gation progresses and new priorities are identified.Finally, the contract should facilitate the develop-ment of supplementary clauses or other agree-ments that are not in conflict with the master con-tract, when necessary.

It must be emphasized that no master contractwill provide guidelines for all of the contingenciesthat can arise once the desegregation process hasbegun, but it should provide a framework for thedevelopment of alternative approaches that canease the process. If disruption occurs, for exam-ple, there must be an opportunity to develop moreappropriate approaches than "law and order"solutions in discipline.

Channels must also be developed for dealingwith the frustrations of those who become angeredin dealing with bureaucratic, unrespomivesystems. It is at this point that it is important touse more flexible; informal types of agreements to

o

meet changing needs. For example, a special com-mittee to facilitate the resolution of problemsrelated to teacher transfer often can work effi-ciently within the terms of the contract whileavoiding the cost, frustration, and delaysassociated with imposing formal grievance pro-cedures.

Teachers need to know where they fit into theoverall scheme of things and why, and they needto be aware of the rules and resources available tothem as desegregation is implemented. Thepresence of an orderly negotiations procedure initself will help to maintain a climate in whichteachers can be assured that their association islooking out for their needs and that progress is be-ing made to resolve doubts and anxieties.

FACULTY DESEGREGATION

Teacher Transfer and ReassignmentTeacher transfer and reassignment present per-

haps the most sensitive problem for teacher orga-nizations in desegregating school districts. On theone hand, properly negotiated transfer and reas-signment policies can provide a firm basis for pro-tecting teacher rights at the same time that provi-,sions are being made to provide an effectivedesegregated experience as the result of the avail-ability of teachers from different groups in allschools in a system. If things work well, thegroundwork will be laid for improving schoolclimates and working relationships and forequalizing educational opportunities for manyyears.

On the other hand, the implementation ofteacher transfer policies can offer an opportunityfor the administration, the board, or others toweaken the negotiated contract or promote con-flict among teachers for their own political ororganizational purposes. Thus, the associationmust maintain a strong and clear posture of ad-vocacy for its members while helping thembecome more effective in working for protectionof teacher and student rights, quality education,and equal educational opportunity.

Transfer and reassignment clauses in negotiatedcontracts usually are written to provide due proc-ess for individual teachers being moved for arbi-trary or punitive reasons. They are not writtenwith faculty desegregation in mind. The additionof racial and ethnic considerations, minimum andmaximum ratios, and mandatory standards forcompliance with law or court orders makes theprocess even more sensitive. Opportunities formisunderstanding, manipulation, and evendemagoguery are greater when such major changeis taking place, and racist uses of code terms suchas "forced transfer," "quotas," and "reverse dis-crimination" can make it difficult to bring aboutrational understanding.

It is unrealistic to pretend that involuntarytransfers can be averted when faculty desegrega-tion is imminent, but fair treatment should be in-sisted on for all teachers based on procedures thatinclude objective standards for transfer andreassignment.

Some school boards and administrators havedeliberately provoked teacher strikes and divisionsamong teachers by mishandling the transfer issueand by sudden reduction in force at the time ofdesegregation. One example of an ill-conceivedtransfer plan was seen in Los Angeles in 1976,when the administration imposed a lottery plan

over the vehement objections of the UnitedTeachers of Los Angeles, rather than negotiating areasonable and systematic process that would pro-vide for both voluntary and involuntary transfers.The plan also included an escape clause forbuilding principals that permitted them discretionin retaining proportions of teachers selected fortransfer through the lottery, and thereby furtherexacerbated an already serious faculty moraleproblem.5°

Sometimes, administrators will impose arbi-trary transfer and reassignment plans in the beliefthat action taken from their offices will be moreefficient and less productive of conflict. Althoughthey mean well, such paternalistic notions of ad-ministration can lead directly to conflict and con-frontation that could be averted if they were tomake decisions on the basis of adequate prior con-sultation and negotiations with the people mostaffected.

21

13

The Davenport Plan: Constructive Resolution.One example of a constructive resolution of such asituation was in Davenport, Iowa, in 1976, whereguidelines for voluntary and involuntary facultytransfers were developed that might be useful forconsideration in many other districts. The"Davenport Plan" states:

Consistent with the Board resolution, allactions involving teacher assignment andtransfer will be in accord with the followingprinciples:

I. Each school's faculty should be bal-anced with respect to teaching experienceand academic qualifications.

2. The solicitation of voluntary qualifiedteacher transfers and the filling of all vacan-cies hereafter rising shall commence imme-diately.

3. No involuntary transfers will be madebefore the completion of the present schoolyear, in order to avoid disruption of teacher-student relationships; to the extent, however,that the filling of vacancies, voluntary trans-fers, and the assignment of teachers presentlyabsent on leave, have not succeeded in meet-ing the requirements of the program by theend of the present school year, involuntarytransfers will be made at that time.

4. Future transfers by teachers will not bepermitted if they will have the effect of caus-ing a significant deviation from the norm inthe minority-majority teacher ratio in anyschool.

The basic guidelines for implementing theBoard resolution are as follows:

I. Every attempt will be made to accom-plish the transfers on a voluntary basis byJune 1, 1976.

a. All teachers will be given the oppor-tunity to indicate their preference, therebygiving the district the opportunity to try and

14

meet the desires of staff who will be trans-ferred.

b. First preference will be given totransfers necessary to improve faculty racialor ethnic balance in the affected schools.

c. Second preference will be given topersons volunteering for transfer, subject toavailability of positions in the districtschool(s).

2. If the minority isolation of the teachingstaff is not corrected by June 1, 1976, the ad-ministration will make whatever involuntarytransfers are necessary to correct the isola-tion prior to August 24, 1976.

a. The determination of persons sub-ject to involuntary transfer will be based onseniority as defined in the negotiated MasterContract.

b. Any voluntary or involuntary trans-fers will be made consistent with the proce-dures established in the negotiated MasterContract.

c. Schools in which the percentage ofminority teachers exceeds 11 percent will berequired to transfer minority teachers toanother school in the district that has apercentage of teachers less than 11 percent.

d. No teacher will be transferred to aposition for which he .or she is not qualified.

e. Qualifications of teachers beingtransferred will be considered when makingany reassignments so that the availability ofequal educational opportunities will be asnearly as possible the same in all schools.

f. Transfers will be made to vacantpositions that exist on June 1 (K-6, JuniorHigh, Senior High).

g. If no vacancies exist on June 1,1976, a survey of the staff will be made to

22

determine seniority. This will enable the ad-ministration to identify the positions towhich individual staff members may be in-voluntarily transferred.

h. Teachers transferred for purposesof improving faculty balance will have firstconsideration to return to their prior assign-ments should future vacancies occur.

3. No reassignment of any certificatedstaff person for purpose of this program willbe accompanied by any loss of compensa-tion.

a. Teachers being transferred will suf-fer no loss of pay as a result of changes insupplementary assignments.

b. The administration is making a re-commendation to the Board that no teachertransferred will suffer a financial lossrelating to a federal loan as a result of thetransfer .51

Examples of Nonconstructive Resolution. Notall situations involving faculty desegregation,transfer, and reassignment have been resolved assuccessfully as that in Davenport. Reluctance byadministrators and school boards to admit to in-adequacies in past practices for teacher transferoften makes it difficult for teacher associationsand community groups to get realistic discussionsarotr.ld the issues until after a court order has beenfinalized or a district has committed itself to com-ply with a state or Federal mandate.

A former superintendent in a southwesternpublic school system, for example, seeking to holdoff desegregation until after his retirement, re-sponded to a request from the local teacherassociation for informal discussions on inservicetraining by sending the message, "Nobody in theadministration would care to discuss withanybody from the [teacher association] anythingwhatsoever to do with desegregation."52

The superintendent in Fort Wayne, Indiana,upon receiving an HEW letter on discrimination in

faculty assignments, apparently failed to informeven his own board members and administrativestaff.53 In Youngstown, Ohio, the board re-sponded to an association proposal for prompt ac-tion and cooperation on guidelines for faculty de-segregation as follows:

1. In view of the pending court order, theBoard does not choose to place itself in theposition of admission to liability prior toJudge Conte's legal finding. The Boardacknowledges racial imbalance in Youngs-town Public Schools in both the studentpopulations of various school buildings andin the teaching faculties assigned to thosebuildings; however, the Board makes no ad-mission that said imbalances are attributableto and perpetuated by actions of the Boardof Education which have been carried outwith intent of malice and forethought.

2. The Board is keenly aware of the racialimbalance of its teaching faculty and hasmade a conscious effort to increase thenumber of minority faculty members hiredby the district. The obstacle to such hiringpractices is not a dearth of qualified minori-ty teachers, but a dearth of minority teachersqualified to teach the subject areas in whichvacancies occur in the district.

3. The Board recognizes that correctingthe racial imbalance is the "fair thing, themoral thing, the Christian thing" to do.Even if contrary to all other findings in thestate of Ohio, the judge's order should ex-empt the school district of all liability, theBoard would not be opposed to addressingthe problem; however, to address that prob-lem prior to the issuance of the court orderwould severely compromise the district'slegal position.54

This inconsistent position, unfortunately, is notat all uncommon. The school boards seem to besaying:

We know what's right; we want to do what'sright; but we can't do what's right because

2315

we are being sued for not doing what's right;therefore we can't talk to anybody until thecourt has found us guilty or not guilty of notdoing what's right; to take action now to dowhat's right would compromise our legalposition for not doing what's right.

In many districts, when complaints about segre-gation or discrimination have been filed, the at-titude seems to be that nothing should be done toresolve the conditions that led to the complaints incase somebody will then think that the district isguilty of what it has been doing all along. Minorproblems become compounded because of officialresistance and refusal to initiate corrections, andthe discrimination and inequities become worsethan before. Paralysis of leadership in the face ofcriticism in a multitude of Cistricts has intensifieddiscrimination and alienation to a far greaterdegree than would have resulted had officialsreacted with more speed when the issues arose.

The ..onsequences of such abdication of leader-ship are seen in pervasive hostilities, white flight,and resegregation when desegregation mandatesfinally are implemented. Teacher associations andcommunity groups, rather than acceding to suchpractices, must be prepared to move boldly to gettheir school districts to confront reality if theorderly processes of education are not to bedestroyed, even if the decision to take such actionis painful or controversial.

NEA Guidelines for Teacher Transfer and Re-assignment. The NEA's School DesegregationGuidelines for Local and State Education Associa-tions55 have been useful in dealing with issues ofteacher transfer and reassignment in desegrega-tion. These guidelines suggest that:

1. The local Lssociation should be giventhe opportunity to take an effective part,preferably through collective bargaining, inmaking decisions affecting recruitment pro-cesses, assignment of school staff, evalua-tion procedures, voluntary transfers, andemployment rights and benefits.

2. Cooperative efforts by community rep-resentatives, parents, and teachers should be

16

pursued in developing and implementingpolicies affecting teacher recruitment,assignment, promotion, demotion, transfer,and dismissal.

3. Unfair and arbitrary tests, 'such as theNational Teacher Examination, shouldunder nc circumstances be used as standardsfor certification, recruitment, assignment,promotion, transfer, or dismissal of teachersor other education personnel.

4. Voluntary transfers, including transferwithin schools, should be permitted and en-couraged to the extent possible so that in-voluntary actions will be reduced to their ab-solute minimum.

5. Objective standards should be cooper-atively established for protection of therights of ethnic-minority members, equitablefaculty distribution in all schools and ad-ministrative staffs, and fairness of transferactions affecting individuals and groups ofeducators.

6. Any necessary involuntary transfers ofteachers should be based as much as possibleon seniority; that is, those with the leastseniority should be the first available fortransfer or reassignment. However, to en-sure educational continuity in each schoolaffected by necessary transfers, a nucleus ofthe strongest staff members of all racial andethnic-minority groups, and particularlythose with the best relationships withstudents, parents, and communities, shouldbe retained.

7. Teachers who are reassigned should beencouraged by the local association to acceptthe assignment. Any teacher refusing reas-signment should be permitted to resignwithout prejudice to future employmentelsewhere. Special procedures consistentwith negotiated grievance policies should beprovided to expedite complaints of discrimi-nation, contract violations, or unusual hard-ship at the time of reassignment.

24

8. Teachers should be transferred withpartners or teams from one school toanother to assist in an orderly transition andto prevent feelings of isolation and aliena-tion among those transferred.

9. Certificatzd teachers assigned to stateor federally funded programs that will endupon termination of the funding should havecontractual and employment rights equal tothose in regular programs, with provisionsfor teachers to maintain their status. In theevent such programs are discontinued, theyshould have the right to return to their ap-propriate areas of certification.

Seniority As a Criterion in FacultyDesegregation

The use of seniority as a primary criterion indetermining teacher transfers in faculty desegrega-tion has occasionally been criticized because of theunequal impact that sometimes results when it isimproperly applied. The AFT,56 the NEA,57 andmost employee organizations inside and outsideeducation have some form of policy endorsingseniority in and reductions in force.

There are a number of reasons, in addition tothe usual union philosophies, for the use ofseniority for staff transfers in desegregation.Teacher associations, community groups, andschool districts should have some understandingas to why seniority is recommended.

Why Seniority? The general lack of job securityfor teachers and principals in the South was'related, in part, to the lack of tenure and collectivebargaining, but in desegregation situations evenmore to the acceptance by Federal officials ofreductions in staff positions when schools wereclosed as desegregation was implemented. Al-though the Singleton order continued tocountenance reductions in staff during and afterdesegregation, the id:a was finally accepted byFederal officials that subjective, arbitrary deci-sions on staff actions (including transfers and re-assignments, as well as dismissals and demotions),as a consequence of desegregation compliance,were not permissible on constitutional grounds.

In the negotiations that led to the January 14,1971, memorandum on treatment of minorityteachers and staff in desegregation, NEA stafftook the position that only three truly objectiveforms of criteria could be identified: (1) the degreeof education, including graduate hours, and cer-tification; (2) the number of years of teaching ex-perience; and (3) the number of years spent in theposition, the par:icular school building, or theschool district.58 The NTE rejected out ofhand because of its arbitrary ano subjective uses,as were proposals by some officials that theacademic reputation of the certifying teachereducation institution be counted as an objectivecriterion. The only other alternative that couldhave been considered objective was the establish-ment of proportional ratios for dismissing ordemoting white and black educators, and mostsouthern districts were not ready for that.-

Seniority as a criterion w,orked best in the Southbecause minority teachers historically had beenhired nearly in proportion to minority students.And although patterns might have varied fromdistrict to district, the use of seniority as a primarycriterion in staff decisions was of great value inconvincing courts that objective, nonracial criteriaacceptable under Singleton had been established.In particular, the use of seniority as a criterion intransfers, reassignments, dismissals, and demo-tions in the context of desegregation offered (andstill offers, in the cases of involuntary transfer andreassignment) the following advantages:

The use of subjective and arbitrary criteria insuch actions could be reduced.

Administrators and school boards might bediscouraged more readily from institutingevaluation devices that were not openly racistin intent, but that were highly discriminatoryin their use.

Teacher morale would be helped if teachersunderstood the basis for action taken andcould compare their standing on the senioritycriterion with that of other teachers.Predictions could be made more easily as towhich schools and teachers were most likelyto be affected, permitting better advanceplanning by school officials and teachersalike.

25

17

Because the seniority criterion was objective,it would be easier to appeal violations in prac-tice.

Both favoritism and punitive decisions in per-sonnel actions could be avoided to a greaterextent.

Having objective information available tothem to explain and understand the reasonsfor decisions, teachers would be more accep-ting Of desegregation, would plan more effec-tively, and would be more productive in de-segregated classrooms.59

No other criterion offered these advantages.

As the massive displacements began to ease inthe 1970's, experiences in districts in the North aswell as in the South justified the continuing use ofseniority as a primary criterion in transfers and re-assignments. Northern city school districts es-caped none of the favoritism or discriminationthat was present in the South, and arbitrary, sub-jective personnel actions, taken in the absence oftruly objectivecriteria, offered the potential foreven more mischief, considering the high degree ofalienation and impersonalization in many largecity school districts.

In the South, teachers had sometimes been as-signed out of their field, and similar abuses beganto occur in the North. Reassignment of teachers tofederally funded programs carried with it anumber of abuses, both in the North and South,including the isolation of teach erg viewed as"troublemakers" because of their union or asso-ciation activities.60

In other districts, both in the North and South,building principals were asked to identify teacherson their staffs for transfer. They could hardly beexpected_ to place the names of close friends ortheir strongest teachers on the reassignment lists.They were more likely to try to get rid of teacherswith problems or individual teachers whose phi-losophies differed from their own.6'

The potential for arbitrary and inequitabletransfer procedures made it clear that the use ofobjective criteria, especially seniority in transfer

18

and reassignment, would be as important in main-taining staff morale and fairness as they had beenwith dismissals and demotions during the periodof displacement.

Considerations in Application of Seniority. Theuse of seniority as a criterion creates few prob-lems, but its application without taking --somespecial factors into consideration can sometimesbe harmful.

In most cities that have desegregated, the pro-portion of minority educators has been substan-tially lower than the proportion of whites. As aresult of the application of the Singleton standardof proportional assignment of minority teachers ineach building in a district, and because minorityteachers tend to be concentrated in minorityschools, the average minority teacher is muchmore likely to be affected than is the average whiteteacher.62

The loss of significant numbers of experiencedminority teachers, which occurs even whenseniority is used, can cripple the continuity ofeducational programs in schools where minoritystudents remain segregated, and bilingual/bi-cultural programs can be even more seriously af-fected because of the small numbers of Spanish-speaking teachers. The loss of these able minorityteachers is compounded when the seniority provi-sions result in the transfer into those schools ofnew and inexperienced white teachers.

Alert teacher association leaders, enlightenedadministrators, and conscientious Federal offi-cials in the Education and Justice Departmentshave sought to devise policies and proposals forfaculty desegregation that retain objective criteria,including seniority, as a basis for transfers and re-assignments, while trying to provide for substan-tial equity for staffs in all schools in terms of ex-perience, educational credentials, and other qual-ifications. Rigid seniority plans make attainmentof equity more difficult, but the concepts are notmutually exclusive.

Many agreements provide that equalization inexperience and qualifications be attained to thedegree possible by matching voluntary transfers,

26

by placement of teachers returning from leave,and by matching new hires on the basis of ex-perience and qualifications. Placement of newminority teachers in formerly predominantlywhite schools reduces the need for involuntarytransfers of both minority and white teachers, andmany teacher groups have pushed affirmative ac-tion plans, in patt for that reason.

Some associations and districts have established"layered seniority" plans where quotas areestablished for transferring personnel withinseniority groupings (1 to 5 years of experience, 6to 10 years, etc.). The United Teachers- of LosAngeles devised a proposa163 that excluded staffmembers who had reached their 60th birthday andprobationary or permanent teachers in their first 5years at school.

Use of Seniority in RIF Situations. In recentyears, reductions in student populations and ensu-ing reductions in force (RIFs) in teaching staffshave had devastating effects on minority teachershired during the late 1960's and early 1970'5.64When disproportionate numbers of minorities are"RIFed" or dismissed, the district's affirmativeaction efforts are hampered, and the teachers faceextra hardships if they have moved to tit." districtfrom other localities. Nonminority teachers arejustifiably upset, however, when they seethemselves singled out for dismissal in place ofminorities with less seniority.

Teacher associations are often caught in themiddle of such controversies. Their support foraffirmative action and expansion of minority staffis in direct contradiction to their need to retainseniority as an objective standard in reductions inforce. In addition, state tenure provisionssometimes require seniority provisions in RIFsituations, and pressures will be strong to retainthe integrity of the legislation.

The association faced with such a situation hasa dilemma. To support seniority as an absolutecondition may mean disproportionate dismissalsof minority teachers and disruption of desegrega-tion and affirmative action plans, and may as wellanger the minority teachers who will feel aban-doned. To insist on retention of minorities at the

expense of white jobs will cause a rebellion on theother side.

Perhaps the courts will provide further clarifica-tion of district requirements in such cases in futureyears. At present, there are only two alternativepositions that offer some attractiveness comparedto either positions of strict seniority or minoritypreference: (1) separate seniority lists, with pro-portional reductions of minorities and non-minorities when RIFs become necessary; and (2)retention of all teachers, minority and non-minority.65 The first of these has the advantage ofimplied concession of the legitimacy of staffreductions, although the principles of seniority areretained. A further advantage of this alternative isthat it acknowledges the existence of past wrongsfor which some type of special protection andcompensation is needed. The second offers someadvantages from a teacher association standpointbecause the association can continue to supportminority employment while defending nonminor-ity positions and the integrity of seniority provi-sions in the contract and in tenure laws. The dis-advantages lie in the lack of firm legal precedentsand the difficulties arising when the board's argu-ments for budget reductions have been con-vincing.

Perhaps the most satisfactory court ruling withregard to RIFs in desegregating school districtscame in 1972, in Kalamazoo, Michigan. DistrictJudge Noel P. Fox enjoined the district from dis-missing 103 teachers, noting:

27

The evidence vividly elucidated the utility ofblack teachers, by simple virtue of theirblackness, as role models for blackchildren....The evidence further showed howthe presence of black and white staffmembers sensitive to problems of com-munication between the races helps to freechildren's minds to learning by increasingtheir faith and confidence in the scttool as aninstitution and by diminishing the likelihoodof racial tensions fostered by lack ofunderstanding...

Finally, the record established that whiteteachers and counselors have been recruited

19

as individuals who possess a high degree ofsensitivity to the concerns and needs of aheterogeneous student population. The lossof such personnel would similarly jeopardizethe 14th Amendment secured rights of theplaintiffs in this action.66

Judge Fox then ordered the district to reinstateall teachers, minority and nonminority, anddirected that funds be used from other programs,including those of the public library, to run thedistrict before any teachers could be released.

The Application of Federal Standardsin Teacher Desegregation

The most common test used to identify discrimi-natory faculty assignment 'practices is to look atthe statistics to see if the assignment pattern forminority teachers follows the assignment patternfor minority students.67 If such relationships arefound, it is likely that the district has been illegallyassigning teachers to schools on the basis of racialor ethnic identification. If the school district hasapplied for ESAA funds, the Office for CivilRights is required to monitor the district's af-fidavit of compliance with the nondiscriminationregulations. And if such statistical imbalance isfound, the district is required to correct the im-balance within the prescribed limits or be deniedESAA assistance. Since 1975, such determinationsalso trigger enforcement under Title VI of theCivil Rights Act of 1964.68

Discrimination in student assignments, unfor-tunately, is not as easily established. The Congresshas placed considerable restrictions on Federalagencies in enforcement of student desegregation,particularly with respect to busing. In any case,student desegregation often entails much morecommunity and political controversy. The result isthat teachers are often desegregated lons beforethe district moves effectively to end sta:,..!entsegregation. Schools in the ghettos and barrios re-main substantially segregated, while minorityteachers are transferred away.69

When minority teachers in these schools arereplaced by new or inexperienced white teachers,staff disruptions are compounded, the curriculum

20

may become disorganized, and the education ofstudents may suffer while they remain in largelysegregated classrooms. The fault for this is not somuch with OCR policy as with the Congress andthe courts." Antibusing legislation is impeding thedevelopment of nondiscriminatory and educa-tionally sound desegregation plans, and recentSupreme Court rulings requiring onerous stan-dards for proof of intent, even in the face of ob-viously discriminatory effect of official govern-mental actions at local and state levels, place somesituations beyond the rule of logic. While deseg-regation has not been stopped, the implementa-tion of teacher transfer plans outside the contextof comprehensive plans for total school districtcommitment to elimination of racial and nationalorigin isolation and discrimination defies reason.

Although it was necessary for southern blackteacher associations and the NEA, in early years,to fight the dismissals and demotions that accom-panied desegregation, it became clear that theycould not, and should not, oppose reasonable andjust reassignments and transfers to reduce facultyimbalance and bring about faculty desegregation.

Teacher association actions on transfers shouldbe designed to bring about the least possible harm,together with the most possible good, for bothstudents and teachers. It may be important here torestate briefly a few principles:71

Teacher desegregation should continue, but inthe context of comprehensive plans involvingstudent educational welfare.Student desegregation should proceed in waysthat reflect the best educational organizationregardless of the numbers of students to bebused.The existence of discriminatory teacher as-signment patterns, as defined by present law,should provide the basis for de jure deter-minations with respect to denial of educa-tional opportunity to students on the basis ofTitle VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.Where there are substantial numbers ofminority teachers and students, it isreasonable to provide for relatively equal pro-portions in each school as required in present

.28

law, assuming that substantial student deseg-regation has occurred or is about to occur. Ifthere are not substantial numbers of minorityteachers, means should be found to recruitadditional ones so that all students can haveaccess to desegregated teaching staffs. If thisis not possible, the ratio requirements shouldbe revised so that the proportion of minorityteachers, in substantially minority schools,can more closely approximate the proportionsof minority students in those schools and thatminority students are not totally deprived ofminority role models in positions of author-ity. (However, it is important for nonminoritystudents also to have minority persons asauthority figures, so recruitment is essential.)In school districts where segregated whiteschools retain their identification as whiteschools because of inadequate numbers ofminority teachers in the system, lack ofassignment of minority students to thoseschools, or past practice of assignment ofwhite teachers to schools with predominantlywhite student bodies, a determination of TitleVI violations should occur. Districts shouldbe required to: (1) employ substantialnumbers of minority teachers to correct thediscrimination; or (2) provide reassignment ofwhite teachers away from those buildings (asis now done with minorities); or (3) establishfirm agreements for goals and deadlines tomeet affirmative action goals in the hiring ofminority teachers so that the conditions ofsegregated and racially isolated education ofwhite students in schools retaining racial iden-tifiability will be eliminated.

If present r ractice defines schools with substan-tial minority student or teacher populations assegregated or racially isolated, then the same stan-dards should be applied to schools with substantialproportions of nonminority students and teachersso that state and Federal enforcement standardscan begin to apply equally on a truly nonracialbasis.

Requirement of substantially equal proportionsof minority and nonminority teachers in allschools helps to eliminate or reduce the racial or

ethnic identifiability of individual schools. Thestandard was set in Alabama, when the FederalCourt required that teachers be divided equallyalong racial lines in all schools in MontgomeryCounty, and it was later refined in the Singletoncase in Jackson, Mississippi.72 The courts ulti-mately permitted minor deviations, now usuallyinterpreted as requiring assignments of minorityteachers in each building within plus or minus 5percent of the proportion of minority teachers inthe district as a whole." Although the standard in-itially was intended to apply as well to otheremployment groups, such as principals, it now iscommon for teachers to be the only group af-fected._ Teachers in special programs, such as bi-lingual/bicultural education centers, are usuallyexcused from mandatory reassignment underthese provisions.

In 1974, a number of cities lost ESAA fundsafter the courts ruled that "racially discriminatoryteacher assignments must have 'ceased to exist'prior to any administrative waiver of ineligibilityfor benefits under the Act."74 In other' words,HEW could no longer approve ESAA grant pro-grams in cities with racially discriminatory teacherassignment practices. Such districts were deniedESAA eligibility, but no further actions wereundertaken.

The victories of civil rights groups in Adams v.Richardson" in 1972 and in Brown v. Weinberger'in 1975 led to requirements that the Office forCivil Rights fulfill its enforcement responsibilitieson Title violations. The irony was that, untilthat time, many school districts had been deniedESAA funds only if they had discriminatoryassignment practices; after 1975, the filing of anESAA application by a district with such assign-ment practices not only led to monitoring byOCR, but to the initiation of Title VI enforcementprocedures if violations were found. Districts sud-denly found themselves faced with much largerpotential losses, especially of Title I compensatoryeducation programs. As a result, many districtsmoved to desegregate faculty, while continuing tostall on student desegregation, and HEW ap-proved their actions.

29

21

INSERVICE EDUCATION

Desegregation can bring many changes, con-structive or destructive, depending on the will, in-tent, and abilities of the participants. When deseg-regation is viewed narrowly, in terms of minimalcompliance with the law or simply as the mixing ofstudents or teachers from different groups, itsresults tend to be limited. When desegregation isunderstood to present new opportunities for im-proving the instructional program, for findingnew directions in curriculum, and for building bet-ter relationships among students, teachers, andthe community, the results can be seen from theenriched experiences of everyone in the schools.

Vague of Inservice EducationExperience has demonstrated that when key

groups, especially teachers and their associations,become involved in the change process, the resultscan be seen in improvement in student morale andachievement, higher teacher morale and effective-ness, the development of new, innovative, andresponsive educational programs, and increasedcommunity support for schools and teachers.77

Inservice education is important in bringingabout these changes. The provision of inserviceeducation opportunities for teachers, as well as forparents, other school personnel, and students, canserve to:78

Reduce fears, misunderstandings, and hos-tilities among members of different groups,permitting them to work together more effec-tively and to maximize learning in desegre-gated settings.

Increase understanding of the issues, history,and roles of different groups.

Improve understanding of technical informa-tion related to successful implementation ofprograms leading to desegregation and qual-ity integrated education.

Provide opportunities for teachers to share.experiences and perceptions with each otherand with students, parents, and communityrepresentatives in developing new and betterrelationships and in preparing cooperative

22

strategies for improving educational oppor-tunities.

Encourage the development of cooperativeteams to solve problems or to carry out newprograms.

Encourage the development of specific skillsin teaching and working with students fromdifferent cultural and linguistic backgrounds.Assist in strategy development and planningfor improvement of learning conditions andresolution of problems.

Desegregation inservice education, if handledproperly, can create or foster a sense of ownershipof the desegregation process and feelings of shar-ing in its success. Teachers who have a sense ofcontrol of their own destinies and of the programsfor which they have major responsibility are likelyto be more professional and supportive in their at-titudes and activities in administering those pro-grams.

Resistance to Administration-RunPrograms

Teachers in many communities have learned toresist inservice programs, especially when imposedon them from above and outside. They view suchprograms as wasteful of their time and energies,unresponsive to their own needs and to the realproblems they face in the classrooms, and disrup-tive to carrying out their already difficult dailyteaching responsibilities. Many administration-run programs, including those conducted byteacher education institutions, assistance centers,and consultant groups, are seen as designed pri-marily to fulfill expectations that training takeplace without much real concern for the content oreffect of the experience. The "sensitivity training"programs, so popular a few years ago, were viewedby many teachers as manipulative and dishonest.Other teachers rejected antiracism training asmere blame-placing exercises that did not helpteachers to perform more effectively in their ownlives and careers. Other programs seemed designedonly for administrative convenience.

As a result, many teachers, even knowing theimportance of inservice programs, resist and reject

3o

district programs, such as the fall institutes pro-vided by law in many states. When attendance atthese programs is mandatory, the effects are evenworse; open rebellion and resistance sometimesresults, making the experience unpleasant even forteachers who had looked forward to the pro-grams.

Relying on principal-run programs in individualschools is not much better. When Memphisdesegregated several years ago, for example, in-itial responsibility for teacher inservice educationwas placed on building principals.79 According toparticipants, the experiences varied with theleadership skills and attitudes of the principals. Ifprincipals were themselves resistant to desegrega-tion, mandatory hours of inservice experiencebecame almost totally counterproductive. Prin-cipals who operated effectively as instructionalleaders, however, and who had enthusiam for thenew experiences and opportunities accompanyingdesegregation, often developed useful programs.

Establishing Effective InserviceEducation Programs

The examples provided above are not intendedto suggest that inservice education cannot beworthwhile. Many school districts do provide ex-cellent inservice programs. A wide variety of out-standing experiences in preparation for desegrega-tion are available from many educational institu-tions, assistance centers, and private consultinggroups.

Unfortunately, it sometimes happens that thepreparations made are inadequate, desegregationorders come late, administrative priorities lieelsewhere, or the district decides to utilize itsresources in training central administrative andbuilding principals, rather than in undertaking themore substantial efforts needed to train teachers.And even when teacher training is given, it ofteninvolves only token numbers or selected groups,leaving large numbers of teachers feelingalienated, ignored, and ill-prepared for the newroles they are being told (not asked) to take.Sometimes, school districts provide token trainingfor teachers in school buildings. This practiceoften requires the teachers to stay an extra hour or

two in their school (at the end of a tiring day) forsets of exercises or speakers, either consultants orlocal administrators, who talk condescendingly tothem or provide additional assignments that sim-ply add to the stress already hampering theirreceptiveness to the changes taking place.

Further, because their livelihood, political sup-port, or future consultant fees depend on thefavorable evaluation of the superintendent,relatively few outside consultants, let alonefacilitators provided from within the system, arewilling to set a controversial training agenda. Theyavoid looking closely at issues of discrimination orteacher rights and at topics that permit teachers toengag! in activities that might result in criticismfrom the administration.

Recognizing that the opportunity to deal withdesegregation issues may determine the potentialfor constructing programs that respond to the realissues in the system, many local, state, and na-tional teacher associations have organized theirown inservice programs. Sponsorship of desegre-gation workshops, conferences, and seminars bylocal teacher associations, often with state or na-tional staff assistance, offers a number of specificadvantages:°

Teachers will have genuine opportunities forparticipation in planning and carrying out in-service programs. They feel they have"ownership" of both the training and thefollowup activities, and they therefore aremore likely to follow through on strategiesand plans that they have developedthemselves. Further, the strategies developedwill be less dependent on administration ap-proval for their success.

Workshop topics and training agendas arelikely to be more realistic and appropriate interms of teachers' stated needs and percep-tions, and will be less susceptible to politicalinterference or restrictions by persons con-cerned about maintaining '-'safe" agendas.Teachers will be freer to develop alliances andcooperative relationships with parents, com-munity groups, and students in workingtogether to improve the entire school pro-gram, as well as to solve problems.

3123

Teachers will be freer to select their own con-sultants and leaders in training and actionplanning.

Any number of approaches, workshop designs,and training strategies are possible: It is not thepurpose of this section to explore these, sincenumerous publications are available and trainingstrategies will vary from group to group on thebasis of needs and objectives identified by localparticipants. What seems to be most important isthe degree of participation by those persons whowill be most affected and the nature of the objec-tives they set out to accomplish.

Based on its experiences in working on deseg-regation conferences and workshops with hun-dreds of local teacher associations, the NEA hasidentified a number of inservice desegregationtraining objectives.8I These are of four principaltypes:

InformationalSharing information that willhelp participants understand or deepen theirunderstanding of the process, terms, andissues associated with desegregation andestablishing a forum through which they canidentify, diagnose, and analyze particularlocal problems and the key forces impactingon those problems.

BehavioralDeveloping an awareness of in-dividual, group, and organizational behaviorrelated to desegregation; providing an oppor-tunity for participants to identify, explore,and modify language and behavioral patterns;giving participants experience in analyzingpersonal efforts to provide the best educationfor all students; and sensitizing members tosome of their own behavior that contributesto or hinders solving group problems.

24

CommunicativeAllowing participants toshare their thoughts and to listen to the con-cerns of others about controversial desegrega-tion issues on a nonthreatening basis; explor-ing the problems created by a lack of com-munication and ways in which these might beresolved; and stimulating the group to analyzecommunication in solving a group problem.Action-OrientedAllowing for practice ingroup decisionmaking in developing strategiesfor change and plans for action.

Teacher associations also often find it pro-fitable to work with community and parent groupsthat have expressed a willingness or an interest inparticipating in training and workshop activitiessponsored by the association, as well as in similarfunctions sponsored within the community. Inmany cases, nonprofit organizations receivingESAA funds are anxious to use training to modifyteacher behaviors that they perceive as inhibitingintegration and equal opportunity. If they try todo so from outside, without the cooperation ofteacher associations, they are likely to follow ir-relevant agendas, to use teachers as scapegoats,and to develop even more resistance to ap-propriate behavioral change.

However, if . teacher associations participatewith community groups in such planning, it usual-ly is possible to help the community better under-stand and sympathize with the problems faced byteachers. Consequently, moves toward more suit-able approaches are feasible. Teacher associationswill also be able to help provide the communitywith access to teachers on a more productive basis.Finally, such cooperation can help to enlist thesupport of the community in seeking constructivechanges that will improve teaching and learning inthe schools.

32

4. ORGANIZATIONAL STRATEGIES FORTEACHER ASSOCIATIONS

Almost every decision made as desegregation isbrought about has an impact on teachers, andthrough them, on the quality of education indesegregated classrooms. Once the classroomdoor is closed, the teacher becomes the powerfulfigure in desegregation.

But all too often teachers are ignored in the de-segregation planning process or treated as thoughthey have no legitimate interest in what happens intheir schools and classrooms. Clearly, involve-ment by teachers is a key ingredient to successfuldesegregation. And just as clearly, concernedteachers cannot be content to wait for an invita-tion to become involved. They must take on thisresponsibility themselves.

Planning for and participating in desegregationactivities by teachers can take several forms. Asindividuals, teachers can make their views ondesegregation known through such informal ac-.tivities as writing letters to the local newspaper ordiscussions in the classrooms, in the teachers'lounge, and with neighbors and friends. Teacherscan influence desegregation activities through par-ticipation in school and district committees, asmembers of private groups and coalitions, or asmembers of official bodies established by thedistrict, by the city or state, or by the local teacherassociation.

It is this latter form of participationorganizedparticipation that permits planning for a logicalsequence of events and the rational involvement ofindividuals and groups moving toward mutuallydesired endsthat is of primary concern in thismonograph. The experiences of the NEA haveshown that, where teacher groups have chosen tooppose or ignore desegregation, the results havebeen shown in increased devisiveness and polariza-

tion in the school and community, in disciplineproblems and in student and teacher morale prob-lems, and in a general decline in educational quali-ty. In those cases, however, where teacher associa-tions have acted aggressively and affirmatively in -

the interest of positive goals, their leadership rolehas been enhanced and the respect and influenceof teachers within their communities has in-creased.82

As members of associations, teachers can be ac-tively involved in desegregation through such ac-tivities as:83

Helping to determine teacher associationpolicies and programs related to school deseg-regation and making these known by servingas members of or delegates to desegregationcoalitions or monitoring committees.

Negotiating with the administration or boardon issues related to desegregation.

Representing other teachers before buildingprincipals and other administrators whenrights have been violated as a result of districtdesegregation, and following up with griev-ances, complaints, and legal suits, as ap-propriate.

Taking an active role in specific school con-cerns, such as pupil transportation, schoolsafety, and the appropriateness of learningmaterials and library resources to the deseg-regated setting.

Only through such wide-ranging involvement byteachers and teacher associations in desegregationplanning and implementation will it be possible toensure that all critical elements of the educationalsystem are given consideration in the desegrega-tion process.

25

33

Although the actual form of involvement ofteacher associations in the desegregation processwill vary from district to district, any associationdesiring to become actively involved must firstestablish a strategy. Among the key elements ofany strategy are:

Assessing the desegregation needs of teachers,students, parents, and others involved in theprocess.

Developing statements enunciating associa-tion policy on desegregation activities.

Identifying and using technical informationon various aspects of the desegregation pro-cess and on those involved.Becoming .actively involved in desegregationplanning.Establishing cooperative community rela-tions.

ASSESSING DESEGREGATIONNEEDS

To develop an intelligent desegregation strat-egy, one first needs to know what the recipients ofsuch a strategy are thinking. What are theirperceptions of their own needs? How do they viewthe situation and their role in it? What do theythink should be done? How should it be done?

These general perceptions can be translated intoa number of specific and appropriate topics for aneeds assessment, including:

Perceptions of current or potential problems_,relating to the protection of teacher and/orstudent rights and the elimination of arbitraryor discriminatory conditions and practices inthe schools.Perceptions of needed curriculum changesand/or revision of educational objectives.Perceptions of inservice education needs.Recommendations for standards and guide-lines for such processes as teacher transferand reassignment; involvement of teachers,parents, and students in planning and imple-mentation; rumor control and dissemination

26

of information; and teacher/administrator,teacher/student, teacher/parent, andteacher/teacher relationships in desegregatedschools.

Recommendations for teacher associationprograms and activities in individual build-ings and across the system.

A formal survey offers probably the best meansfor undertaking a needs assessment. Such a surveycan be conducted either by mail or telephone(either locally or across the district), in workshopsor other kinds of meetings designed to elicit suchinformation, or in hearings conducted by theassociation or other groups.

The wording of items on surveys and question-naires should be considered carefully, if possibleby someone with previous experience in conduc-ting research. Teachers, for example, generallysupport school integration at about the same levelas,the general public, and when asked about bus-ing their responses are also similar to those of thegeneral public.

Leaders of one midwestern teacher associationwere faced with difficulties after members re-turned a disappointingly high percentage of nega-tive responses on a busing question, with thehighest proportion from all-white and all-blackschools." A decision was made not to release theresults because their publication would have em-barrassed the association leadership in their con-frontation with the superintendent. This becamealmost disastrous when the confrontation inten-sified and the superintendent began making publicremarks about the teacher leaders because theyhad not released the negative results. The situationwas resolved and the leaders were vindicated aftera new survey produced highly positive responses toa long list of desegregation-related questions. Hadsuch a comprehensive questionnaire been used inthe first place, the situation might have beenavoided and the teacher leaders would have hadusable information at a much earlier stage of theirplanning process.

Respondents to surveys or questionnairesshould be advised about the potential uses of their

34

responses and whether the information will bemade public. When possible, full results should beprovided to teachers and other respondents:- If in-formation obtained turns out to be embarrassing,it is difficult to cover it up, and associations thatwithhold information find that it usually is re-vealed, especially if participants have anticipatedrelease of the results.

DEVELOPING POLICYSTATEMENTS

One of the first and most significant actionstaken by a teacher association in anticipation ofdesegregation is the development of clear, con-sistent, and coherent policy statements that willform the basis for future decisions and action inresponse to desegregation issues and problems.Well-written policy statements, based on an ade-quate needs assessment, can serve a number offunctions that will help keep the association..ontrack in moving toward the achievement of its pur-poses. Among these are:

To provide clarification of association posi-tions on significant issues.

To help maintain consistency in the activitiesand statements of the association and itsleaders.

To provide a basis for explanation of actionsto members and the public.

To give authority to persons working with orrepresenting the association.

To serve as justification for actions taken insupport of association positions.To provide a basis for evaluatbi: of associa-tion efforts.

A policy statement designed to achieve thesefunctions will have the following characteristics:

It will represent official action of the associa-tion, through its adoption by the membershipor a body recognized as having the power tospeak for the membership.

It will be sufficiently comprehensive to coverall, or most of, the major concerns of thegroup relating to desegregation issues.

Its adoption will be binding on officers andothers authorized to speak for the member-ship until its expiration or revision.

It will be basically concerned with positionson issues, rather than with directions or man-dates to specific individuals or groups for ac-tion, though these may sometimes be in-cluded.

It will be written in a form suitable for dis-semination to members and to other in-terested individuals and groups.It will be basically responsive to significantissues or problems perceived by the member-ship and/or the association leaders.

Several types of policy statements can beadopted by associations, including resolutions bycommittees and task forces, executive committees,boards of directors, and representative assemblies;reports and recommendations of task forces andappointive groups; and position papers. Usually,the general membership should not have to voteon all issues of policy adoption, but any positionstatement should be written with the general pur-poses of the association and subject to referendumby the members. Clarification of actions taken onspecific items of policy normally can be done byofficers and leadership groups, such as the ex-ecutive committee, board of directors, or othersimilar groups.

Some guidelines for the development of policystatements may be helpful:

1. Plans should be made to inform membersbefore, during, and after the adoption of majorpolicy statements. If members feel they have beenleft out or ignored, they may rebel against theleadership or work to sabotage the program.

2. Those deciding the policy should be respon-sive to concerns of the members of the groups. Apolicy calling for mandatory transfers of memberswould be unwise and unnecessary; a policy callingfor action to reduce racial and ethnic imbalanceon the basis of negotiated agreements with theassociation would likely receive strong support.

27

3. If general votes or referendums are neces-sary, the wording of proposed statements shouldavoid inflammatory or coded, symbolic languagethat will divide support for the position later.

4. Policy statements should not be so specific asto limit necessary flexibility in response to newconditions, but should not be so general as to losetheir meaning.

5. Policy statements should be worded in such away as to permit, or even require, action by theassociation and its bodies in their implementation,but without specifying definite actions to betaken, except in relatively broad terms.

The well-developed policy statement will bemanifested in programs of the associationinnegotiations, for example, or in programs of in-formation to membership and the public, in legalaction or grievance processing, in activities relatedto improvement of instruction and professionaldevelopment, and in political action and legislativeactivities.

An association program dealing with desegrega-tion issues will be ineffectiVe if the only group con-cerned about its implementation is the associa-tion's desegregation task force or human relationscommittee. Coordination of program implemen-tation or responsibility for the development ofrecommendations may be lodged in one group,but the other teacher organization subgroups mustbe equally involved in the formulation of desegre-gation planning policies.

Good, comprehensive policy statements onschool desegregation have been adopted by hun-dreds of teacher organizations across the Nation.Many were adopted in the middle and later 1960'sand are still appropriate today. Particularly effec-tive have been the statements developed byWichita, Kansas; Seattle, Washington; Flint,Michigan; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and the OhioEducation Association. Resolutions adopted bythe AFT and by the NEA can also serve as modelpolicy statements."

As an example of a policy statement for thedesegregation of multiple districts, the NEA has

28

suggested a number of minimum guidelines forconsideration in both voluntary and involuntarystudent and teacher transfer plans.86

1. Any plan for multidistrict or metro-politan desegregation should protect teacherrights by including the following provisions:

a. Resolution of any problems of re-tirement, teacher tenure, and teacher con-tracts within existing laws.

b. Guarantees that no teacher will belaid off or dismissed during any period ofadjustment, reassignment, or reorganiza-tion.

c. Guarantees that no new teacher willbe hired or assigned to an area for which heor she is not fully certificated.

d. Guarantees that teachers will havefixed assignments, not uncertain or rovingassignments.

e. Protection against the use of arbi-trary evaluation procedures.

f. Retention of salary and economicfringe benefits, including pension rights, andother contract rights.

g. Clearly defined grievance and ap-peal procedures, to be in effect before andafter any reassignment of staff.

h. Safeguards for continuity and con-sistency of work load and assignmentsthroughout the affected districts.

i. Maintenance of local collective bar-gaining and union security clauses, includingagency shop provisions, in order to assureteachers of their collective rights and repre-sentation during the period of reorganiza-tion.

j. Provision of inservice educationand human relations and multiethnic train-ing for teachers and other school personnelgroups at school district expense.

36

2. The local associations involved, withthe assistance of the state associations,should do the following:

a. Establish close working relation-ships and continuing communications withassociation leaders in all districts involved.

b. Sponsor programs promoting thedevelopment of relationships amongteachers, students, and parents in the variouscommunities through such means as student/teacher visitations and exchanges, jointmeetings, and workshops.

c. Reassure members that the associa-tions will continue to work for their best in-terests through negotiations and legal actionas necessary at each step of the process.

d. Maintain a continuing informationprogram to reduce misunderstandings andrumors, to enhance communications amongall parties, and to ensure early and accuratedissemination of information.

e. Take steps to participate in desegre-gation suits involving the local schoolsystems at the earliest possible stage of suchlitigation. Efforts should be made to assurethat the ratio of ethnic minority staff shallreflect at least the ethnic minority propor-tion of the student population. Effortsshould be made to employ ethnic' minorityeducators in addition to those educators whoreflect the dominant groups in the studentpopulation.

f. Notify authorities in all schooldistricts involved that contract requirementsmust be observed and that any modificationsof existing contract provisions, unless re-quired by court order, must be negotiated bythe association.

3. The state association, functioning in acoordinating capacity, should assist .localassociations in the same ways identified fordesegregation of -Single school systems. In

addition, the state association should do thefollowing:

a. Evaluate conditions in areas whichmay in the future become involved in metro-politan desegregation, reorganization, orconsolidation.

b. Develop, in cooperation with localassociation leaders, plans and programs forcoping with the anticipated changes.

IDENTIFYING AND USINGTECHNICAL INFORMATION

Strategy development by the local teacherassociation may fail when actions are takenwithout having accurate and sufficient informa-tion as a basis for planning. Technical informa-tion gives substance to the implementation ofgoals and objectives and to the purposes ar-ticulated in association policy statements." Morespecifically, technical information can serve to:

Provide a factual and accountable basis foridentifying and solving desegregation prob-lems and conflicts and for identifying addi-tional resources and sources of assistance indealing with these problems.

Provide a base of knowledge that is useful toteacher leaders in conducting negotiationsaround desegregation policies and pro-cedures, such as transfer and reassignment.

Permit the association to make a realisticassessment of the probable impact of desegre-gation policies and procechires, based onknowledge of what is likely to happen withinthe range permitted by law.

Provide a basis for setting affirmative actiongoals and timetables based on the identifica-tion of problems and patterns related to racialand national origin isolation; imbalances ofassignments; evaluation of factors relating toalienation, pushouts, improper assignmentsto special classes, and disruptions; resegrega-tion patterns; new patterns of discrimination;and empAoyment and promotion patterns.

3729

The types of information that are most useful inplanning and carrying out desegregation programsinclude:88

Student enrollment data by race and ethnicgroup (and sex, by school, if available).

Teacher assignment data by race and ethnicgroup (and sex, by school).Student and teacher racial/ethnic data forcomparable school districts and the state.

School district reports on disciplinary actions,suspensions, expulsions, and assignments tospecial classes by race, ethnic group, and sex.

Financial data such as costs of alternative de-segregation plans; co,ts of school transporta-tion for desegregation; funds available fordesegregation assistance to the district (TitleIV, ESAA, state funds); school districtbudget allocations for instructional and per-sonnel costs; and costs of additional pro-grams to be implemented in conjunction withdesegregation (bilingual/bicultural programs,alteration of school facilities, programs forthe physically impaired or to achieve Title IXcompliance).

Federal and state laws and regulations relatingto desegregation implementation and elimina-tion of discrimination, including Title I regu-lations; Title IV assistance programs (district,State, desegregation assistance centers, anddesegregation institutes); Title VI regulationsand desegregation guidelines; Title VII(ESAA) regulations and assistance programs,including grants to school districts, grants tononprofit organizations and district advisorycommittees, and requirements for eliminationof discriminatiori against students and staff.Also included areTitle IX regulations on sexdiscrimination; Lau guidelines on languagediscrimination; Section 504 regulations ondiscrimination against the handicapped; addi-tional laws and regulations relating to privacyrights of students (the Buckley Amendment),employment discrimination (EEOC), andothers; and comparable state laws and regu-lations.

Nature of complaints in pending desegrega-tion situations; texts of court orders; and

30

formal agreements governing district com-pliance.

Information about most or all of these itemsshould be available from school district ad-ministrators. However, some districts refuse torelease such information to teacher groups. Andthe accuracy of reports, particularly those con-taining statistical data, is often questionable.89Therefore, it may be desirable to obtain theneeded information from other sources, thusavoiding having to notify the administration ofthe association's interests.

All of this information is available from a vari-ety of private and public sources. The most promi-nent of the private sources are: state and nationalteacher associations; other local, state, and na-tional organizations and coalitions; special studygroups; lawyers and legal projects, includingplaintiffs' attorneys, school district counsel, orteacher association attorneys on retainer; and themonitoring activities of teacher associationmembers, parents, and students. The most promi-nent of the public sources are: local governmentagencies; the school district; state departments ofeducation and other state agencies; desegregationassistance centers, universities, and special proj-ects funded under local, state, and Federal pro-grams; the Office for Civil Rights within theDepartment of Education, and its regional offices;the National Institute of Education DesegregationStudies staff; the Community Relations Service;the Civil Rights Division of the Department ofJustice; and the Equal Employment OpportunityCommission.

PLANNING

If the needs assessment and policy statementshave been handled properly, the transition to theplanning stage can be carried out smoothly,leading to effective association action throughoutthe entire desegregation process.

The experience of teachers in a southwesternschool district who developed a particularly effec-tive planning process illustrates the key corn-

3

ponents in developing local association strategiesfor successful integration.90

First, the organization embarked on an am-bitious information-gathering effort, principallythrough meetings of the local association and of-ficers, the association's human relations commit-tee and its desegregation task force, an assistantsuperintendent from the district, and additionalteachers and private citizens with information andideas about desegregation needs. Meetings werealso held with members of the Tri-Ethnic Commit-tee, a court-appointed body of citizens responsiblefor monitoring desegregation progress and report-ing to the court. As a result of this activity, theassociation was able to identify:

A number of given circumstances about thecurrent situation and events likely to takeplace after the court order to desegregate wasreceived (e.g., the probable date for im-plementation of the court order, the approx-imate number of teachers to be transferred,and the number of students to be reassignedand bused to different s!chools).

The primary actors in the desegregation pro-cess, and particularly those who opposedteacher involvement in the desegregation pro-cess and those who would have the mostsignificant influence as blocking agents orpotential allies of any association-initiateddesegregation activities.

Second, armed with this information, theassociation was able to establish specific goals forits desegregation plan, encompassing such factorsas the protection of teacher and student rights, ef-fective parental support, public relations, and in-service training priorities. Third, the associationestablished a number of committees, each focusedon one or several of the identified goals.

As a result of this effort, the association had afirm basis on which to define the lines of actionfor its program, for activities in community rela-tions and coalition building, and for inserviceeducation, as well as the initial outline for anESAA nonprofit organization proposal.

Although the steps and details will naturallyvary from place to place, depending on local con-ditions, similar planning and strategy develop-ment can be undertaken by other teacher associa-tions, by community groups, and by coalitions ofgroups.

ESTABLISHIN G COMMUNITYRELATIONS AND COALITION

BUILDING

Parents and community organizations can playany number of rolesharmful or helpfulin thedesegregation process. But most of them, withadequate information and opportunity for in-volvement, will support efforts to improve educa-tional opportunities. Therefore, teacher planningfor school desegregation would not .be completewithout utilizing the input and resources ofparents and community groups. Further,classroom learning and teaching conditions wouldbe constantly vulnerable to interference and dis-ruption by persons with other agendas if teacherand community leaders did not join forces toshare information and bring about constructivechange.

Among the key roles that coalitions can play isin the dissemination of information to the com-munity and active grassroots programming involv-ing crisis prevention.91 Shire suggests that:

One of the most effective tools for broaden-ing understanding between the teacher andthe community remains the use of forums,conferences, position statements, panels,etc., in which the teacher organization canparticipate in the dissemination of informa-tion. This type of activity allows both ateacher position and perspective and a com-munity perspective to be aired and discussedby all. 92

There are many examples in which teachershave played a major role in bringing diverseelements of the community into cooperation whenthe school board and administration have failed to

31

take adequate action toward desegregation orequal educational opportunity. Likewise, the par-ticipation of teachers and their associations haspermitted coalitions and programs, organized byother groups, to become more effective throughthe inclusion of teachers' knowledge and their as-sociated prestige.

Coalition formulation involves a number offundamental principles:93

Prior to the first formal meeting, influentialleaders or spokespersons should be convenedin an informal setting to explore commonconcerns, develop initial agreement on pur-poses, and seek initial agreement on agendasin organizing the coalition.Ground rules should be clearly establishedand agreed on (as early as possible after theformation of the coalition) on such issues as:whether the coalition will be organized as acontinuing or permanent body, or as an adhoc activity to be dissolved after specific goalshave been achieved; the size of the coalitionand the procedures for admitting newmembers; whether positions will be adoptedthat will require or imply commitments by themember organizations; whether the coalitionwill speak for its member groups or as an in-dependent, informal body, and the degree ofauthdrity of individual organization represen-tatives in speaking for their constituencies;the need for financial contributions; pro-cedures for communication among membersand for releasing information to the public;meeting schedules and locations; andspokespersons and steering committees.

There must 1,,t consistency within theorganization in support of the overall pur-poses and courses of action agreed to wherethe organization's own behavior and state-ments of its spokespersons are concerned.The coalition must respond to clearly under-stood and accepted purposes, related to both,the interests and purposes of the participatinggroups.

Strategies and actions must have reasonablepotential for success.

32

Where participating groups within the coali-tion have differing purposes or difficulties inworking with each other on a cooperativebasis, agreements must be reached to resolvethe differences or set them aside for the sakeof progress toward a common goal.If groups or persons in the coalition have dif-ficulty in working with others who are neededfor achievement of purposes, these personsor groups should be prepared to defer theirleadership role to better enable the develop-ment of working relationships. Bringing inresource persons from outside the communityto moderate the first meeting or sessions onespecially controversial issues may assist inovercoming differences, where local personsin the same role would not be successful.

a In circumstances where groups with similarmotives and purposes compete for the samemembership base or sources of support, coali-tion organizers should be sensitive in creatingsettings and agendas in which neither thephysical location nor the roles of groups andindividuals are likely to detract significantlyfrom the development of cooperative rela-tionships.

In some circumstances, it may be desirable toarrange for rotating chairpersons and chang-ing meeting places to facilitate cooperation,to develop common ownership of the coali-tion, and to reduce frictions and jealousiesamong groups.

It is usually desirable to identify a relativelyspecific issue or concern, rather than attempt-ing to take on every issue.

Each of these steps does not necessarily need tobe handled, discussed, and negotiated formally;what is important is that coalition leaders takethose actions necessary to help the group repre-sentatives work smoothly together in support ofcommon goals. Sometimes a catalytic event willhelp in getting organizations to move, such as thefiling of Title VI enforcement actions by the De-partment of Education, pending court orders,potential loss of ESAA or Title I funds, or specificoccurrences (demonstrations, boycotts, or violent

0

incidents). Action agents need to be prepared tomove quickly when such events occur so that thecoalition can be organized while interest is high.

Successful desegregation coalitions have oper-ated in scores of cities and have made substantialcontributions to the achievement of peaceful andsuccessful desegregation. Among recent examplesof such successes are broad-based coalitions aswell as coalitions working on specific tasks orissues in such communities as Detroit; Memphis;Prince George's County, Maryland; Louisville-Jefferson County, Kentucky; Cleveland; Omaha;Dayton; Milwaukee; Dallas; Wilmington; KansasCity; and Los Angeles.94

Many coalitions have been organized by churchgroups, some by the business community, andothers by community organizations and teachera-sociations. At other times, coalitions have beenorganized by individuals whose primary concernshave been maintaining peaceful, safe school en-vironmehts or assisting their communities to com-ply with he law as quickly as possible and withminimum disruption. In most of these coalitions,teacher associations, and their representatives haveplayed active and productive roles.

An example of a coalition supporting cooper-ive program efforts of nonprofit organizations

both at the national and at local and regionallevels was the National Center for Quality In-tegrated Education (NCQIE).95 This coalition wasadministered under the organizational sponsor-ship of the National Conference of Christians andJews. On the 27-member national committee,religious, social, youth-serving, civil rights,teacher, and other educator associations joined toprovide an opportunity for member organizationsto develop cooperative programs and activities onissues of quality integrated education.

The NCQIE played a major role in facilitatingthe development and support of continued effortsof local coalitions. The NCQIE served as a linkbetween local and national counterparts of theparticipating organizations. Among the activitiessponsored by NCQIE were a series of regionalconsultations, during which more than a hundredcommunities shared desegregation experiences.National conferences of NCQIE were significantin affecting desegregation actions of the nationaladministration.

4133

EPILOGUE

Because public school segregation continues toincrease (despite the 1954 Supreme Court Browndecision and the decisions that followed)," schooldesegregation plans must be implemented that willmove public school diStricts closer to the achieve-ment of quality integrated education. Teachersand their associations can play a critical role indesigning those plans and in attaining their goals.

Teachers and their associations must not remaininactive in school desegregation processes. In-dividuals and associations can be involved con-structively at many levels in planning for and im-plementing desegregation: in classrooms, in localand national association activities, and in cooper-ative activities with other groups.

To become actively involved, teacher associa-tions need good advice. and assistance. Unfor-tunately, technical assistance from Federal agen-cies is difficult for local organizations to obtain.97Agency personnel, with few notable exceptions,are reluctant to work directly with teachers andtheir associations on school problems occasionedby school desegregationwithout prior supportor the approval of the chief administrator of thedistrict. Federal agencies may wish to avoidalienation of school superintendents, sponsoringuniversities, or state officials that might beengendered by working directly with local associa-tions to bring about change, even when thatchange is mandated as part of the program of theagency. In some instances, participation is pro-hibited by agency regulations.

It is precisely because local associations havesuch difficulty getting assistance from officialagencies that coalitions are so important todesegregation strategy. Local associations that arepart of national organizations can often exercisesignificant influence through national organiza-tion staff.

Local associations may increase the possibilityof obtaining funds, technical assistance, and legalservices for school desegregation purposes fromFederal agencies by working with their regional ornational associations.

There are signs that school desegregation effortsmay be proceeding constructively. Recent actionsof the courts in Columbus and Dayton, Ohio,98Austin and Dallas, Texas," and Los Angeles,California,m and pending Juitice Departmentlitigation in Houston, Teiias,un will help deter-mine whether remedies are available to counter in-creasing racial and national origin isolation in ourmajor metropolitan areas. Since teachers and theirassociations are on the front linesworking withstudents, their parents, administrators, commu-nity groups, and other teacherstheir active par-ticipation and support can make the difference inensuring that desegregation will achieve its pur-pose. Teacher associations are cognizant of theneed to treat all students and teachers fairly andequitably.

What is now needed-is a new national dialogueon the components of quality integrated educa-tion. Teachers and their associations can make im-portant contributions to this dialogue. It is sug-gested that teachers and their associations cancontribute to the need for quality integratededucation by becoming involved in the followingareas:

Improvement of desegregation policy for-mulation and implementation as it affects theteaching profession. Desegregation policy in-fluences teaching in many ways. For example,desegregatio policy can influence the generaland specific contexts of teaching, teachingroles and how these roles are interpreted andcarried out, and teacher assignments todesegregated schools. Teachers and their

35

associations can help to identify problems andsuggest solutions in planning for the effectiveimplementation of Federal and state desegre-gation mandates.

Improvement of practice. Teachers and theirassociations can be of particular help in im-proving the practice of their trade in deseg-regated schools by examining effective prac-ticAn a number of areas: instructional andmanagement practices; socialization prac-

36

tices; curriculum development; inserviceeducation and professional development;textbooks and learning materials; and testingand grouping practices.

Information and technical assistance.Teachers and their associations can examineways in which they can receive and impart ac-curate information and quality technicalassistance in desegregated settings.

1. Experiences in large numbers of public school districts have demonstrated this point, as have desegre-gation experts such as Meyer Weinberg, Thomas Pettigrew, Robert Crain, Gordon Foster, Gary Orfield,and others.

2. Areas in which this point has-been illustrated include Flint, Michigan; San Diego, California; Seattle,Washington; and Columbus, Ohio.

3. Based on the author's experience.

4. See, for example, Meyer Weinberg's 16-year collection of school desegregation research materials andreferences located at the University of Massachusetts.

5. Chesler, Mark, et al. Desegregation/Integration: Planning for School Change: A Training Programfor Intergroup Educators. Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, 1974.

6. Noar, Gertrude. The Teacher and Integration (revised edition). Washington, D.C.: National Educa-tion Association, 1974.

7. Levinsohn, Florence H., and Benjamin D. Wright (eds). School Desegregation: Shadow andSubstance. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1976; Bosma, Boyd, "Racial DiscriminationAgainst Teachers," Integrated Education, Jan.-Feb. 1972; Bosma, Boyd, "The Role of Teachers in SchoolDesegregation," Integrated Education, Nov.-Dec. 1977; Bosnia, Boyd, "The Role of Teachers inMetropolitan School Desegregation," School Desegregation in Metropolitan Areas: Choices and Pros-pects, Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Education, 1977.

8. Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, et al., 347 U.S. 493, 1954.

9. Perry, Thelma, D. History of the American Teachers Association. Washington, D.C.: NationalEducation Association, 1975.

10. Histories of each of the former predominantly black teachers associations have been or are currentlybeing prepared by the Nattcnal Education Association under the direction of Samuel Ethridge.

11. Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, et al., 347 U.S. 493, 1954.

12. Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, 16 S. Ct. 1138, 1896.

13. Brown v. Board of Education, 439 U.S. 294, 1955.

14. The final step in dismantling dual school systems did not occur until Alexander v. Holmes (396 U.S.19, 1969), which covered school districts in Mississippi and Louisiana, in October 1969.

37

44

15. Although"relatively little desegregation took place before 1965, desegregation took the form of closingsmall rural black schools in the Border States. Not until 1965 did it become possible to systematically docu-ment additional patterns of black educator displacements. See Task Force Survey of Teacher Displacementin Seventeen States, Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, 1965.

16. This pattern is described by Samuel B. Ethridge in "Brown v. Board of Education: Twenty YearsLater," Education for an Open Society, Washington, D.C.: Association for Supervisors and CurriculumDevelopers 1974 Yearbook, pp. 21-22.

17. Numerous court cases were filed in the South wherein school administrators argued this point. Thefirst significant victory on this issue was in Franklin v. County School Board of Giles County, Virginia,360 F. 2d 325, 1966.

18. Throughout the entire period of displacement, a very low proportion of teachers actually filed com-plaints. This fact has been attributed to numerous causes, but it has been my experience that fear ofreprisal was the most prominent. Since school districts did not keep employment records on the basis ofrace until after 1964 (nor were they required to do so), no accurate data are available.

19. The gross human impact on black teachers was brought forcefully home to me through the manydiscussions and interviews with teachers association members in the South during this time. A commonpractice with married teachers was to hold positions in separate districts in the event that one or the otherbecame the object of racial discrimination or retribution. I know of several couples who would travel be-tween 65 and 90 miles one way in order to maintain their jobs, and, in some cases, they would be togetheronly on weekends.

20. James, J.C., "The Black Principal: Another Vanishing American," The New Republic, September 26,1970, p. 18.

21. These are the principal reasons for not reporting racially discriminatory dismissals cited to me duringinvestigations of dismissal cases.

22. Task Force Survey of Teacher Displacement in Seventeen States. Washington, D.C.: National Educa-tion Association, 1965, p. 41.

23. Ibid., p. 27.

24. The establishment in 1965 of the Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Human Rights in Education,under the direction of Samuel B. Ethridge and within the NEA Commission on Professional Rights andResponsibilities, heralded the beginning of organized efforts to battle discrimination on the basis of race.Among the various organizational approaches taken by the NEA to change the course of events were:liaison and intervention with Federal agency officials, most notably those in HEW/OCR and the JusticeDepartment, to obtain enforcement of the Civil Rights Act or seek modification and reform ' enforce-ment standards and guidelines; support of efforts to merge formerly separate local and state teacher asso-ciations; development of support mechanisms within local and state teacher associations (e.g., training inhuman relations, provision of technical assistance, program development, and cooperative forums); in-vestigations and publicizing of data and information on the nature and

and

of problems through theNEA Commission on Professional Rights and Responsibilities; liaison and cooperation with other local,state, and national organizations in providing assistance in such areas as academic freedom, privacy rights,students, and othei'are-a-s-to supplement regular association programs; and efforts to provide direct legalassistance to besieged black educators.

38

45

25. Franklin v. County School Board of Giles County, Virginia, 360 F. 2d 325, 1966.

26. Johnson v. Branch, 354 F. 2d 177,. 1966.

27. United States v. Jefferson County Board of Education, 372 F. 2d 836 (5th Cir., 1966), affirmed enbanc 380 F. 2d 385, 1967.

28. Monroe v. Board of School Commissioners of the City of Jackson, Tennessee, 38 S. Ct. 1700, 1968.

29. Lee v. Macon County Board of Education, 292 F. Supp. 363 (N.D. Ala., 1968).

30. These letters and others are part of my confidential personal files.

31. Singleton v. Jackson Municipal Separate School District, 419 F. 2d 1218, 1969, en banc.

32. Ibid., 1969.

1969.

34. These cases are a part of my experiences, and information on them is in my personal files.

35. Pottinger, J. Stanley. Nondiscrimination in Elementary and Secondary School Staffing Practices.Washington, D.C.: HEW Office for Civil Rights, January 14, 1971.

36. A working relationship was established by the NEA with the HEW/OCR that led-to the first guidelineenforcement in support of the rights of displaced teachers and principals and to expansion of data collec-tion efforts regarding racial and ethnic information relating to teacher and principal assignments. In spiteof the Nixon Administration's resistance to busing and a general slowdown in desegregation enforcementefforts, particularly by the Justice Department, many were surprised at the emergence of positive leader-ship under two successive directors of HEW/OCR (Panetta and Pottinger), especially in the midst of in-creasingly regressive policy stances by Administration leaders. Panetta was dismissed after slightly morethan a year in office, shortly after he approved the initiation of action against Wichita. Pottinger was tomove cautiously but effectively in the position, later earning the respect of civil rights supporters for hiscourage as Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division after1973.

37. Emergency School Aid Act, 1972, P.L. 92-318, 20 USC 1600 et seq.

38. Task Force Survey of Teacher Displacement in Seventeen States. Washington, D.C.: National Educa-tion Association, 1965.

39. The NEA closely monitored this association action against the NTE. At the 1966 NEA convention inMiami Beach, Florida, I assisted Don Pierce, then with the Dade County Classroom Teachers Association,in preparing NEA's first resolution statement against the NTE. The resolution was adopted. See Resolu-tion 66-11 (Evaluation and Subjective Ratings), NEA Proceedings, 1966, p. 471.

40. Carter v. School Board of West Feliciana Parish, 432 F. 2d 875, 1970.

41. United States v. North Carolina, CA no. 4476 (EDNC, August 27, 1975).

39

46

42. National Education Association v. South Carolina, USDC FEP cases, 1976.

43. Ibid., 1976.

44. It is important to note that the displacement of black educators as a result of school desegregation hasnot yet ended. Although dismissals and demotions were sharply reduced from 1973, even more severereductions in the minority work force have occurred as a result of attrition, disproportional hiring and pro-motion of minority educators, and state and local policies and practices (such as the NTE requirementsleading to disproportional certification).

45. Keyes v. School District No. I, Denver, 93 S. Ct. 268, 1973.

46. Adams v. Richardson, 351 F. Supp. 636 (DC, 1972).

47. California enacted compulsory negotiations legislation in 1976.

48. There are now state public employee bargaining laws affecting public school teachers in 31 states. (See"State Public Employee Collective Bargaining Laws Affecting Education," NEA Affiliate Services, 1980.)

49. As a general rule, any union may be named as a co-defendant in cases in which contract provisions arediscriminatory. Constitutional law and court orders supersede negotiated contract terms.

50. Based on interviews with teacher leaders in the Los Angeles Unified School District at the time whenthe teacher transfer plan was being negotiated, and on analysis of the effects of the transfer plan when in-stituted.

51. This resolution was negotiated during the spring of 1976. It included four sections: a cover letter ofboard policy and intent, signed by the superintendent and board president; a voluntary teacher assignmentsurvey of all district teachers; a memorandum of understanding, with rules for voluntary and involuntaryassignment of staff; and an agreement with respect to maintenance of standards in assignments andrecruitments. Copies of the Davenport plan are available through the Davenport Education Association.

52. Interviews and discussions with that local teacher association's members, January through June 1977.

53. Interviews and discussions with teacher association members in Fort Wayne, Indiana, Januarythrough April 1978.

54. School board action in the spring of 1978. See Board minutes, Youngstown School Board, Spring1978.

55. Desegregation Guidelines for Local and State Education Associations. Washington, D.C.: NationalEducation Association, 1974, p. 7 (revised, May 1980, pp. 13-14).

56. American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO. The AFT Resolution on Faculty Integration adopted inAugust 1976 states, in part: "Transfer policies must consider seniority in creaing options for staff to movefrom one school to another, and no teacher should be transferred by means of a lottery."

57. Desegregation Guidelines for Local and State Education Associations. Washington, D.C.: NationalEducation Association, 1974, pp. 13-14 (revised, May 1980).

404"/

58. This position was articulated by me and other NEA staff at the various negotiation meetings held withPanetta and Pottinger.

59. Repeated experiences in districts in every segment of the country have demonstrated these advantagesof objective seniority standards over alternative methods for determining faculty assignments.

60. A major problem for teachers assigned to federally funded programs is that they often are regarded byschool administrators as "removed" from regular teacher ranks. There may be a resultant loss of jobrights, including seniority status. NEA has established in courts that certified teachers in federally fundedprograms do have the same rights as any other certified faculty.

61. Selections for reassignment or retention based on favoritism or control are particularly damaging tostaff morale and work against the education needs of children. The roles of both teachers and administra-tors are easier if objective standards are used to determine faculty reassignments or retentions.

62. Suppose, for example, that a school has a 90 percent minority student body and 60 percent minorityteachers. The district proportions, however, are 30 percent minority student body and 15 percent minorityteachers. Under the Singleton rule, the school may no longer have more than 20 percent minority faculty.This necessitates the immediate transfer of two-thirds of all the minority teachers in the building (whocomprise 40 percent of the teaching staff). Some of these teachers will have had substantial teaching ex-perience, but unless the court order or the HEW agreement stipulates otherwise, the district may be free toreplace them with new or first-year nonminority teachers.

63. Mandatory Staff Integration Proposal. Los Angeles: United Teachers of Los Angeles, May 23, 1977.

64. In a number of large cities, including New York, Minneapolis, and Seattle, teachers have been suffer-ing the effects of RIFs: Although declining in total enrollments, these cities have had increasing minoritystudent bodies. The period of expansion for minority faculty was in the late 1960's and early 1970's. In theabsence of some form of special treatment, they have nct built up sufficient seniority to withstand the ef-fects of the current RIF movement.

65. I am aware of only these two practical solutions. The most common practice is to have sepatateseniority lists.

66. Oliver v. Kalamazoo Board of Education, 346 F. Supp. 766, 1972.

67. School districts are required to provide student and teacher data on race and national origincharacteristics to Federal agencies. If a district has schools in which proportions of minority students andteachers are each more than double the district average, reassignment of staff under the Singleton standardis likely to be required.

68. Adams v. Richardson, 351 F. Supp. 636 (DC, 1972); Brown v. Weinberger, 417 F. 2d 1215 (DDC,1976).

69. Federal policy has generally been to defer action on student desegregation where there might be stateenforcement practice or pending court orders. As a result, teacher desegregation has usually been treatedas a separate phenomenon. This has occurred in a large number of desegregating school districts, par-ticularly since 1975.

41

48

70. Congress has repeatedly attempted to pass antibusing measures. Antibusing measures have curtailedOCR enforcement of student desegregation while faculty have continued to be transferred. Comprehensivedesegregation planning has not been encouraged. I am not aware of any court order where student desegre-gation has been required directly as a result of discriminatory faculty assignment practices.

71. These principles have been developed over the years as a result of my involvement in teacher transferpractices occasioned by school desegregation.

72. Singleton v. Jackson Municipal Separate School District, 419 F. 2d 1218, 1969, en banc.

73. This is a standard usually applied under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. An alternative stan-dard, known as the "75-125% Ratio," is applied in districts receiving ESAA funds. In this case, the pro-portion of minority teachers in each building must fall within 75 percent to 125 percent of the proportionof minority teachers in the district as a whole. The application of these standards has an impact on facultyenly, and it has no relationship to the proportion of minority students in individual school buildings or inthe district as a whole. Either standard is known as the "Singleton Ratio."

74. Kelsey v. Weinberger, 498 F. 2d 701 (DC CCA, 1974).

75. Adams v. Richardson, 351 F. Supp. 636 (DC, 1972).

76. Brown v. Weinberger, 417 F. 2d 1215 (DDC, 1976).

77. This statement is based on my personal experiences. The alternative is a response based on apathy orhostility. In these cases, teachers have usually become victims of rather than participants in the change pro-cess.

78. I have experienced these results in the conduct of numerous desegregation workshops and observationsof many school district inservice training 'workshops.

79. Observations and discussions with Memphis teachers who were participants in the inservice trainingprogram.

80. I have observed the advantagebuY effects of teacher association sponsorship of inservice training pro-grams in desegregating settings.

81. See "Desegregation Inservice Training: A Resource Packet for Education Association Leaders," BoydBosma, National Education Association, 1976.

82. This statement is based on my personal experiences. The alternative is a response based on apathy orhostility. In these cases, teachers have usually become victims of rather than participants in the change pro-cess.

83. I have used these strategies in assisting teacher association members to become involved constructivelyin the desegregation process in their own school districts.

84. See Fort Wayne Education Association news release dated April 1, 1977. Great care must be taken toassure constructive approaches rather than destructive conflict.

42 49

85. See, for example: 1977 Student Desegregation Statement of the STA Executive Board. Seattle: SeattleTeachers Association, 1977; The United Teachers of Flint Policy Statement on School Desegregation.Flint, Michigan: United Teachers of Flint, November 10, 1975; Proposed Guidelines for UFTSupport inthe Flint Community School Desegregation Plan. Flint, Michigan: United Teachers of Flint, 1976; resolu-tion adopted by the Representative Council, NEA-Wichita, Wichita, Kansas, December 15, 1969;Philosophy of the North Side United Educators Task Force on Desegregation Legislation. Milwaukee:North Side Educators, adopted October 8, 1975; Mandatory and Desirable Criteria for DesegregationPlanning. Milwaukee: North Side Educators, adopted October 23, 1975; resolution adopted by OhioEducation Association Executive Committee, October 19-20, 1973, reported in "OEA Adopts Desegrega-tion Policy," Ohio Schools, November 9, 1973, pp. 8-9, 31-32; National Education Association resolutionadopted in Minneapolis, July 1977; and American Federation of Teachers resolution adopted in August1976.

86. School Desegregation Guidelines for Local and State Education Associations. Washington, D.C.: Na-tional Education Association, May 1980, pp. 19-21.

87. Because local teachers and administrators are often unaware of Federal and state policies, resources,and desegregation procedures, teacher associations involved in desegregation should immediately contactstate or national association staff for consultation or alternative approaches to school desegregation issues.

88. A consistent problem for many local teacher associations is identifying the kinds, of information theyshould be looking for as they begin to analyze desegregation situations and make effective decisions. Useof such information can give substance to the implementation of association goals and objectives in achiev-ing effective teacher and student integration. Teacher associations may want to tailor their informationgathering to their local situational needs.

89. The Elementary and Secondary Civil Rights Survey: "Bureaucratic Balderdash" or the Cornerstone ofCivil Rights Compliance in the Public Schools? Washington, D.C.: Children's Defense Fund of theWashington Research Project, September 1977, p. 4.

90. See NEA files on Austin Independent School District, 1976.

91. See, for example, Shire, Donald R., "An Overview of the Teacher Organization's Participation withOther Nonprofit Organizations Toward the Achievement of Equality of Educational Opportunity in theSchool Desegregation Process," Desegregation: Conflict Prevention, the Role of the Teacher. LosAngeles: Institute for Teacher Leadership, 1977, p. 76. See also, Shire, Donald R., and Christine Kirk, ASchool Community Desegregation Project: A Model to Be Implemented by Teacher Unions and Associa-tions for Teacher In-Service Programming and Community Outreach. Washington, D.C.: National Centerfor Quality Integrated Education, 1976, p. 2.

92. See Desegregation Without Turmoil: The Role of the Multi-Racial Community Coalition in Preparingfor Smooth Transition. Cosponsored by the Community Relations Service, U.S. Department of Justice,and the National Center for Quality Integrated Education. New York: National Conference of Christiansand Jews, May 19, 1976.

93. I have tested these principles throughout numerous years of working with teacher and communityorganiAtions in building and continuing ad hoc coalitions.

o 43

94. See Desegregation Without Turmoil: The Role of the Multi-Racial Community Coalition in Preparingfor Smooth Transition. Cosponsored by the Community Relations Service, U.S. Department of Justice,and the National Center for Quality Integrated Education. New York: National Conference of Christiansand Jews, May 19, 1976.

95. Ibid.

96. See, for example, Trends in Black Segregation, 1970-1974, Vol. 1 and Trends in Hispanic Segregation,1970-1974, Vol. II. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Education, 1977.

97. Technical assistance from Federal agencies charged with providing assistance is often, by regulation,limited to providing technical assistance only through the request of public school officials.

98. Columbus Board of Education v. Penick, 99 S. Ct. 2941, 1979, and Dayton Board of Education v.Brinkman, 99 S. Ct. 2971, 1979.

99. Consent decree plan adopted for the Austin Independent School District, January 3, 1980. SupremeCourt dismissed Dallas Independent School District appeal on January 21, 1980, allowing the 5th CircuitCourt decision (that Dallas must justify one-race schools) stand (522 F. 2d 1010, 5th Cir., 1978).

100. Crawford v. Board of Education, intended order of Judge Paul Egly, case no. C 822 854, May 19,1980.

101. "Houston Wins a Round in School Bias Row," The Washington Post, June 11, 1980.

44

GLOSSARY

Affirmative Action: The initiation of efforts to provide equity or to compensate for past discrimination.

Bilingual Education: Language instruction and/or experiences involving utilization of two languages,usually English and another spoken at home by a proportion of students, with the development of fluencyin each.

Bicultural Education: The combined teaching of two cultures in the same setting, usually in combinationwith bilingual education (viz., bilingual/bicultural education).

Busing: The transportation of students from one school or neighborhood to another 'n order to achieve de-segregation or to bring about improved racial/ethnic balance.

Clustering: A method of combining three or more schools to facilitate desegregation and/or improveracial/ethnic balance.

Coalition: A joining together of representatives from a group of private organizations and/or public agen-cies for common purposes.

Compensatory Education: The provision of efforts to upgrade education and learning opportunities overand above regular school programs to compensate for past inequities or to improve learning abilities orskills of specific groups.

Consolidation: The merger of two or more school districts into a single school district, especially to provideopportunity for improved racial/ethnic balance.

Cross-district Transfers: The assignment of students and/or teachers, usually voluntary, from schools inone district to schools in another to improve racial/ethnic balance.

De Facto Segregation: Separation of students and/or faculty on the basis of race or ethnic group throughpractices (housing segregation, for example) that have not arisen from past official actions or policies.

De Jure Segregation: Separation of students and/or faculty arising from official actions or policies ofgovernmental bodies or education officials.

Desegregation: The elimination of the vestiges of segregation, usually involving the reassignment of stu-dents and/or faculty to remove the prior racial/ethnic identification of schools or to compensate for pastdiscriminatory assignment practices.

Discipline: Control of student behavior through enforcement of prescribed standards.

45

52

Discrimination: The differential treatment of individuals or groups on the basis of arbitrarily establishedclassifications, such as racial/ethnic identification, sex, physical condition, age, or other condition.

Displacement (faculty): The elimination of minority teachers, principals, coaches, band and music direc-tors, counselors, and other school personnel following desegregation, either through dismissals, demo-tions, and/or reassignments or through failure to hire equitable numbers of minority personnel to replacethose leaving because of displacement, voluntary resignation or transfer, or retirement.

Freedom of Choice: The concept utilized in early desegregation plans which allowed students to attend theschool of their choice, rarely resulting in effective desegregation and eventually discredited as a device toeliminate the dual system.

In-school Segregation: Segregation by racial/ethnic group within schools, most often on the basis of abilitygrouping and tracking programs.

Inservice Education: The provision of special learning experiences or training for teachers or other schoolpersonnel currently employed within the system, usually through required attendance at school-sponsoredprograms, but also including voluntary participation in college courses and in association-sponsoredworkshops, conferences, and seminars.

Integration: A process going beyond, but including, physical desegregation of students of different groupsto ensure the maintenance of positive intergroup relationships within the school, the provision of programsto meet students' individual educational needs, and the bringing together of groups within the schools inways which lead to improved cooperation and understanding of racial, ethnic, and cultural differences; the"making whole" of diverse groups within an institution.

Involuntary Transfer: The required reassignment of students or teachers to different schools for purposesof desegregation.

Magnet Schools: Schools, and sometimes programs within schools, designed to attract students fromdiverse areas and groups through the provision of special or innovative programs or areas of emphasis.

Majority-to-Minority Transfers: The process by which students enrolled in schools in which their racial orethnic group is in the majority may choose to transfer to another school in which their group is in theminority. Such policies sometimes permit transfer in any case where the racial/ethnic balance of the af-fected schools will be improved.

Metropolitan Desegregation: The involvement of multiple districts in desegregation plans, usually involv-ing central cities and suburbs in urban areas and consolidation of formerly separate school districts.

Multicultural Education: Education providing for instruction and experiences in diverse cultures, usuallydesigned to prepare students to understand, appreciate, and participate in varying cultural settings.

National Origin Minority: A person or group whose minority status derives from national heritage, ethnicgroup memberships, or other group identification other than race; the term usually refers to nonblackminority groups, including persons of Hispanic and other national derivation who may be the victims ofdiscrimination.

Open Enrollment: A school district policy permitting students to attend schools of their choice; in theabsence of "majority-to-minority" provisions, usually increasing segregation within school districts.

46

53

Pushouts: As differentiated from dropouts, students who leave school or are excluded prior to graduationas a result of overt or covert actions or practices of school authorities, especially as a result of suspensions,expulsions, and other school disciplinary measures with differential effects against racial/ethnic minoritygroup students, or as a result of the failure of the educational institution to meet students' personal oreducational needs.

Quality Integrated Education: The provision of maximally effective education within desegregated and in-tegrated schools and classrooms. Schools providing quality integrated education are usually characterizedby their special efforts to achieve and/or provide: (I) bilingual/bicultural education; (2) multiculturaleducation; (3) desegregation; (4) integration; (5) excellence in educational offerings; and (6) optimalhuman relations climates.

Quotas: The es-lishment of specific numbers or ratios of minority faculty. Used as a device to limit op-portunities for some groups in the past, fixed quotas have been a major source of discrimination and aregenerally illegal. They are, however, often confused with affirmative action efforts, other racial preferenceprograms in employment, and minimum minority guarantees and goals to improve opportunities.

Racial/Ethnic Balance: A condition of relative equalization of minority and nonminority attendance bystudents or assignment of faculty among the schools of a district.

Racial/Ethnic Minority: A group identified on the basis of racial or ethnic heritage other than the domi-nant racial/ethnic group in the community or the nation. Federal policy presently provides for the iden-tification of the following racial/ethnic minorities: (I) American Indian/Alaskan Native; (2) AsianAmerican or Pacific Islander; (3) Black/Negro; and (4) Hispanic.

Racism: The practice of assigning merit (or denying opportunity) on the basis of racial or ethnic identity.

Reassignment: The changing of a teacher's assignment within a school, usually from one subject or gradelevel to another.

Resegregation: The reestablishment of segregated learning conditions or educational opportunities withinpreviously desegregated schools or districts, often as a result of changing housing patterns, white flight, orretrenchment by school officials, but also as a result of policies, practices, or procedures applied withoutovertly discriminatory intent but with discriminatory effects.

Second-generation Desegregation Problems: Problems relating to discrimination and resegregation whicharise following the desegregation of a school or district, usually manifested by such phenomena as differ-ential suspension rates and intergroup tensions and disruptions.

Segregation: The separation of students and/or faculty on the basis of racial or ethnic identification as aresult of school policies, practices, or procedures.

Testing: The use of standardized tests, especially achievement tests, for the purpose of making decisionsabout students, usually with discriminatory effects against minority and low-income students and forstudents with language differences.

Tracking: A process of assigning students to sequential course offerings or of determining access tospecific curriculums on the basis of tests or other criteria; similar to ability grouping.

47

54

Transfer: The assignment of a teacher or teachers from one school to another for the purpose of desegrega-tion or improvement of faculty racial/ethnic balance in the affected schools.

Voluntary Transfer: The transfer of a teacher from one school to another on the basis of voluntary choice.

White Flight: The outmigration of whites from central cities to suburbs; or the loss of white studentsand/or faculty following desegregation through movement to other areas or through transfer to private orparochial schools.

5548

7".:7;71.11)

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1980 -0 -722L415/413

document resume ed 19b 237 · document resume. ed 19b 237. ud 021 240. author bosnia, boyd. title...

Documents